Better protection: T-72B3 Obr. 2022

[_ggffggbh 50]

There are some photos of new T-72B3. The improvement of T-72B3 includes: 

ERA block on the mudguard.

More ERA blocks on the side of hull, cover the engine bay.

More ERA blocks on the top of turret.

More ERA blocks on the side and rear of turret. 

Change the shape of ERA blocks at the front of turret, new ERA blocks are installed more tightly than before.

Add some chains on turret. (Like T-90M)

[Raldi92 2,817]

Modification also includes coverage of the LFP with 4S24 tiles ( in Kontact-1 package like in the turret roof ) and  hard package 4S24 containers ( instead of the previous soft bag containers ) on top of the side skirt  https://iz.ru/1461593/video/korrespondent-izvestii-pokazal-novyi-tank-t-72b3m :

 

 

 

 

[SrNowel59917 646]

31 minutes ago, Raldi92 said:

Modification also includes coverage of the LFP with 4S24 tiles ( in Kontact-1 package like in the turret roof ) and  hard package 4S24 containers ( instead of the previous soft bag containers ) on top of the side skirt  https://iz.ru/1461593/video/korrespondent-izvestii-pokazal-novyi-tank-t-72b3m :

 

 

 

 

i dont think that this is t72b3 rather a cheaper versionn without the sosna-u sight, i belive that the sight is the one that the modernized t62m got

Edited February 5 by SrNowel59917

[Raldi92 2,817]

18 minutes ago, SrNowel59917 said:

i dont think that this is t72b3 rather a cheaper versionn without the sosna-u sight, i belive that the sight is the one that the modernized t62m got

 

It is the B3M but let's rather call it a SVO variant .  In order to accelerate production for the front both T-72B3M and T-80BVM  are receiving the 1ПН96МТ-02 sight , Sosna-U is reserved to T-90M which they are also pumping out in high numbers currently .

 

Edited February 5 by Raldi92

[Raldi92 2,817]

Some further photos :   https://dnr-news.ru/society/2023/01/26/220892.html

 

 

[CTCrusader 199]

1 hour ago, Raldi92 said:

 

It is the B3M but let's rather call it a SVO variant .  In order to accelerate production for the front both T-72B3M and T-80BVM  are receiving the 1ПН96МТ-02 sight , Sosna-U is reserved to T-90M which they are also pumping out in high numbers currently .

 

The pics that OP posted those tanks have the meteorological sensor mast. The cheap 02 sight doesn't have automatic lead which would mean the meteorological sensor is useless (and in your pictures they don't have the meteorological mast). Plus I believe the the pics that op posted are older and than the ones that you posted are newer, meaning the pics op posted are probably a different model of T-72B3M with sonsa-u than the pics you posted. 

TLDR: OP's picture is of a T-72B3M before they switched to the 02 sight. 

Edited February 6 by CTCrusader

[Ludio0 84]

9 hours ago, Raldi92 said:

It is the B3M

It's not B3M, it's T-72B(1989/2023)

[SrNowel59917 646]

10 hours ago, Raldi92 said:

 

It is the B3M 

 

I don't think that's the b3m either, it doesn't even have the characteristic citv from the B3M

[MonkeyBussiness 1,190]

it would just be worse to fight in a stock NATO tank

[MiG_23M 1,433]

There is so much detailed analysis into an "upgrade" that fixes nothing at all. The primary issue (ammo under turret syndrome) is the primary cause of death for these tanks. Modern munitions already overcome these defensive systems on these tanks and as such these upgrades are pointless. They had a very advanced pace of engineering and development from the 50s and 60s and then it stopped. Since, little has changed. They need to go back to the drawing board.

 

 

17 hours ago, Raldi92 said:

 

It is the B3M but let's rather call it a SVO variant .  In order to accelerate production for the front both T-72B3M and T-80BVM  are receiving the 1ПН96МТ-02 sight , Sosna-U is reserved to T-90M which they are also pumping out in high numbers currently .

 

*unfortunately, not "currently".

[MonkeyBussiness 1,190]

54 minutes ago, MiG_23M said:

The primary issue (ammo under turret syndrome) is the primary cause of death for these tanks

that's false

[TheNexonRegime 391]

15 minutes ago, MonkeyBussiness said:

that's false

 

Yeah, they did a study and found that misc. ammo (Ammo NOT in the carousel) was the main reason IIRC, I forget where I saw it but it was enough for them to move the misc. ammo outside the turret proper into the bustle that the T-90M has.

[Raldi92 2,817]

13 hours ago, Ludio0 said:

It's not B3M, it's T-72B(1989/2023)

 

That is the naming reported by Izvestia among other outlets , unofficial designation is T-72B3M1 . As i stated before it's not exactly the B3M we have come to know , it's a SVO derivate with better ERA coverage but inferior gunner optic ( which is easier to produce ) .  Besides calling it a T-72B( 1989/2023 ) is mute point , ''standard'' B3M ( read with Sosna ) are also based on T-72B obr.89 as far as main armor goes .

 

12 hours ago, SrNowel59917 said:

I don't think that's the b3m either, it doesn't even have the characteristic citv from the B3M

 

T-72B3M never had a CITV , what you are reffering to is the biathlon modification but that is not an official designation . Russian MOD calls officially T-72B3M the variant without CITV and  Sosna-U gunner sight aka the variant we have ingame , by  the way the name in the game is wrong :

 

 

 

5 hours ago, MiG_23M said:

*unfortunately, not "currently".

 

Over 200 T-90A modernized to T-90M standard have been sent to SVO theater and UVZ is still accelerating production . Not sure what do you mean by  ''not currently'' .

 

[MiG_23M 1,433]

3 hours ago, Raldi92 said:

Over 200 T-90A modernized to T-90M standard have been sent to SVO theater and UVZ is still accelerating production . Not sure what do you mean by  ''not currently'' .

I don't think you understand the joke that unfortunately they're still producing tanks that only send men to their deaths for no purpose or gain. The design is majorly flawed.

 

Ammo under the carousel was not the primary cause of the turret coming off? lol, .22 rifle would go through the aluminum "spall liner" seen on the "better protected" tanks. Moving spare rounds into a bustle does not solve the issue, especially considering the fact that the top down attack munitions completely bypass ERA and armor.. they effectively solve nothing per my original comment by adding additional ERA all over the side. 

[_Fantom2451_ 237]

On 06/02/2023 at 03:08, CTCrusader said:

which would mean the meteorological sensor is useless

This isn't true, tank needs meteorological sensor for better accuracy even without auto lead. T-72BA even without thermals were upgraded with DVE-BS sensor

Spoiler

On 06/02/2023 at 03:08, CTCrusader said:

before they switched to the 02 sight. 

T-72B3M with Sosna-U is still in production.

Spoiler

Edited February 7 by _Fantom2451_

[Raldi92 2,817]

1 hour ago, MiG_23M said:

I don't think you understand the joke that unfortunately they're still producing tanks that only send men to their deaths for no purpose or gain. The design is majorly flawed.

 

Tanks can be destroyed no matter how hard you try to make them survivable , do you want me to pop some Leopard 2 and Abrams pics to show you how they send men to death ? Yet im sure you won't call them ''flawed designs'' .  Like any design there are advantages and disadvantages , the subject is much more complex than you make it sound to be .

 

1 hour ago, MiG_23M said:

Ammo under the carousel was not the primary cause of the turret coming off? lol, .22 rifle would go through the aluminum "spall liner" seen on the "better protected" tanks. Moving spare rounds into a bustle does not solve the issue, especially considering the fact that the top down attack munitions completely bypass ERA and armor.. they effectively solve nothing per my original comment by adding additional ERA all over the side. 

 

Not sure where in my comment i talked about the carousel so i guess you are responding to yourself here ... 

 

But since you mention the topic, it has been demonstrated that it is  ammunition stored in the compartment ( instead of the carousel )  that is most of the time responsible for ammo cook off in T-72 family of tanks . You have to keep in mind that T-90M interior is fully covered by spall liner which will catch or slow down residual fragments incase of a penetration on top of the carousel being enclosed by extra armor . So you pretty much need a direct hit to the carousel . 

 

Furthermore  you are putting a little bit too much faith in top down ammunitions , (A) they can be countered even by passive means  such as LWR + spectral smoke screens , (B) they have shown very poor efficiency in the battlefield , (C) they are by far the least common threat on the battlefield . By far the most common threats are artillery , mines and classic heat grenade launchers . This is where the extra protection for the T-72 on the rear of the turret ( previously unprotected ) sides ( both turret and hull ) and top of the turret  comes to play .

 

Anyways i believe the purpose of this thread is to report the modifications/upgrades made to T-72B3M so i will leave it here  .

 

[MiG_23M 1,433]

8 minutes ago, Raldi92 said:

 

Tanks can be destroyed no matter how hard you try to make them survivable , do you want me to pop some Leopard 2 and Abrams pics to show you how they send men to death ? Yet im sure you won't call them ''flawed designs'' .  Like any design there are advantages and disadvantages , the subject is much more complex than you make it sound to be .

 

 

Not sure where in my comment i talked about the carousel so i guess you are responding to yourself here ... 

 

But since you mention the topic, it has been demonstrated that it is  ammunition stored in the compartment ( instead of the carousel )  that is most of the time responsible for ammo cook off in T-72 family of tanks . You have to keep in mind that T-90M interior is fully covered by spall liner which will catch or slow down residual fragments incase of a penetration on top of the carousel being enclosed by extra armor . So you pretty much need a direct hit to the carousel . 

 

Furthermore  you are putting a little bit too much faith in top down ammunitions , (A) they can be countered even by passive means  such as LWR + spectral smoke screens , (B) they have shown very poor efficiency in the battlefield , (C) they are by far the least common threat on the battlefield . By far the most common threats are artillery , mines and classic heat grenade launchers . This is where the extra protection for the T-72 on the rear of the turret ( previously unprotected ) sides ( both turret and hull ) and top of the turret  comes to play .

 

Anyways i believe the purpose of this thread is to report the modifications/upgrades made to T-72B3M so i will leave it here  .

 

You can discuss what destroyed the Abrams tanks if you like, the Leopard shares the flaw with hull ammo.

 

The fact of the matter is, it's a huge design error. The carousel fills the entire hull, is rather easily hit from any angle by aiming center mass. "Residual fragments" of any modern Sabot carry more than enough energy to cause cook off of the carousel even after penetrating the weak "spall liner" they have covered it with. It's a protective measure, yes.. is it fixing the actual issue? No. Even on the T-14 Armata the hull ammo is a huge design flaw. The crew may be safe, the tank is still a catastrophic kill from any hull penetration. The Abrams can continue to fight after penetration to the hull or ammo rack detonation. In fact, if it is just a cook off the Abrams can be repaired and made combat capable within a few hours by replacing the blowout panels and racks along with a few cables if need be (should they be burnt). The only concerns then may be the coolant lines for the gunners thermals (would need to run without the cooling provided by the VCSU in back left of turret bustle) and would be the same quality then as the CITV. The other cables are simple antennae cables.

 

And of course no tank is perfect, the Abrams for example is very poorly armored from the side and rear. Mobility kills would be extremely easy without proper support. That being said, it's far more combat proven then the T-72... and in fact... I think the T-72 is rather combat "disproven". It's never had good combat records, only ever proving useful against stuff built prior to 1980... and only if they were not equipped with modern upgrades from the late 60s and 70s.

 

My argument is about the "upgrades", my thoughts are that they really do not improve anything and add weight / complexity to what might as well be a barebones stripped down mass produced power in numbers sort of vehicle.

[tripod2008 473]

3 hours ago, MiG_23M said:

My argument is about the "upgrades", my thoughts are that they really do not improve anything and add weight / complexity to what might as well be a barebones stripped down mass produced power in numbers sort of vehicle.

I'm sure they do effect where exactly the penetration cut-off lies against CE based systems especially considering the sheer variety of systems they are likely to face if they do end up being deployed. Especially considering the difference in availability and maneuverability between something like the M72A8 LAW  vs the TOW-2B etc, which would improve their chances against existing threats, though as more advanced capabilities are employed that has a good chance of changing for the worse in the coming months.

 

Sure it likely wouldn't do much against KE threats that the armor can't already deal with, but it probably wasn't envisioned to do so and as such expecting a massive improvement in that respect is somewhat disingenuous to expect any different considering that this seems at least to me to be an attempt to stratify production to allow for more economical production while still providing sufficient capabilities where needed.

 

And of course in WT I don't really know if this would make much sense as many of the changes would be somewhat minor or otherwise not (yet) modeled, so exactly how it would slot into the existing Russian Tech tree I don't know, as there really isn't an open BR. or otherwise obvious hole it could fill and handing out yet more backups at higher tiers is an issue that they probably don't want to exacerbate, as 10.3 is a dead BR and it wouldn't have a lineup to fit into.

Edited February 7 by tripod2008

[Ludio0 84]

51 minutes ago, MiG_23M said:

You can discuss what destroyed the Abrams tanks if you like, the Leopard shares the flaw with hull ammo.

 

The fact of the matter is, it's a huge design error. The carousel fills the entire hull, is rather easily hit from any angle by aiming center mass. "Residual fragments" of any modern Sabot carry more than enough energy to cause cook off of the carousel even after penetrating the weak "spall liner" they have covered it with. It's a protective measure, yes.. is it fixing the actual issue? No. Even on the T-14 Armata the hull ammo is a huge design flaw. The crew may be safe, the tank is still a catastrophic kill from any hull penetration. The Abrams can continue to fight after penetration to the hull or ammo rack detonation. In fact, if it is just a cook off the Abrams can be repaired and made combat capable within a few hours by replacing the blowout panels and racks along with a few cables if need be (should they be burnt). The only concerns then may be the coolant lines for the gunners thermals (would need to run without the cooling provided by the VCSU in back left of turret bustle) and would be the same quality then as the CITV. The other cables are simple antennae cables.

 

And of course no tank is perfect, the Abrams for example is very poorly armored from the side and rear. Mobility kills would be extremely easy without proper support. That being said, it's far more combat proven then the T-72... and in fact... I think the T-72 is rather combat "disproven". It's never had good combat records, only ever proving useful against stuff built prior to 1980... and only if they were not equipped with modern upgrades from the late 60s and 70s.

 

My argument is about the "upgrades", my thoughts are that they really do not improve anything and add weight / complexity to what might as well be a barebones stripped down mass produced power in numbers sort of vehicle.

With HE shells in ammo any tank would be destroyed in case of ammo detonation

[MonkeyBussiness 1,190]

3 hours ago, Ludio0 said:

With HE shells in ammo any tank would be destroyed in case of ammo detonation

blowout pannel exist for a reason

[MonkeyBussiness 1,190]

6 hours ago, MiG_23M said:

Ammo under the carousel was not the primary cause of the turret coming off? lol

sending turret to the moon =/= primary cause of death .

Turret in  the sky is just the result of the rest of the ammo cooking of , not the primary cause of death .

The primary cause of death is spare ammo in the tank (usually in the turret) cooking off wich then set the fire at the carrousel , tell me how many time the first shot is a direct hit to the carrousel ?

14 hours ago, MonkeyBussiness said:

The primary issue (ammo under turret syndrome) is the primary cause of death for these tanks

 

[MiG_23M 1,433]

1 minute ago, MonkeyBussiness said:

sending turret to the moon =/= primary cause of death .

Turret in  the sky is just the result of the rest of the ammo cooking of , not the primary cause of death .

The primary cause of death is spare ammo in the tank (usually in the turret) cooking off wich then set the fire at the carrousel , tell me how many time the first shot is a direct hit to the carrousel ?

Can you elaborate on how any ammo in the crew compartment (at all) is a good design? Show me where the flaw is if you don't mind.. what is wrong with this scenario? An ammo rack that is the width of the entire tank and a center mass shot has an extremely high chance of hitting from any angle... hmm

 

Anyhow, regardless if the surrounding spare ammo crammed into the tank is what caused the initial detonation or not, the ammo in the crew compartment is a huge design flaw either way. Moving parts of it into a carousel does not immediately solve the problem.. it is a stop-gap that makes it similar in vulnerability to a Leopard 2. This is not good. Hull ammo is a terrible idea, and it will never work.

 

Adding even more ERA which was shown to be insufficient in the first place in current events is not going to be worth it. Regardless of whatever politics surround the current events and issue... they needed to redesign from scratch a very very long time ago. Fully welded turret / hull should have been a thing for them in the 80s if they wanted to keep pace with NATO modularity and improvements. They could have developed powerpacks that can be easily pulled or removed for maintenance like most NATO vehicles in the late 70s. They could have improved the breech and chamber area of the guntube design a lot earlier so they can handle higher power charges, longer munitions. A bustle ammo rack or even bustle autoloader would have allowed for the use of much longer rod Sabot without drastic modifications to the autoloader and tank design. In fact, if they wanted to go the cheap route they could do what the AbramsX demonstrated... an old hull with a new turret design entirely that places an autoloader in a turret bustle. 

 

There are so many cheap fixes and they even proposed one - real or not - the Black Eagle. A T-80 style tank with turret bustle rack autoloader. I don't know the details on this tank but if that was the only ammo storage and the vehicle introduced other fixes regarding armor, layout, etc it could have been on par with modern MBT's.

[MonkeyBussiness 1,190]

2 minutes ago, MiG_23M said:

Can you elaborate on how any ammo in the crew compartment (at all) is a good design?

[MonkeyBussiness 1,190]

4 minutes ago, MiG_23M said:

Show me where the flaw is if you don't mind.. what is wrong with this scenario? An ammo rack that is the width of the entire tank and a center mass shot has an extremely high chance of hitting from any angle... hmm

you don't seem to understand the real problem , the carrousel on the T-72 (most numerous russian tanks on the battlefield) sit REALLY LOW and a direct hit is pretty rare , no matter how wide it is . the majority of the problem come from the ammo sitting in the turret , it's not my hypothese btw , it come from real experts and studies , so stop beeing so stubborn and go read some reports if you don't want to listen to me

[MonkeyBussiness 1,190]

17 minutes ago, MiG_23M said:

This is not good. Hull ammo is a terrible idea, and it will never work.

false , blowout pannel also exist for hull ammo and new ammo are design to not explode when hit directly

 

19 minutes ago, MiG_23M said:

Adding even more ERA which was shown to be insufficient in the first place in current events is not going to be worth it. Regardless of whatever politics surround the current events and issue... they needed to redesign from scratch a very very long time ago. Fully welded turret / hull should have been a thing for them in the 80s if they wanted to keep pace with NATO modularity and improvements. They could have developed powerpacks that can be easily pulled or removed for maintenance like most NATO vehicles in the late 70s. They could have improved the breech and chamber area of the guntube design a lot earlier so they can handle higher power charges, longer munitions. A bustle ammo rack or even bustle autoloader would have allowed for the use of much longer rod Sabot without drastic modifications to the autoloader and tank design. In fact, if they wanted to go the cheap route they could do what the AbramsX demonstrated... an old hull with a new turret design entirely that places an autoloader in a turret bustle. 

 

There are so many cheap fixes and they even proposed one - real or not - the Black Eagle. A T-80 style tank with turret bustle rack autoloader. I don't know the details on this tank but if that was the only ammo storage and the vehicle introduced other fixes regarding armor, layout, etc it could have been on par with modern MBT's.

adding more ERA is the short term solution for russia because : 1) it's available in number

2) it's cheaper than modifying an entire tank and/or adding an hardkill APS system

3) they lack money to produce new tanks