PDA

View Full Version : New Serbian tank - M2001



SerbPVO
07-03-2004, 05:25 PM
I guess we're already seeing the first results of that new Russian-Serbian military co-operation.
==============================================
Army to renew cooperation with Russia | 21:19 June 25 | B92

Moscow -- Friday – The Military Delegation of Serbia-Montenegro has agreed to military cooperation with Russia and the possibility of a joint venture on the third-world country arms market.

In a discussion wit Russian Director for Military-Technical Cooperation, Mihailo Dimitrijev, Serbia-Montenegro stress the need for logistics.

Maintenance duties and spare parts will most likely be given in order to pay back an outstanding debt Russia owes to Serbia-Montenegro.

According to Defense Minister Prvolav Davinic, this is very vital because the country has many older Russian weapons and transportation devices which there are no available spare parts for, because of the fact that cooperation with the Russian military has been minimal for some time now.

In the process of entering the third-world weapons trade, Davinic says that it mostly involves the people who used to buy Russian tanks that were made in Serbia, and are now interested in modernizing the vehicles and technology.
========================================


Yesterday, on the army's Nikinci weaponproving grounds, there was an international exibition of modern, domestic military weapons - and first premiere of the new Serbian tank, the M-2001, as it is being called for now.

Its a vast upgrade of our M-84 main battle tank, which first debuted in 1985.
New-generation reactive armour, firing control, cannon, on board digital imagery of the entire battlefield, state-of the art communications, computers, etc.

The new tank is said to be in the "rank" of US Abrams, Russian T-90C and French LeClerc.

Here's some totally new photos, of not so great quality.

http://img31.photobucket.com/albums/v94/CrazySerb/opis.jpg

http://img31.photobucket.com/albums/v94/CrazySerb/svetskinivo.jpg

http://img31.photobucket.com/albums/v94/CrazySerb/novitenk1.jpg
http://img31.photobucket.com/albums/v94/CrazySerb/novitenk2.jpg

mack pl
07-03-2004, 05:39 PM
The new tank is said to be in the "rank" of US Abrams, Russian T-90C and French LeClerc.

I doubt it. Its only upgradet T72(M84), nothing new. Its the same what polish PT91 Twardy(Hard). Its not revolutionary thing in "panzerwaffe" stuff ;)

anyway congrats mate, you have cool MBT

regards

tony6
07-03-2004, 06:11 PM
Just look at those two infrared reflectors on both side of the cannon.
Typical Russian stuff. Active night vision in the XXI century?
Give me a break...

RBull
07-03-2004, 06:33 PM
Just look at those two infrared reflectors on both side of the cannon.
Typical Russian stuff. Active night vision in the XXI century?
Give me a break...

Those are jammers (Shtora?)...

In fact it is the good old Yugo T-72 variant (M-84) upgraded to T-90 standard, although I am not sure if Russian T-90's have the T-80 style tracks like this one is sporting.
And, those pics are mirror reversed...

Russian Texan
07-03-2004, 09:53 PM
Just look at those two infrared reflectors on both side of the cannon.
Typical Russian stuff. Active night vision in the XXI century?
Give me a break...

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/t90/images/t90_4.jpg

The Shtora-1 EOCMDAS (electro-optical counter-measures defensive aids suite) is one of the several unique features of Russian MBTs that distinguish them from the rest of the world. It was developed by VNII Transmash in St.Petersburg in cooperation with Elers-Elektron in Moscow, and introduced somewhere around 1988. This system effectively protects an MBT against the two most common ATGW types: wire-guided SACLOS systems (e.g. TOW, HOT) and laser-guided ATGMs (e.g. Hellfire, Copperhead).

Shtora-1 consists of a specialized computer/control panel, two electro-optical interference emitters located on each side of the gun, four laser sensors located on top of the turret, and racks of dedicated anti-laser smoke grenades.

The Shtora has two combat roles. In the first role, it works against IR guided ATGMs, by aligning the turret front to the incoming ATGM and using IR emitters to send false signals which scramble the ATGM guidance system. The principle involved is the following.

Wire-guided missiles such as the American TOW are guided to the target by means of a wire and a flare on the back of the missile. The flare is used to keep a 'reference point' of the missile in relationship to the target lock held by the operator, and the guidance computer tries to put the flare on the reference point. Shtora emitters create a large hotspot, essentially tricking the missile guidance into following the Shtora hotspot instead of the flare hotspot, resulting in faulty course corrections by the ATGW computer. In fact, the computer shall usually believe that no horisontal course correction is necessary since the false flare comes from the same direction as the targeted tank, while vertical corrections shall cause ATGM to either dive into the ground or climb into the sky, depending on whether the operator holds the lock below or above the emitters.

The second part of the system defeats laser guided weapons. When a laser beam is detected the Shtora informs the crew with light and sound; it then launches laser defeating smoke grenades, which enshroud the tank and break or degrade the lock. The tank commander can also press a button that will turn the turret front to the laser to meet incoming ATGM with the best protected section and to engage the laser beam source with the maingun.

http://www.aviation.ru/www.rusarm.ru/video/T-90S_3.wmv

"Shtora" works the best when combined with "Arena"

http://armor.kiev.ua/fofanov/Tanks/EQP/arena.html
There are several videos of "Arena" in action at the bottom of the page.

USSR had never given/sold it's allies "russian spec" weapons, and tanks were no exception. For example, since 1983 old Russian T55 were equiped with "Drozd"
http://armor.kiev.ua/fofanov/Tanks/IMAGES/t-55ad002.jpg
DROZD (Thrush) Active Protection System
The 1030M Drozd APS uses small rockets placed in fixed silos to both sides of the turret to defeat incoming ATGMs. The millimeter radar on the rear of a turret tracks the missile and fires the rocket from a silo that points in that direction. The rocket detonates, producing the stream of fragments that destroys the incoming projectile.

The system was installed on marine units' T-55 tanks (designated T-55AD, D signifying Drozd) in 1983.

This system had substantially less capability than the Arena APS in range of protected angles, number of incoming projectiles, and reliability of interception.

The Drozd-2 system that is being marketed today as an upgrade option for T-80U MBT offers several significant improvements over the original version, the most important being the drastically increased range of protected angles, as well as decreased projectile size and increased number of projectiles. This new system may be not inferior to Arena APS.

The bottom line is that there are many countries equiped with older generations soviet design tanks who would like to update them so they still can fight on a 21st century battlefield.
You got the money - Russia got the goods to make your neighbors jealous...

http://www.aviation.ru/www.rusarm.ru/video/T-90S_1.wmv

tony6
07-03-2004, 10:29 PM
My mistake. Anyway comparing upgraded T-72/T-80 tank with western style MBT like Abrams/Lepoard2 is misunderstanding, dude.
Those two different concepts are incomparable no matter what You Russian/Serbs say.
That goes also with Polish tanks as well.
PT-91 is no way opponent to an Abrams/Lepoard2 (as for one against one). That goes with upgraded T-72,T-80,T-90 and all that stuff.
Build to be light, small (hard to hit, low figure) and to attack with a great number (cold war, east vs west, remeber?) is something different than those huge, heavy western-style beasts with very thick composite armour. The weakest point of Russian tanks was always their armour.
Just compare thae mass of Russian and western tanks. It's like 45 tons against 60-62. Totally different concept.
As for Your "bottom lines"-it's just Your Freud imagination my man :D

Russian Texan
07-04-2004, 02:00 AM
Anyway comparing upgraded T-72/T-80 tank with western style MBT like Abrams/Lepoard2 is misunderstanding, dude.
Those two different concepts are incomparable no matter what You Russian/Serbs say.
So what do you compare them to? From what I understand, they were meant to fight each other... You know, fighter jets fight fighter jets, ships fight ships and tanks fight tanks...

The weakest point of Russian tanks was always their armour.
And this statement is based on....? Sorry, but the guy who mistakes "Shtora" for an IR light doesn't come across as a credible sourse...

Just compare thae mass of Russian and western tanks. It's like 45 tons against 60-62.
So?
Russian military can afford to have the advantages of a lighter tank because of things mentioned in my previous post and the thing called
Kontakt-5.

The Kontakt-5 EDZ is the explosive reactive armour (ERA) currently installed on Russian MBTs. It is often referred to as 2nd generation, heavy-duty, or integral ERA.

Where the conventional ERAs are only capable of defeating shaped-charge jets, Kontakt-5 can also defeat APFSDS rounds. Because of Kontakt-5, long-rod penetrators can lose over 30% of their penetration potential and the protected vehicle becomes immune to them.

This type of ERA can be easily recognized as it gives the vehicle outfitted with it a distinct 'clam-shell' appearance.

It is believed that while protected by Kontakt-5 ERA, Russian MBTs cannot be penetrated across the frontal arc by the M256 guns firing M829A1 APFSDS ammo.

In addition, thanks to their heavier (15 mm hard steel) front plate, the Kontakt-5 elements are harder to trigger by the precursor charges of tandem warheads, forcing the producers of tandem ATGMs to allocate more mass to precursor charge and, making an MBT more resistant to tandem HEAT warheads, as well.

It is very important to note that while light ERA containers are completely destroyed in the process of detonation, Kontakt-5 sections are not, as their detonation is contained by the outside armor plates. Therefore even after detonation Kontakt-5 sections continue to provide some applique protection.


As for Your "bottom lines"-it's just Your Freud imagination my man :D
?????
You have very unique sense of humour, if that what it is... In fact, it is so unique - no one gets it...

2RHPZ
07-04-2004, 03:21 AM
The new tank is said to be in the "rank" of US Abrams, Russian T-90C and French LeClerc.

I doubt it. Its only upgradet T72(M84), nothing new. Its the same what polish PT91 Twardy(Hard). Its not revolutionary thing in "panzerwaffe" stuff ;)

anyway congrats mate, you have cool MBT

regards

I agree ...

I put some article on M84 here:
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=18534&start=48

tony6
07-04-2004, 04:28 AM
So what do you compare them to? From what I understand, they were meant to fight each other... You know, fighter jets fight fighter jets, ships fight ships and tanks fight tanks...
Yeah-but like I said it was 2 totally different concepcion. Fortunately we didn't have opportunity to check which was was better...
The only conflict where western-style tanks fought against Russian was first gulf war and, my dear friend, it was not a glory for Your equipment.


The weakest point of Russian tanks was always their armour.
And this statement is based on....? Sorry, but the guy who mistakes "Shtora" for an IR light doesn't come across as a credible sourse...
How can You compare (relatively thin like T-72/80) front hull steel armour plus some ERA armour with for example front combined steel-composite armour like Abrams (about 1 m thickness if I remeber correctly)?


Russian military can afford to have the advantages of a lighter tank because of things mentioned in my previous post and the thing called
Kontakt-5.
Another question of "believe"? :D
I agree that ERA armour gives You some advantage (we also develop this kind of armour in Poland-it's much cheaper than all that "chobchams") but it can dicrease the risk of perforation of cumulative shells (if I'm correct for Polish ERAWA is like 60-70%). As for APFSDS it's not so effective. And today APFSDS shells are basic ammunition in tank vs tanks battle.


It is believed that while protected by Kontakt-5 ERA, Russian MBTs cannot be penetrated across the frontal arc by the M256 guns firing M829A1 APFSDS ammo.
"It is believed" You say? It's not the question of "believing". Any sources?
And what do You mean by "cannot be penetrated"? From which distance?

SerPVO: Sorry man, I don't want to hijack Your post.
I don't feel like flame fighting here. Just some thoughts.
BTW-nice pictures :D

Russian Texan
07-04-2004, 12:06 PM
we also develop this kind of armour in Poland-it's much cheaper than all that "chobchams
Not exactly, Poland is working on is the first generation ERA, Kontakt 5, used by the Russians, is the 2nd generation.
1 st generation (Polish) is designed to deal with HEAT, while 2nd generation (Russian) is designed to deal with both types of ammunition.

Kontakt-5 Heavy ERA,Used by T-90S

The development of Kontakt EDZ logically led to the development of a later version, called Kontakt-5, which was optimized to be effective not only against HEAT jets, but also APFSDS long rods. It was first deployed around 1985 on the first T-80Us. It is claimed that Kontakt-5 provides about 300 mm RHA equivalent of additional protection against APFSDS rounds, which corresponds to an increase of about 160% over the base armour of the T-80U (~720 mm total).

We've done a lot of work to analyze how effective Kontakt-5 is and by what methods it defeats the incoming APFSDS rounds. The results of the analysis are quite impressive in their own rough and limited way. We assumed that the Kontakt-5 brick was 10.5 cm wide by 23.0 cm long by 7.0 cm thick, with a mass of 10.35 kg. We arrived at a total mass of 2.8 t for the array. We later found out from Steven Zagola's literature that the array is supposed to be around three tonnes, so we were pretty happy. Assuming the use of Semtex for the interlayer, I found that the configuration was most likely a 15 mm plate up front, backed by 35 mm of explosive, and then a 20 mm plate. This assymetrical configuration had improved effectiveness because the APFSDS rod could still 'catch' the retreating rear plate while the front plate would retain a charateristic high velocity. This is completely opposite to the model that the US Army used in the late 1980s to discribe 'heavy' ERA. In their model, the front plate was on the order of 60 mm thick and the rear a standard 5 mm plate. They thought that the thick plate simply moved up into the path of the incoming long rod and forced it to make a 'slot' (thickness x height) rather than a hole (thickness). This is bogus; the front plate would tamp the explosive and would be barely set in motion.

Anyway, back to the point. Without getting into the actual math, after a couple of analyses, we arrived at our conclusion as to what defeat mechanisms were being imployed. These conclusions have not yet been conclusively proved and we hope to do that soon. We assumed that the massive areal density of the long rod perforated the thin plates with relative ease. Actual ablatic penetrator mass loss was set at about 2%. What we found was that we had these two plates, each individually with about 60% the momentum of the long rod penetrator, were moving oppositely up/down to each other, and that the path of the penetrator was such that it was moving between them. The forces exerted on the penetrator are apparently very large, so large in fact that they were in the region of plastic failure for most (read: all) metals. Essentially, when the penetrator touches the rear plate, the front plate guillotines off the first 5 - 6 cm of the rod. For a round such as the 120 mm M829A1 this represents a loss of about 8% of the total mass. More importantly, the nose is blunted. You would not believe how important that sharp point on the penetrator is. The difference in penetration between an equivalent hyper-sonic spike tipped penetrator and a blunt nose one is at least 20% (to a maximum of around 30%). This is mainly because a blunt nose is very inefficient in the initial phase of penetration before the ablatic shear phase can begin. The penetrator has to actually sharpen itself to the optimum Von Karam plastic wave theory shape for penetration of the target material before it can begin radially displacing the target material. This resolves itself in the form of a lot of wasted work and thus penetrator mass. The blunted penetrator also suffers structural damage and more mass loss as a shock wave travels down its length and blows spall off the tail. The main secondary effect of Kontakt-5 EDZ against APFSDS rounds is yaw induced by the front plate before contact with the rear plate is established. The total is about two to three degrees of yaw, which suddenly becomes a lot more in a denser material such as steel. Reduction in penetration due to a 2 yaw is about 6% and it grows exponentially worse from there, and on the 67 slope of the front glacis of the T-64/72/80/90, this is increased to about 15%.

Total loss in penetration amounts to about 2% + 8% + 22% + 6% = 38%, or in other words the penetrator is now only capable of penetrating 62% its original potential. Conversely we could say that the base armour is increased by the factor of the reciprocal of 62%, which is - surprise! - 161%.

Jane's International Defence Review 7/1997, pg. 15:
"IMPENETRABLE RUSSIAN TANK ARMOUR STANDS UP TO EXAMINATION
"Claims that the armour of Russian tanks is effectively impenetrable, made on the basis of test carried out in Germany (see IDR 7/1996, p.15), have been supported by comments made following tests in the US.
"Speaking at a conference on Future Armoured Warfare in London in May, IDR's Pentagon correspondent Leland Ness explained that US tests involved firing trials of Russian-built T-72 tanks fitted with Kontakt-5 explosive reactive armour (ERA). In contrast to the original, or 'light', type of ERA which is effective only against shaped charge jets, the 'heavy' Kontakt-5 ERA is also effective against the long-rod penetrators of APFSDS tank gun projectiles.
"When fitted to T-72 tanks, the 'heavy' ERA made them immune to the DU penetrators of M829 APFSDS, fired by the 120 mm guns of the US M1 Abrams tanks, which are among the most formidable of current tank gun projectiles.


The only conflict where western-style tanks fought against Russian was first gulf war and, my dear friend, it was not a glory for Your equipment.
My equipment? Did I own it or designed it?

Iraqi forces had no aircover and were equiped with the old "monkey models" (*****ped down versions), how could the outcome be any different?
To put it in perspective: Iraq's, Polish, N.Korean, etc tanks = BMW 320i, Russian spec tanks - BMW M3, the general appearance might be the same, but the essence is different...


How can You compare (relatively thin like T-72/80) front hull steel armour plus some ERA armour with for example front combined steel-composite armour like Abrams (about 1 m thickness if I remeber correctly)?
Because they are both tanks that were meant to fight each other.
You don't remember correctly and you are wrong, do some research
http://www.ciar.org/ttk/mbt/03.tanks-spec.html


I don't feel like flame fighting here
If you don't feel like "flaming here" then stop posting opinions based on your memory recollections, prejudices and myths.

el_kab0ng
07-04-2004, 12:23 PM
The second part of the system defeats laser guided weapons. When a laser beam is detected the Shtora informs the crew with light and sound; it then launches laser defeating smoke grenades, which enshroud the tank and break or degrade the lock. The tank commander can also press a button that will turn the turret front to the laser to meet incoming ATGM with the best protected section and to engage the laser beam source with the maingun.

Funny thing is, that only works once. I bet an Apache can get off 2 Hellfires before the crew can reload the smoke canisters. And since top attack weapons don't rely on which direction the turret is facing, this fancy system might be ineffective to those as well.

Still, it's better than nothing I suppose.

tony6
07-04-2004, 12:28 PM
You didn't answer so I ask again my man:

Quote:
It is believed that while protected by Kontakt-5 ERA, Russian MBTs cannot be penetrated across the frontal arc by the M256 guns firing M829A1 APFSDS ammo.

"It is believed" You say? It's not the question of "believing". Any sources?
And what do You mean by "cannot be penetrated"? From which distance?
If You don't have reliable data then "stop posting opinions based on your memory recollections, prejudices and myths".

As for Polish ERAWA armour:
1) there are ERAWA-1 and ERAWA-2 variants plus some new one to come.
2) about 2-3 years ago some Germans were doing tests of their new Panzerfaust-3 RPGs. I saw it in the "Military Technique". They were shooting to the steel armour covered by reactive one. The shots were taken from "application" (0 meters) with the warhead at about 30-40 degrees to the armor. They were testing ERAWA and some Russian one.
Guess which one was better :D
If I find that issue I will scan it specially for You my man.

ShadowNeo
07-04-2004, 12:55 PM
Why do you guys always leave the Challenger 2 out of your tank comparissons eh?!?!?! :fork:

tony6
07-04-2004, 01:13 PM
Because it's ugly!!!
:D

Russian Texan
07-04-2004, 01:21 PM
You didn't answer so I ask again my man:
I did, you just didn't bother to read it.
Jane's International Defence Review 7/1997, pg. 15:
"IMPENETRABLE RUSSIAN TANK ARMOUR STANDS UP TO EXAMINATION
"Claims that the armour of Russian tanks is effectively impenetrable, made on the basis of test carried out in Germany (see IDR 7/1996, p.15), have been supported by comments made following tests in the US.
"Speaking at a conference on Future Armoured Warfare in London in May, IDR's Pentagon correspondent Leland Ness explained that US tests involved firing trials of Russian-built T-72 tanks fitted with Kontakt-5 explosive reactive armour (ERA). In contrast to the original, or 'light', type of ERA which is effective only against shaped charge jets, the 'heavy' Kontakt-5 ERA is also effective against the long-rod penetrators of APFSDS tank gun projectiles.
"When fitted to T-72 tanks, the 'heavy' ERA made them immune to the DU penetrators of M829 APFSDS, fired by the 120 mm guns of the US M1 Abrams tanks, which are among the most formidable of current tank gun projectiles.


about 2-3 years ago some Germans were doing tests of their new Panzerfaust-3 RPGs. I saw it in the "Military Technique". They were shooting to the steel armour covered by reactive one. The shots were taken from "application" (0 meters) with the warhead at about 30-40 degrees to the armor. They were testing ERAWA and some Russian one.
Guess which one was better

To sum it up: some German dudes fired something at "some Russian one", compared it to the Polish reactive armor and published results in the Polish magazine...
I bow to your argumentation style... :roll:


As for Polish ERAWA armour
As for Polish ERAWA, I couldn't find anything on the net about it's performance.

As for PT-91 - WOW :lol: and lets just leave it at that...

SerbPVO
07-04-2004, 02:08 PM
No problemo guys, we're "on the subject" as long as we keep talking about tanks!

Are there any photos of this Polish new tank I keep hearing about, the PT-91?

tony6
07-04-2004, 02:28 PM
To sum it up: some German dudes fired something at "some Russian one", compared it to the Polish reactive armor and published results in the Polish magazine...
I bow to your argumentation style...
I don't have that issue here-my magazines are at home (which is 360 km away). As soon as I get there I will find it and scan.
One thing I'm sure - that wasn't Kontakt-5 (some previous design) and the warhead was cumulative (Panzerfaust-3) so it doesn't change anything-I don't have any data about APFSDS shells.

The only valuable data about ERAWA is book by its designer (colonel Adam Wisniewski from Warsaw Military Technology) "Armours-constructions, designing and examination".
http://www.wnt.com.pl/wnt/ksiazki.nsf/uid/010305163950wBAMR4UJLDJ?OpenDocument&ExpandSection=1

I don't have that book but I will look to it tomorrow.
It is about ERAWA-1/2 armour, multi-layer armours CAWA-1/2 and reactive-passive CERAWA-1/2.
i believe I can find those "german" tests there.

As for PT-91: it is 15 years old now already plus it was to be only temporary model to tests some equipment (fire control system mostly). The final model was to be PT-2001. Right now our army is developing "light forces" (kind of fashion today:) so tanks don't have priority. BUMAR got some pretty big tank contracts lately (India/Malaysia) so they probably come up with the prototype on their own.

Russian Texan
07-04-2004, 03:35 PM
Polish PT 91

http://mainbattletanks.czweb.org/Tanky/pt91.jpg

http://www.ifrance.com/ArmyReco/europe/Pologne/vehicules_lourds/PT-91/PT91_Pologne_05.jpg

http://www.ifrance.com/ArmyReco/europe/Pologne/vehicules_lourds/PT-91/PT91_Pologne_01.jpg

Polish industry produced the T-72M1Z and Wilk upgrades and has gone on to build the PT-91 Twardy development. This has now entered service. PT-91 and its version T-72M1Z MBTs were derived from T-72 MBT through modernization, replacing and upgrading of its systems. They were designed to be a highly reliable systems having superior firepower, improved crew protection and impressive mobility. They still keep outstanding, optimally small silhouette to minimize the ballistic surface. The design concept creates very wide modernization field, as it can be done with everyone T-72 family MBT pratcically, almost without major changes in its shell.

In April 1951 was erected J. Stalin Mechanical Factory in Labedy (Regulation No.97 of Heavy Industry Minister) abbreviated later as ZMIS, with main designation to produce heavy tracked vehicles such as tanks, agricultural and artillery tractors, excavators and cranes. The name of the factory and sometimes structure was a matter of change several times within the space of these years. In 1956 it was shortened to Mechanical Factory "Labedy" in Labedy, and after joining the Labedy to Gliwice of course appeared name in Gliwice. In the years from 1951 to 1956 were produced tanks of T-34 type, later T-54 type that were produced until 1964 and next, after upgrading, tanks of T-55A type until 1969. In this last period simultaneously started production of tanks of T-55 and T-55A type, which were produced until 1979. On the base of this tank new modification was constructed with new designation as Recovery Vehicle WZT-1 and WZT-2 and Engineering Vehicle in the Experimental Production Unit, later the Research and Development Centre of Mechanical Systems (OBRUM) in Gliwice. Regulation No.77 of Machine Industry Minister from December in 1975 established, on the basis of our Factory, Mechanical Equipment Industrial Complex "Bumar - Labedy" in Gliwice.

From the year 1980 Bumar produce main battle tank T-72, T-72M1 and its variations: commander tank T-72M1K and Recovery Vehicle WZT-3 and Mine Clearing Vehicle. The Gulf War revealed some defects of this tank never the less it is treated as a tank at the turn II and III generation of tanks. So it was upgraded using domestic research and development resources such as OBRUM (Research and Development Centre of Mechanical Systems), OPTA, WITU (Military Institute of Armament), WITPiS (Military Institute of Armoured and Truck Vehicles) and constructed type PT-91 (Hard). Now it doesn't correspond fully to III generation of tanks but significantly approached to this. Bumar has produced this tank since 1993.

In September 1996 U.S. special Balkan envoy James W. Pardew Jr. visited Warsaw on 6 September to determine what Poland can do to help the "Train and Equip" program aimed at strengthening Bosnia's Moslem-Croat Federation military forces, Polish media reported. Polish Deputy Foreign Minister Robert Mroziewicz said Poland would like to participate in the "Train and Equip" program "at the lowest possible level." The U.S. asked Poland to sell T 72 tanks to be financed by a NATO fund; however, Poland declined in line with the policy of many EU states of equal distance from all sides in the Bosnian conflict. The U.S. will sell M60A tanks.

In March 2002 Prime Minister of Malaysia Mahathir bin Mohamad declared that his country will buy modernised PT-91 Twardy tanks. The contract may be worth approximately 250-300 million dollars depending on the equipment Malaysia would buy together with the tanks. Poland proposed a several dozen vehicles of technical support. The Malaysian PM watched Polish tanks at the training grounds in Wesola near Warsaw.

To keep the required horsepower and speed, PT-91 and T-72M1Z are equipped with turbocharged 850 hp diesel engine. With upgraded transmission they can attain a maximum road speed of 60 km/h. However, for low speed maneuvering, the low gear provides a continuous speed up to 7 km/h. They still enjoy excellent cross country ability. Their design creates the fording ability of water obstacles up to 5 meters depth using fording kit, however the water obstacle of 1,2 meters depth can be crossed without any preparation.

The PT-91 MBT is equpped with the Fire Control System consisting of Gunner Station. It basis on modernized TPDK-1 sight for day channel and optionally passive PCN-A sight or thermal imagine sight, which create night fighting capability. The fire solutions are calculated by the ballistic, digital computer which processes mixed set of information generated by set of sensors and input manually by the gunner.

The T-72M1Z MBT dual axis stabilized Fire Control System, with both Gunner and Commander stations is equipped with day and night vision capabilities, which, in conjunction with electro-hydraulic gun stabilization system, makes it capable of acquiring a target accurately within a minimum time Gunner Station consists of 2 axis stabilized sight platform with thermal imaging and daylight visual imaging subsystems, laser range finder which permits the gunner to detect, identify, acquire and track a target during day and night combat conditions.

Commander Station consists of panoramic sight mounted on the turred roof which provides day vision and night imaging through 2 axis stabilized head mirror assembly with 3600 panoramic viewing independent of turret orientation. Combined with the GS, the CS provides the hunter-killer capability which allows the crew of T-72M1Z to acquire rapidly and destroy multiple targets. Additionally system allows commander to override gunners decisions. The digital, ballistic computer provides solutions for 6 types of ammunitions, by processing information generated by up-to-date set of sensors or input by the gunner or commander.

The crew survivability was improved by the adoption of very effective ERA in major areas, which offers better protection against chemical energy projectiles. With up-to-date Automatic Fire Suppression System any fire in the Crea Compartment is automatically detected by IR Detectors and suppressed by Halon 1301. The Engine Comparment is protected by separate, also automatically operating system which bases on Temperature Sensing Firewire and suppresses any fire with Halon 1211.

Newly added Laser Warning System provides information about laser beams of sights range finders and missiles guiding systems and reacts automatically firing smoke grenades from two, 6 launchers banks. The system can be overridden by the commander who can fire these grenades manually in personally selected sequences or use backing, manual system also consisting of two, 6 launchers banks.

RBull
07-04-2004, 04:36 PM
Actually, it might be very interesting to hear from some experienced Polish or Finish tanker, how they compare the T-72's to their new (used) Leo's 2...

I believe there is an argument against comparing T-72, or T-80 to M-1A1, or Leo2 and Challenger 1:1 ...because they were not ment to meet 1:1, but rather 100:1 :)

Although I personally like the russian tank design heritage (my grand dad was tanker in Red Army), the pictures of countless Iraqi T-72 (also serbian M84 from Balkan war) with their turrets blown of and if the crew did not fled before, then them toasted in it, have convinced me against the concept. The same applies to T-80 from Grozny.
Yes, even M1 Abrams is defetable, but the concept of western modern tanks gives the crew much more chance to survive, not to mention the operating comfort.

tony6
07-04-2004, 05:43 PM
Actually, it might be very interesting to hear from some experienced Polish or Finish tanker, how they compare the T-72's to their new (used) Leo's 2...
I would like to hear it myself :D
So far I didn't came across anything like that.

Yes, even M1 Abrams is defetable, but the concept of western modern tanks gives the crew much more chance to survive, not to mention the operating comfort.
Word :D

BTW: We have that old saying in Poland: "przejebane jak w ruskim czołgu" which means "(you are) f***d like inside of the Russian tank"
:D

Pille1234
07-04-2004, 05:54 PM
BTW: We have that old saying in Poland: "przejebane jak w ruskim czołgu" which means "(you are) f***d like inside of the Russian tank"
:D
:D Never ignore the wisdom of old sayings

aartamen
07-04-2004, 09:16 PM
The issue with Iraqi T-72's went a lot deeper than inferiority of a single T-72 when compared to M1Ax. The Russians long ago realized that T-72 armor became inadequate with introduction of DU. According to many accounts it's penetrated even by 25MM. To counter that they went all out developing active and reacitve applications. In addition, the Russians always relied on numerical superiority or maneuver and compensated by making their projectiles guided. Iraqis did not have anything but obsolete armor package, did not maneuver, and used inaccurate old-style ammunition out of unzeroed guns.

As far as Grozny debacle goes, I doubt the Russian crews would have done any better in any other modern equipment. They were poorly trained and miserably led. There were cases when M1's were disabled by a single RPG or IED. And if you blow up a big one right under a tank, I don't care who made that tank, it'll be trash. So it would have taken a few more rounds of RPG's to take out Western tanks. The Chechens had a plentiful supply.

There was also a strange phenomenon of T-80's catching fire all over, like they were drenched in gazoline. People on both sides attested to that. It might have to do with them running on kerosene that day.

SerbPVO
07-04-2004, 09:36 PM
Speaking of comparisons, I don't know if you guys have heard about the comparisons of American Abrams tanks and Serbian M-84As, by Kuwaiti tank crews, who use both types?

Supposedly, our M-84As have shown much better in desert conditions and were extensively used during this latest war(non-combat) and Kuwaitis are now ordering more from YugoImport, our government military export agency.

dejawolf
07-04-2004, 10:52 PM
yeah, i've read in thunder run that m1's swallowed dust like hoovers,
and several M1A1's simply had to be abandoned and scavenged for parts, before the big punch into central baghdad.

RuSoKaR
07-04-2004, 11:11 PM
thanks I kinda enjoyed reading Serbian :hug: that is kinda easy for me woot

dejawolf
07-05-2004, 12:13 AM
and for those poor souls that believe so firmly that the T-90 is just a T-72 with kontakt-5 ERA, they're brutally wrong.
the commanders cupola is entirely new, and it's possible to fire the NSVT from under armour, and is electrically traversed and elevated, and has night sight and stabilization as well.
same goes for the gunners sights as well. the T-72's stab was only good for slow movement over not too bumpy terrain. the T-90 has a 2-axis stabilization that supports the gun over broken terrain at high speed, enabling it to fire on the move at moving targets. it also has 2 magnification levels for the gunners sight, whereas the T-72 only had 8x fixed magnification. that's the kind of changes which you don't see, but which has a significant impact on the fighting ability of the tank.

2RHPZ
07-05-2004, 04:11 AM
According to some intelligence sources before 1991 ex-Yugoslavia sold 220 M84 tanks to Kuwait. Is it true? What happened to these tanks? Did Saddam bring them to Iraq during Gul War I?

RBull
07-05-2004, 05:04 AM
and for those poor souls that believe so firmly that the T-90 is just a T-72 with kontakt-5 ERA, they're brutally wrong.
the commanders cupola is entirely new, and it's possible to fire the NSVT from under armour, and is electrically traversed and elevated, and has night sight and stabilization as well.

Uh, I guess THAT is bringing the tank to entirely new generation level... rofl hehe... sorry for the sarcasm, this commander cupola is in fact "borrowed" from T-80UD model and is further development of the one used on T-64.

Regarding the Kuwaiti M84, most of the tanks made it to Saudi Arabia, together with Kuwaiti Chieftains and other equipement. I am not sure if these tanks took part in DS, as the Chieftains did, due dangerous similarity to Iraqi T-72. That was also the reason, why French and Kuwaiti Mirages F-1 were not taking part in combat operations, because they could be mistaken for Iraqi Mirages by other coalition planes.

Guided, bore launched projectiles are pretty neat, however very expensive too. If you ad the fact, that the WP tanks were estimated to survive on intense WW3 battlefield for just a minutes, you will understand why russians loaded max 3 such projectiles to only some of their tanks. The cost is something like 10 laser guided projectiles equals the price of whole tank...

fdt
07-05-2004, 07:58 AM
we also develop this kind of armour in Poland-it's much cheaper than all that "chobchams
Not exactly, Poland is working on is the first generation ERA, Kontakt 5, used by the Russians, is the 2nd generation.
1 st generation (Polish) is designed to deal with HEAT, while 2nd generation (Russian) is designed to deal with both types of ammunition.

I assume You haven't heard of ERAWA-2 that is already in production (Malaysian PT-91's will be fitted with it) ... and is 2nd generation ERA...

robmika
07-05-2004, 05:47 PM
I thought I heard somewhere that the Pole's were looking to get or had gotten some Leo 2's... dont know the version... any truth to this?

perdurabo
07-05-2004, 06:14 PM
I thought I heard somewhere that the Pole's were looking to get or had gotten some Leo 2's... dont know the version... any truth to this?
we get full panzer brigade from germany 128Leo2A4 also buffels and stuff

SerbPVO
07-05-2004, 10:43 PM
So, did Russian brothers understand the Serbian part of my post?:)

anwaralsharrad
12-20-2008, 06:39 AM
I wonder if any one can explain this clause , how its work ???? :

Reduction in penetration due to a 2 yaw is about 6% and it grows exponentially worse from there, and on the 67 slope of the front glacis of the T-64/72/80/90, this is increased to about 15%.
Total loss in penetration amounts to about 2% + 8% + 22% + 6% = 38%, or in other words the penetrator is now only capable of penetrating 62% its original potential. Conversely we could say that the base armour is increased by the factor of the reciprocal of 62%, which is - surprise! - 161%.