Jump to content
Furia

T-84 Modernized version

Recommended Posts

it's outrageous that high quality thermal imagers are a nice upgrade option for russian and soviet legacy vehicles instead of standard equipment on any mbt in active service. the russians, syrians and cis states are supposed to be cheap, but that's ridiculous. it's a cost that more than likely pays for itself in terms of lost equipment and battles, again and again, you see the results of battles where large numbers of t-72 tanks of all makes are lost in conflicts. it's obvious that something is lacking either in design or execution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Captain_Colossus said:

it's outrageous that high quality thermal imagers are a nice upgrade option for russian and soviet legacy vehicles instead of standard equipment on any mbt in active service. the russians, syrians and cis states are supposed to be cheap, but that's ridiculous. it's a cost that more than likely pays for itself in terms of lost equipment and battles, again and again, you see the results of battles where large numbers of t-72 tanks of all makes are lost in conflicts. it's obvious that something is lacking either in design or execution.

 

So have M1's been lost in numbers when crewed by Mid east armies ;)

 

 

T72's problem is lack of survivability. Any penetrating shot through the Lower to upper Chasis is Guaranteed to turn it into a flaming wreck and likely with a blow noff turrent. Its cramped in there. and the Crew are surrounded by a Carrusel for the auto loader. Any penetration ( lower to upper chasis) in particular is going to end in a firey demise.

 

Lithely any tank older tanks that have had ammunition directly In the Crew Compartment are always at high risk of Ammo cookoffs when perforated. Just look at the 1973 arab isreali war. Plenty of Burnt out  wrecks of Pattons and Centurions even on the victors side.

 

This all changed with Tanks like the M1 abrams and more recently the T14 armata storing ammunition in a separate compartment away from the crew.  and including blowout panels to direct energy upwards so a Pressure buildup doesnt occur thus prevent the tank from blowing apart.

 

Edited by Kev2go

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lack of TIS is part of its survivability problem, aggregated as a whole; this isn't to say that thermal imagers and better sensors will necessarily solve all problems, but i think on a cost effective calculation it would tend to pay for itself with less losses to crews and equipment and then extrapolate that to better battlefield results

 

i can even see this in simulation- take a vehicle such as a leopard 1 in steel beasts, roughly as survivable as a t-72, but the thermals will tend to give a higher chance of detection (especially for AI crews) for the leopard 1 to detect and shoot first (or retreat or whatever)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Captain_Colossus said:

lack of TIS is part of its survivability problem, aggregated as a whole; this isn't to say that thermal imagers and better sensors will necessarily solve all problems, but i think on a cost effective calculation it would tend to pay for itself with less losses to crews and equipment and then extrapolate that to better battlefield results

 

i can even see this in simulation- take a vehicle such as a leopard 1 in steel beasts, roughly as survivable as a t-72, but the thermals will tend to give a higher chance of detection (especially for AI crews) for the leopard 1 to detect and shoot first (or retreat or whatever)

 

 

NVM . I misunderstood your post. Must of been really tired or something. :P

 

i thought you were critiquing the T84 for  just because its based on the T tanks type Chassis.

 

Which i pointed has its limitations ( primarily lack of comfort and not very survivable when penetrated) , but with the Aforementioned FCS , Armor upgrades and inclusion of TIS, its pretty  much much up to spec to be a relevant MBT to keep in service.

 

Interesting read, and also would be nice if it were in SB ( One can dream xD)

 

While its good SB 4.0 expanded Russian lineup of playable Vehicles with the T72B1.  When Playing Russian based tanks  still wishing we had something with  at least Kontact 5 and an actual FCS, as on a 1 vs 1 Basis T72B1 still relies on tacks and Superior #'s to overwhelm M's. Those  Still cant stand up to the Basic M829.

 

If T80U or T90S are too uncommon via export users to for SB team to justify to create as crewable tanks, well then i dont know. Seems no higher tier tanks will not come anywhere inthe foreseeable future . But even T-80U and some T90S productions dont have TIS. 

Edited by Kev2go

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Captain_Colossus said:

it's outrageous that high quality thermal imagers are a nice upgrade option for russian and soviet legacy vehicles instead of standard equipment on any mbt in active service. the russians, syrians and cis states are supposed to be cheap, but that's ridiculous. it's a cost that more than likely pays for itself in terms of lost equipment and battles, again and again, you see the results of battles where large numbers of t-72 tanks of all makes are lost in conflicts. it's obvious that something is lacking either in design or execution.

 

Personally I'm quiet happy that the OPFOR I trained to face, and might well face again has a marked technological disadvantage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/14/2018 at 2:05 AM, Gibsonm said:

 

Personally I'm quiet happy that the OPFOR I trained to face, and might well face again has a marked technological disadvantage.

 

Opforce varies on politics. As it has  been  past history todays ally may become tomorrows enemy, vice versa. There is no  same fixed "bad guy " all the time. and ofcs there are more permanet and less reliable allies.

 

 Il leave it at that. as this isnt the topic of discussion and will result Much ink spilt. Take it as a generalization for the point at hand.

 

Many nations didnt really want to be "alied" to USSR, and many were basically just puppets  . iN post communist era many of these ex warpact nations have become Nato allies, and have gone away from the communist authoritarian systems imposed by the former USSR. Not everyone using T series tanks or modernized versions of them is going to be " opforce"

Edited by Kev2go

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The T-90MS - T-14 and even the latest version of the T-72 B3/4 are all thermal equipped.

I really would think it would be a waste of money to equip older versions of the T-72 such as the M/M1 there fire controls stabilization armour  etc.

Are all antiquated and would cost a lot to upgrade

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Marko said:

 

I really would think it would be a waste of money to equip older versions of the T-72 such as the M/M1 there fire controls stabilization armour  etc.

Are all antiquated and would cost a lot to upgrade

 

this is the point that was making- being 'cheap'. what i am saying that whatever the process is to continue to use any sort of tank in a modern conflict, to continue to behave as though it's too expensive is a calculation that i diverge from. if older tanks are going to be continued, if it came down to a choice between one or the other, i would sooner equip thermals on tanks than adding more armor protection. i think the former offers more advantage than the latter for say, an upgraded T-55/62/64/72. modern rpgs and atgms seem to be able to keep pace with the upgraded armor on these tanks, which seem to have reached about the point where the vehicles have reached the end of their life cycles and adding armor upgrades are offering diminishing returns in my view.

Edited by Captain_Colossus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Active Protection Systems could substantially increase their battlefield life expectancy. Provided that your lawyer brigade isn't concerned about the prospect of getting sued by anyone who may be around during an intercept.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

certainly. if you're going to go with a trophy/arena type system, i would think you may as well spend the cash and add sensors to round it out- i just don't understand the cost argument with these older vehicles, if they are getting trashed on battlefields, then spending the money would be worth it, supposing:

 

- the cost savings reducing replacements for losses

 

- not fielding new tanks (such as armata) or skipping a generation or more of development cycles and fielding a newer generation vehicles has already saved money

 

- better battlefield results, which can be difficult to put a price on

 

i understand stretching budgets and things like that, but i don't understand the lax attitude that some of these states have. at some point trying to do things on the cheap when the rest of the world is moving on seems like self sabotage to try to win on the cheap at great expense. very risky that is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even uncooled thermal cameras would be a substantial benefit. That being said, thermal cameras are actually one of my favourite examples where export control actually worked for decades. You fully comprehend their value only after you've actually seen it. For a long time the Soviets simply believed that it was just a "marginally better" version of the IR sights that they had and knew.

Also, there's a substantial cost difference between what's commercially available (like a 160x120 pixel resolution uncooled thermal camera that you can have for about two grand) and military grade cameras that offer 30 frames per second or better, and at least four times the resolution, which still are export restricted (therefore, availability may be a greater issue for users of Russian legacy tanks than the price itself). The question is how many other nations outside of NATO actually have the necessary manufacturing capacity. Russian tank models with thermals got them delivered from France (Thales), as far as I know. That indicates that there still is no indigeneous production line (and maybe won't be, as long as non-NATO countries respect patents that may protect the companies that developed those camera systems). Non-WTO states like North Korea may have no qualms about stealing the technology, but their priorities may lie elsewhere.

 

Just saying, there may be more to it than sheer stupidity. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Captain_Colossus said:

certainly. if you're going to go with a trophy/arena type system, i would think you may as well spend the cash and add sensors to round it out- i just don't understand the cost argument with these older vehicles, if they are getting trashed on battlefields, then spending the money would be worth it, supposing:

 

- the cost savings reducing replacements for losses

 

- not fielding new tanks (such as armata) or skipping a generation or more of development cycles and fielding a newer generation vehicles has already saved money

 

- better battlefield results, which can be difficult to put a price on

 

i understand stretching budgets and things like that, but i don't understand the lax attitude that some of these states have. at some point trying to do things on the cheap when the rest of the world is moving on seems like self sabotage to try to win on the cheap at great expense. very risky that is.

I agree with some of what your saying.

Fielding T-55/62 or cheaper chinese types of that generation would be suicide for the crews on a modern battlefield.

against a well equipped opponent, As  Iraqi tankers found out.

Some of the reports i read from Iraqi tank crews state they could not even see the tanks that engaged them.

Never mind respond. 

But in saying that i was amazed to see T-62 tanks still used by Russian forces in the brief conflict with Georgia.

Older tanks can still be effective in certain circumstances also they can be used as direct artillery.

If you have thousands of them in reserve, And millions of rounds stored and don't hold the lives of your troops as a priority 

It makes financial sense. the Russians are notoriously mean with there most sophisticated weapons in the chechen conflict they were issuing dumb bombs to there attack aircraft. Even though they had missiles that could have completed there mission with out endangering the air crews.

On the other hand you had the USAF sending B2 stealth bombers at the cost of millions per mission to bomb goat herders  if you can believe the media report at the time.

Edited by Marko

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Marko said:

I agree with some of what your saying.

Fielding T-55/62 or cheaper chinese types of that generation would be suicide for the crews on a modern battlefield.

against a well equipped opponent, As  Iraqi tankers found out.

Some of the reports i read from Iraqi tank crews state they could not even see the tanks that engaged them.

Never mind respond. 

But in saying that i was amazed to see T-62 tanks still used by Russian forces in the brief conflict with Georgia.

Older tanks can still be effective in certain circumstances also they can be used as direct artillery.

If you have thousands of them in reserve, And millions of rounds stored and don't hold the lives of your troops as a priority 

 

 

 

well if Companies  are justifying an investment /R&D  something this on a Obsolete tank for upgrades for foreign users of  such a platform

 

Than upgrading a T55 or T62 , and especially a T72, isn't so far fetched.

 

 

 


Those T62's that Russia had in the 80s to post  Cold war era  ( like the ones used in Afghanistan war) were by that point many were upgraded  to  "T62M " with  Volyna FCS, Laser rangefinders ,  and further reinforced Applique "Brow" armor  which included added protection for both the Turret and Frontal Plate . Some of the later 115mm APFDS were quite potent compared to the Initial 3bm4 ammunition.

 

Thier KE/CE protection was essentially boosted to that of a T64A ( more or less). Still largely Obsolete against Modern Mbt;s but still usefull in support role,  IFV's older tanks. Id still give an M60A3 getting the first shot off due to FCS, but without any armor upgrades the m60 series too are also pretty much Pieces of Cardboard. Even vulnerable against RPG's mosy basic  PG7 ammo because CE will eat through steel armor ( especially with just that thickness) with relative ease

 

 

 

 

Quote

It makes financial sense. the Russians are notoriously mean with there most sophisticated weapons in the chechen conflict they were issuing dumb bombs to there attack aircraft. Even though they had missiles that could have completed there mission with out endangering the air crews.

On the other hand you had the USAF sending B2 stealth bombers at the cost of millions per mission to bomb goat herders  if you can believe the media report at the time.

 

The Russians were also thrusting T80U series of tanks into combat, sending them into Towns without infantry support ( Lots of burnt out T80s Easy to Ambush a tank with AT) , and Tank crews leaving the engines all on night , only to be surprised they were stranded without fuel because Gas turbines are more thirsty than Diesel.......

 

More of a tactical and training incompetency than deliberate negligence on soldiers lives

 

 

 

Edited by Kev2go

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...