Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[Damian]

There were several T-72BA upgrades. Official T-72BA which MoD orders now each year is what I described. I agree that it is only inexpensive and simple upgrade, but in characteristics it is better than Leopard 2A4 and that was the point.

It is very brave to make such conclusions You know?

How not ?? It has advanced FCS Sosna-U with modern thermal sights. Leopard 2A4 is on 80s level and has older first generation thermals.
Besides, T-72BA has ability to fire guided rounds, and if I am correct, automatic target tracking system.

Well You are wrong, Sosna-U is thermal sight, not FCS, FCS is more or less the same, and do not have autotracker. Ability to fire GLATGM's is nothing special, and can be used in all modern MBT's. Leopard 2A4 was tested with LAHAT GLATGM. Besides this, most battle ranges in Europe are below 2,000m, using Line Of Sight GLATGM like 9M119 at such range is pure stupidity, any APFSDS will be faster.

Both have similar late 80s protection level, but T-72BA is superior in mobility and FCS than A4.

No it is not, neither it have more modern FCS (only thermal sight), neither it's mobility is superior.

It's just remind me all these eastern specialist saying but hey M1A2 is so heavy, he can't move fast... and then they are all surprised when I describe them SHAFTS system in that tank... in short, in case of need or emergency, driver can disengage by using SHAFTS, digital engine governor, so engine will have not 1,500HP but approx it's maximal power of 2,000HP, nice thing, but not used often. You can read about SHAFTS in Richard P. Hunnicutt book Abrams - A History Of The American Main Battle Tank Volume 2, very good source of information. SHAFTS was added in M1A1 (fielded in 1985) after initial experience with basic M1.

So it shows that most people from Eastern Europe do not known much about NATO MBT's, and often judge their mobility by comparing widely avaiable weight, engine power and weight to power ratio data, that is not nececary a complete knowledge about discussed tank.

AFAIK the maximum power that can be generated by MTU MB873 Ka501 is ~1,800HP.

Only real difference between T-72B2 and T-72BA is Relikt ERA.

And You are wrong. I said You, Sosna-U is new thermal sight, not FCS, so there is many more difference.

As of Bulat, I don't know how it is better. It has worse FCS with no thermal sights, no real advantages, only use of advanced ERA Nozh but protection is not significantly better either.

Oh really.

I start to doubt in Your knowledge.

T-64BM Bulat have thermal sight for gunner, it's FCS is modern (lack of autotracker do not mean that FCS is inferior), have comparable mobility with much better and modern engine (I know that 5TD engines have their problems, but these were "child hood issues" long time ago solved).

And how do You know that protection is not significantly better? I start to feel You are another supporter of that idiotic "holly war" between KMDB and UVZ, this time You are supporter of Khlopotov side, not Tarasenko... but both are just payed proffesionall propaganders.

This is T-72B2 example with Relikt, not T-72BA.

T-72BA is in fact same as Rogatka but preserving older Kontakt ERA and with no auxiliary power unit.

I did not say that this is T-72BA, I only said it is proposed upgrade of T-72B.

Also as I said before T-72BA is far much simpler than T-72B2, and inferior to it.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

@Akim, IMHO T-64E is somewhat strange, I still can't understand lack of internal coaxial machine gun, IMHO it is just something that must be in a tank. Machine guns have sometimes tendency to jam (not matters how reliable they are), machine gun that is placed outside can't be maintained during battle. So IMHO internal coax should be there.

However I understand motives of designers, to reduce weak zone by covering coax machine gun port with ERA module.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

First prototype of new Turkish MBT Altay, that will be used for mobility tests.

 

[Akim]

@Akim, IMHO T-64E is somewhat strange, I still can't understand lack of internal coaxial machine gun, IMHO it is just something that must be in a tank. Machine guns have sometimes tendency to jam (not matters how reliable they are), machine gun that is placed outside can't be maintained during battle. So IMHO internal coax should be there.
However I understand motives of designers, to reduce weak zone by covering coax machine gun port with ERA module..

A machine gun can be not paired, but synchronized with a gun. Vice versa, when he in free turrets, it allows will execute more wide spectrum of tasks. The commander of tank can independently manage, there where power of 12,7-mm machine gun is surplus.

 

[Damian]

Hmmm perhaps it is a right solution...

 

[Akim]

Hmmm perhaps it is a right solution...

He passes tests only, all can will change. While there are no official data. Only decision about the halt of orders on BM Bulat.

 

[Damian]

Hmmm well see, the best way for Ukrainian Armed Forces is to start mass production of BM Oplot.

 

[Akim]

Hmmm well see, the best way for Ukrainian Armed Forces is to start mass production of BM Oplot.

A BM Oplot costs 4,5 mln$. Т-64Е 1,2 millions. In general in plans in an army 2/3 techniques will be modernized (BM Bulat, Т-64Е, BTR- 7, BMP(BMD) -1U, MTLB-U, maybe BMPT-64 ). And 1/3 new standards (BM Oplot ,BTR- 3(4), Cozac, Dozor).

 

[Akim]

One is from the variants of battle platform "Armata"

 

[Damian]

One is from the variants of battle platform "Armata"

AFAIK this was initially shown as graphics showing Object 195, not "Armata" based MBT.

A BM Oplot costs 4,5 mln$. Т-64Е 1,2 millions. In general in plans in an army 2/3 techniques will be modernized (BM Bulat, Т-64Е, BTR- 7, BMP(BMD) -1U, MTLB-U, maybe BMPT-64 ). And 1/3 new standards (BM Oplot ,BTR- 3(4), Cozac, Dozor).

Well this is obvious, due to limited budget. If Ukraine could find a partner in the region with more money, so the costs could be reduced by spliting it on two countries, then the situation perhaps could have been better.

 

[hest]

It is very brave to make such conclusions You know?

Well You are wrong, Sosna-U is thermal sight, not FCS, FCS is more or less the same, and do not have autotracker. Ability to fire GLATGM's is nothing special, and can be used in all modern MBT's. Leopard 2A4 was tested with LAHAT GLATGM. Besides this, most battle ranges in Europe are below 2,000m, using Line Of Sight GLATGM like 9M119 at such range is pure stupidity, any APFSDS will be faster.

Indeed Sosna-U sight (superior to older in Leopard 2A4) is part of FCS. On T-72BA it was modernised to modern level using element from new developement, it has elements and common structure with FCS Kalina. Saying that Leopard 2A4 vintage 80s FCS is comparable is not believable.

And you are wrong. That statement is error commited by ignorant, not person with some knowledge.

Leopard cannot use guided rounds, first, because it has no FCS to operate them, and second, because they are not available. So it is serious disadvantage especially for Leopard 2A4 with protection level of late 80s.

No it is not, neither it have more modern FCS (only thermal sight), neither it's mobility is superior.

You certainly know little about what T-72BA modernisation consists ? You can go search.

T-72BA is totally overhauled and has new engine with 1000 hp. Modernisation compared to vintage 80s Leopard ?

It's just remind me all these eastern specialist saying but hey M1A2 is so heavy, he can't move fast... and then they are all surprised when I describe them SHAFTS system in that tank... in short, in case of need or emergency, driver can disengage by using SHAFTS, digital engine governor, so engine will have not 1,500HP but approx it's maximal power of 2,000HP, nice thing, but not used often. You can read about SHAFTS in Richard P. Hunnicutt book Abrams - A History Of The American Main Battle Tank Volume 2, very good source of information. SHAFTS was added in M1A1 (fielded in 1985) after initial experience with basic M1.

So it shows that most people from Eastern Europe do not known much about NATO MBT's, and often judge their mobility by comparing widely avaiable weight, engine power and weight to power ratio data, that is not nececary a complete knowledge about discussed tank.

AFAIK the maximum power that can be generated by MTU MB873 Ka501 is ~1,800HP.

You do not need to explain me this obvious and unrelated to discussion information.

Any engine power can be increased at cost of reliability and life, but it will not always be practical to do (so this is not worth of discussion). For comparison we stay with practical and certified figures.

T-64BM Bulat have thermal sight for gunner, it's FCS is modern (lack of autotracker do not mean that FCS is inferior), have comparable mobility with much better and modern engine (I know that 5TD engines have their problems, but these were "child hood issues" long time ago solved).

And how do You know that protection is not significantly better? I start to feel You are another supporter of that idiotic "holly war" between KMDB and UVZ, this time You are supporter of Khlopotov side, not Tarasenko... but both are just payed proffesionall propaganders.

Ok, but I am not interested in comparison with Bulat so let's leave it ?

I don't know what are you talking about. I am here with mere discussion ?? I do not support any side, nor have relation with those persons.

I did not say that this is T-72BA, I only said it is proposed upgrade of T-72B.

Also as I said before T-72BA is far much simpler than T-72B2, and inferior to it.

You do realise that T-72BA has elements from Rogatka (B2) and only real difference is ERA Kontakt and lack of auxiliary power plant ??

 

[hest]

Ok, so I have some proposal: Let's say that Im thinkig that this what You had wrote about T-72BA is bullshit and in my opinnion Leopard-2A4 is still far far better tank in all, apart night maing gun sight, aspects, so my proposal is that - let's play and made COMPARISON Leopard-2A4 and T-72B and T-72BA -ok? In any apspects:
- mobility
- amunnition
- stabilizatin and FCS
- armour protection
- operation / ergonomic
Both of us can do that comparasion - of course whit feeding sources (or Bibliography).
What aspect You prefer to compare first?

I agree, for that reason this is forum

With time I'll have comparison, but you can start now.

 

[Damian]

Oh boy, talk with fanboy...

Indeed Sosna-U sight (superior to older in Leopard 2A4) is part of FCS. On T-72BA it was modernised to modern level using element from new developement, it has elements and common structure with FCS Kalina. Saying that Leopard 2A4 vintage 80s FCS is comparable is not believable.

Sosna-U is just thermal sight, is not FCS. Do You even understand how FCS working mechanism looks? Do You even tried to use FCS of different tanks?

Do You even know that by Soviet terminology T-72 tanks (including T-72B) do not use FCS (Fire Control System) but "sighting complex"?

Lepaprd 2A4 might not use the most modern thermal sight, but does not mean it's FCS is completely outdated... oh boy I'am defending Leopard 2, a tank that I'm really don't like... but talking that it;s FCS is inferior in general view to T-72BA is pure... fanboyism.

And you are wrong. That statement is error commited by ignorant, not person with some knowledge.

Leopard cannot use guided rounds, first, because it has no FCS to operate them, and second, because they are not available. So it is serious disadvantage especially for Leopard 2A4 with protection level of late 80s.

Do You even understand that in Poland and westewrn Europe, typical range of engagement is below 2,000m? Can You comprehend this?

And yes Leopard 2 can use guided ammunition, Leopard 2A4 was tested with Israeli LAHAT GLATGM, so yes ammunition is avaiable, and modifications to FCS are not very extensive. Not to mention that due to calliber limitations, GLATGM's armor penetration capabilities are overestimated by Russians... and damn, they use as a messure RHAe, and RHAe is ineffective, inaccurate to messure protection levels of composite armors.

You certainly know little about what T-72BA modernisation consists ? You can go search.

I done that.

How old are You? Because I have a strong feeling that I'am talking with teenager. T-72BA is not deep, simple refurbishment program, nothing special.

Listen I have opportunity to talk with people close to good sources, being in military, close to manufacturers etc. And I have much more realistic informations, than a guy that is excited with simple refurbishment of T-72B, and is confusing thermal sight Sosna-U with whole Fire Control System.

So sorry mate, i take everything You say with a huge grain of salt.

T-72BA is totally overhauled and has new engine with 1000 hp. Modernisation compared to vintage 80s Leopard ?

WTF? Not every T-72BA have a 1,000HP strong engine, not to mention that V-45 and it's modernizations are hardly comparable with much more modern engine MTU MB873 Ka501.

You do not need to explain me this obvious and unrelated to discussion information.

Any engine power can be increased at cost of reliability and life, but it will not always be practical to do (so this is not worth of discussion). For comparison we stay with practical and certified figures.

So this only means You don't know anything about western engines. Swedes for example use MTU MB873 Ka501 with power increased to 1,800HP as a standard, this is the same engine as Leopard 2A4 use, and Swedes do not have a problems. Neither Americans have problems with AGT-1500C, using SHAFTS system to temporary disable governor of engine is a normal practice.

In fact the original AGT-1500C during tests on the XM1 had power of 2,000HP, it was however governed to 1,500HP due to safety reasons. The American Diesel AVCR-1360 that was considered as a powerplant of XM1/M1 Abrams,l had maximum power of 1,800HP, but was also governed to 1,500HP due to safety reasons.

It is not that western engines have maximum power of only 1,500HP, it is a governed HP, so the inexperienced crew won't kill itself in accident, try to control a machine that weight's over 50 tons and have an engine with power of 1,800-2,000HP, one stupid mistake and You can kill the whole crew.

Ok, but I am not interested in comparison with Bulat so let's leave it ?

I don't know what are you talking about. I am here with mere discussion ?? I do not support any side, nor have relation with those persons.

1) Because it's start to be uncomfortable?

2) Oh You are, You said clearly that BM "Bulat" do not have thermal sight, and this is pure lie, so You are not objective, and You are supporting only one side of barricade.

You do realise that T-72BA has elements from Rogatka (B2) and only real difference is ERA Kontakt and lack of auxiliary power plant ??

And do You realize that You are wrong? T-72BA is not a one single standard, this is designation for refurbished tanks. Some are only after simple repairs, some have more capable ERA 4S22 Kontakt-5, some have Sosna-U sight, some have other minor upgrades. But talking that it is some super capable standard for T-72B is just pure lie or lack of informations.

I can agree that T-72B2 is a good and deep upgrade, because it is, it is a fact, but T-72BA is nothing more that refurbishment.

It is like difference between M1A1AIM that is a simple refurbishment, and M1A1SA that is a deep upgrade near to the level of M1A2SEP.

 

[hest]

Oh boy, talk with fanboy...

Sosna-U is just thermal sight, is not FCS. Do You even understand how FCS working mechanism looks? Do You even tried to use FCS of different tanks?

Yes, Sosna-U is sight part of FCS (I only confused designation, on system). There is no need to mess further into such errors and start mature discussion. ?

I know perfectly what is FCS, you should not try to act as expert and instead read my posts.

Do You even know that by Soviet terminology T-72 tanks (including T-72B) do not use FCS (Fire Control System) but "sighting complex"?

Lepaprd 2A4 might not use the most modern thermal sight, but does not mean it's FCS is completely outdated... oh boy I'am defending Leopard 2, a tank that I'm really don't like... but talking that it;s FCS is inferior in general view to T-72BA is pure... fanboyism.

Here discussion subject is modernised T-72BA with modern FCS, why you now explain very general facts unrelated to discussed subject, to act as expert ??

I cannot understand how someone claims 80s FCS can be better than today's modernisation.

Do You even understand that in Poland and westewrn Europe, typical range of engagement is below 2,000m? Can You comprehend this?

And yes Leopard 2 can use guided ammunition, Leopard 2A4 was tested with Israeli LAHAT GLATGM, so yes ammunition is avaiable, and modifications to FCS are not very extensive. Not to mention that due to calliber limitations, GLATGM's armor penetration capabilities are overestimated by Russians... and damn, they use as a messure RHAe, and RHAe is ineffective, inaccurate to messure protection levels of composite armors.

LAHAT requires laser designator, which requires system in FS that Leopard does not have, nor missile is in operation.. We are discussing what there is, not what should be. With your mentality you are mature? Atleast you do not look like.

About missile performance, with Leopard 80s protection level and huge weak zone it is not an argument on it's favor to say softly.

I done that.

How old are You? Because I have a strong feeling that I'am talking with teenager. T-72BA is not deep, simple refurbishment program, nothing special.

Nobody says it is deep modernisation. I said the opposite.

Both T-72BA and Leopard2A4 are tanks on level of late 80s. But I do not understand how vintage Leopard can be more valuable, than T-72BA which is today's modernisation.

Listen I have opportunity to talk with people close to good sources, being in military, close to manufacturers etc. And I have much more realistic informations, than a guy that is excited with simple refurbishment of T-72B, and is confusing thermal sight Sosna-U with whole Fire Control System.

So sorry mate, i take everything You say with a huge grain of salt.

I am not the one biased here who argues over superiority of 80s Leopard over analogous tank modernised today.

WTF? Not every T-72BA have a 1,000HP strong engine, not to mention that V-45 and it's modernizations are hardly comparable with much more modern engine MTU MB873 Ka501.

Stay on topic. T-72BA which we are discussing and for which contract was signed, has those specific characteristics. You should follow discussion.

So this only means You don't know anything about western engines. Swedes for example use MTU MB873 Ka501 with power increased to 1,800HP as a standard, this is the same engine as Leopard 2A4 use, and Swedes do not have a problems. Neither Americans have problems with AGT-1500C, using SHAFTS system to temporary disable governor of engine is a normal practice.

In fact the original AGT-1500C during tests on the XM1 had power of 2,000HP, it was however governed to 1,500HP due to safety reasons. The American Diesel AVCR-1360 that was considered as a powerplant of XM1/M1 Abrams,l had maximum power of 1,800HP, but was also governed to 1,500HP due to safety reasons.

It is not that western engines have maximum power of only 1,500HP, it is a governed HP, so the inexperienced crew won't kill itself in accident, try to control a machine that weight's over 50 tons and have an engine with power of 1,800-2,000HP, one stupid mistake and You can kill the whole crew.

In theory can be many things. You really like to show your knowledge and talk about things unrelated to subject. We are now comparing characteristics, you do not need to show me anything, provide comparison, I am interested.

1) Because it's start to be uncomfortable?

2) Oh You are, You said clearly that BM "Bulat" do not have thermal sight, and this is pure lie, so You are not objective, and You are supporting only one side of barricade.

I said now we focus on comparison. I do not want to derail subject.

And do You realize that You are wrong? T-72BA is not a one single standard, this is designation for refurbished tanks. Some are only after simple repairs, some have more capable ERA 4S22 Kontakt-5, some have Sosna-U sight, some have other minor upgrades. But talking that it is some super capable standard for T-72B is just pure lie or lack of informations.

I explained already what are we discussing in specific.

I can agree that T-72B2 is a good and deep upgrade, because it is, it is a fact, but T-72BA is nothing more that refurbishment.

It is like difference between M1A1AIM that is a simple refurbishment, and M1A1SA that is a deep upgrade near to the level of M1A2SEP.

Yes, but point is that there are only those two differences between both. You consider them important, I also think so, but tanks are not much different.

 

[Damian]

Yes, Sosna-U is sight part of FCS (I only confused designation, on system). There is no need to mess further into such errors and start mature discussion. ?

I know perfectly what is FCS, you should not try to act as expert and instead read my posts.

So why You make such hard conclusions, that T-72BA FCS is definetly better than leopard 2A4 FCS?

Here discussion subject is modernised T-72BA with modern FCS, why you now explain very general facts unrelated to discussed subject, to act as expert ??

I cannot understand how someone claims 80s FCS can be better than today's modernisation.

It is simple, only because something was designed in 2010 does not mean that it is definetly better than something designed in 1970's, simple as that.

Not to mention that T-72BA up to this date do not have full hunter-killer system... it does not have even semi hunter-killer system as more modern M1A1 variants.

LAHAT requires laser designator, which requires system in FS that Leopard does not have, nor missile is in operation.. We are discussing what there is, not what should be. With your mentality you are mature? Atleast you do not look like.

About missile performance, with Leopard 80s protection level and huge weak zone it is not an argument on it's favor to say softly.

1) LAHAT can be retrofitted with any tank without major FCS upgrades. As for maturity I do not base on silly national pride to compare equipment.
2) GLATGM's are not 100% accurate, saying that You are capable to guide it directly in to weak zone at 5,000m range is... unrealistic, saying it politely.

Nobody says it is deep modernisation. I said the opposite.

Both T-72BA and Leopard2A4 are tanks on level of late 80s. But I do not understand how vintage Leopard can be more valuable, than T-72BA which is today's modernisation.

Do You consider ergonomics, easy maintnance etc,

I am not the one biased here who argues over superiority of 80s Leopard over analogous tank modernised today.

Yes You are, because You seems to focus only on one single aspect without comparing exact details.

Stay on topic. T-72BA which we are discussing and for which contract was signed, has those specific characteristics. You should follow discussion.

I'am on topic, not every T-72BA have this engine, not every T-72BA have Sosna-U sight, not every T-72BA have Kontakt-5 ERA, it is simple.

In theory can be many things. You really like to show your knowledge and talk about things unrelated to subject. We are now comparing characteristics, you do not need to show me anything, provide comparison, I am interested.

No You don't understand, I do not talk about theory, but about reality. Maybe read some good books of respected western authors like Richard P. Hunnicutt.

The maximum power of western engines used in 3rd generation MBT's range from 1,800HP to 2,000HP, but due to safety reasons power is governed to 1,500HP.

Simple as that.

 

[militarysta]

I agree, for that reason this is forum

With time I'll have comparison, but you can start now.

Ok, so first - mobility.

In Ob.184A/A1 (T-72BA) You haven't change engine - in 2003 had been demonstrated prototype with S-92S2 engine (1000HP) and with slighty better transmision. In serial T-72BA there is only W-84MS engine And it's still the same W-84 engine known from Ob.184. Clou:
T-72BA weight 44,5t, have power to weight ratio 18,87HP/t and ground pressure 0,90kg/cm2. T-72BA have false pivot around one track -so it can made true pivot around vechicle axis. This engine have low air flow not adopted to the deser conditions -but this is detail. In T-72B/BA driver have 3gauges to watch and 3 pedals and 3 levers to actuate. It difficult to drive - especially in hard terein or in forest. And what sucks the most: fix stering radious is depending on the gear engaged. T-72BA have max 60km/h on foward, and what again sucks: only 4km/h on reverse!. What is weak again: time for 0-32km/h is 24-30s. W-84MS engine can be replaced in 23h, and have life time about 700h, and suspension have 250-280mm up and 92-111mm down from static equilibrium position.


Leopard-2A4:
Leopard-2A4 weight 55,5t, havepower to weight ratio 27,3HP/t and ground pressure 0,83kg/cm2. Leopard-2 have true pivot around vechicle axis In Leopard-2 driver have 2 pedals to watch and one steering wheel, and one levers to actuate. It easy to drive in forest on hills. Leopard-2A4 have max 72m/h on foward, and what is good again: 32km/h on reverse!. What is strong point again: time for 0-32km/h is 6s. MB873 engine can be replaced in 15-20minutes, and have life time about 3000h, and suspension have 350mm up and 170mm down from static equilibrium position.


So, where is better mobility?

Next will be armour protection, and again -it wll be fun.


ps.

Leopard 80s protection level and huge weak zone

Pffff to compare with what? Ob.184?
based on Chlopotov blog:

(and this upper is part of inner soviet tank biuletyn)


And here You have compare this "huge weak zone" on Leopard-2 with Ob.188 - erly T-90 with cast turret -it almoust the same like cast turret in Ob.184 9T-72B)

 

[Damian]

Ok, so first - mobility.

In Ob.184A/A1 (T-72BA) You haven't change engine - in 2003 had been demonstrated prototype with S-92S2 engine (1000HP) and with slighty better transmision. In serial T-72BA there is only W-84MS engine And it's still the same W-84 engine known from Ob.184. Clou:
T-72BA weight 44,5t, have power to weight ratio 18,87HP/t and ground pressure 0,90kg/cm2. T-72BA have false pivot around one track -so it can't made true pivot around vechicle axis. This engine have low air flow not adopted to the desert conditions -but this is detail. In T-72B/BA driver have 3 gauges to watch and 3 pedals and 3 levers to actuate. It difficult to drive - especially in hard terein or in forest. And what sucks the most: fix stering radious is depending on the gear engaged. T-72BA have max 60km/h on foward, and what again sucks: only 4km/h on reverse!. What is weak again: time for 0-32km/h is 24-30s. W-84MS engine can be replaced in 23h, and have life time about 700h, and suspension have 250-280mm up and 92-111mm down from static equilibrium position.

(and this upper is part of inner soviet tank biuletyn)

Biuletyn = bulletin.

@Militarysta I slightly corrected some mistakes. Try to write slower, but more correct.

BTW Did You recived my message that I send to You?

 

[hest]

You should get your comparison right because now you made big error.

We are comparing today's modernisation, T-72BA. Signed contracts in current implementation, are for T-72BA modernisation with all mentioned characteristics (you know contract in detail ? I guess, no)

Point was, how, according to you, 80s Leopard 2A4 has more value (whatever that is) than modernised T-72BA. That was just BS to make your calculations right for you ??

So what value are we comparing in today's situation (deployement of modern threats, tanks, anti-taank weapons)

On very brief explanation:

Protection level, late 80s Leopard 2A4 and T-72B model 1989 (both equivalent and vulnerable against today's weapons)

New FCS with structure and elements of Kalina (you even know what that is ?), Sosna-U sight, ability to fire guided rounds - Older FCS with structure at 80s level and outdated first generation thermal sight.

Complete refurbishment with use of modern elements, transmission, engine - Old vintage 80s Leopard 2A4.

New more powerfull gun/missile launcher 2A46-M5 against old RH-L/44.

So how can someone consider A4 in current operation to have higher value for army ??

Ok, so first - mobility.

In Ob.184A/A1 (T-72BA) You haven't change engine - in 2003 had been demonstrated prototype with S-92S2 engine (1000HP) and with slighty better transmision. In serial T-72BA there is only W-84MS engine And it's still the same W-84 engine known from Ob.184. Clou:
T-72BA weight 44,5t, have power to weight ratio 18,87HP/t and ground pressure 0,90kg/cm2. T-72BA have false pivot around one track -so it can made true pivot around vechicle axis. This engine have low air flow not adopted to the deser conditions -but this is detail. In T-72B/BA driver have 3gauges to watch and 3 pedals and 3 levers to actuate. It difficult to drive - especially in hard terein or in forest. And what sucks the most: fix stering radious is depending on the gear engaged. T-72BA have max 60km/h on foward, and what again sucks: only 4km/h on reverse!. What is weak again: time for 0-32km/h is 24-30s. W-84MS engine can be replaced in 23h, and have life time about 700h, and suspension have 250-280mm up and 92-111mm down from static equilibrium position.

You here made the wrong comparison. T-72BA, new engine V-92S2 and wrong figures for old vintage T-72B which do not reflect it after overhaul with modern elements (you know on what it consists ? No)

Leopard-2A4:
Leopard-2A4 weight 55,5t, havepower to weight ratio 27,3HP/t and ground pressure 0,83kg/cm2. Leopard-2 have true pivot around vechicle axis In Leopard-2 driver have 2 pedals to watch and one steering wheel, and one levers to actuate. It easy to drive in forest on hills. Leopard-2A4 have max 72m/h on foward, and what is good again: 32km/h on reverse!. What is strong point again: time for 0-32km/h is 6s. MB873 engine can be replaced in 15-20minutes, and have life time about 3000h, and suspension have 350mm up and 170mm down from static equilibrium position.


So, where is better mobility?

Again incorrect figures for T-72B, invalid comparison.

Next will be armour protection, and again -it wll be fun.


ps.

Pffff to compare with what? Ob.184?
based on Chlopotov blog:

(and this upper is part of inner soviet tank biuletyn)

Comparison of T-72B model 1989 (T-72BA) with Leopard 2A4, equivalent, A4 is equally outdated against weapons in use today.

You know what is that mi;itary journal you use as source ? I'll later show you something.

And here You have compare this "huge weak zone" on Leopard-2 with Ob.188 - erly T-90 with cast turret -it almoust the same like cast turret in Ob.184 9T-72B)

I do not understand, comparison is for T-72B model 1989 which is equivalent of T-72BA, not T-90. You want to dissimulate Leopard 2A4 huge weak zone ? Sorry, it is vulnerable and not any better.

 

[hest]

So why You make such hard conclusions, that T-72BA FCS is definetly better than leopard 2A4 FCS?

That FCS shares elements and structure with Kalina, you compare that with outdated 80s FCS and outdated first generation thermals.

Not to mention that T-72BA up to this date do not have full hunter-killer system... it does not have even semi hunter-killer system as more modern M1A1 variants.

You should inform yourself because you show no knowledge at all about Russian FCS.

Another note about sights. Leopard 2 is no secret for Russia. Panoramic sight Peri was tested by USSR in 1990 and served as evaluation and developement of modern Russian sights and FCS:
http://btvt.narod.ru/raznoe/vbtt_1990_prizel.htm

1) LAHAT can be retrofitted with any tank without major FCS upgrades. As for maturity I do not base on silly national pride to compare equipment.
2) GLATGM's are not 100% accurate, saying that You are capable to guide it directly in to weak zone at 5,000m range is... unrealistic, saying it politely.

Leopard 2A4 is compatible with Lahat same as 1980s T-72B is compatible with Invar, ha ha. Figure what that means by yourself.

You have no idea about accuracy of such guidance system, so better do not argue because I want to engage in interesting discussion, not answering to ignorance and non mature attitude.

Do You consider ergonomics, easy maintnance etc,

There is complete overhaul with use of modern elements, and vintage 80s Leopard with no modernisation at all.

Yes You are, because You seems to focus only on one single aspect without comparing exact details.

I explained on my other posts on what aspects we base our comparison to evaluate combat value (For Militarysta it has strange meaning).

I'am on topic, not every T-72BA have this engine, not every T-72BA have Sosna-U sight, not every T-72BA have Kontakt-5 ERA, it is simple.

Contract in implementation today, modernisation aquired now by Russian army, is it difficult to focus?

No You don't understand, I do not talk about theory, but about reality. Maybe read some good books of respected western authors like Richard P. Hunnicutt.

The maximum power of western engines used in 3rd generation MBT's range from 1,800HP to 2,000HP, but due to safety reasons power is governed to 1,500HP.

Simple as that.

You know, T-72, T-90 variants all use just different versions based on the same V-92 engine which has been uprated to 1000...1200 hp and more. But we focus on comparison, not theoretical games. Understand the difference ?

 

[Damian]

That FCS shares elements and structure with Kalina, you compare that with outdated 80s FCS and outdated first generation thermals.

I try one time again... Did You compared ergonomics, Hunter-Killer capabilities, stabilization data (errors in mrad's) etc?

Or Your opinion is based only on new thermal sight, and common components of a sight not FCS, with new FCS Kalina?

You should inform yourself because you show no knowledge at all about Russian FCS.

Another note about sights. Leopard 2 is no secret for Russia. Panoramic sight Peri was tested by USSR in 1990 and served as evaluation and developement of modern Russian sights and FCS:
ИСПЫТАНИЯ ЗАПАДНОГЕРМАНСКОГО ДНЕВНОГО КОМАНДИРСКОГО ПАНОРАМИЧЕСКОГО ПРИБОРА-ПРИЦЕЛА

Once again, show me any Russian tank, besides T-90MS, upgraded T-72B or Ukrainian T-84M Oplot and T-64E, with a full hunter killer capability, T-72BA do not have hunter killer capability in it's FCS.

And don't try to lecture me, I spent several years of my life learning about tanks, and I'm not prone to propaganda... especially the one from BTVT,

Leopard 2A4 is compatible with Lahat same as 1980s T-72B is compatible with Invar, ha ha. Figure what that means by yourself.

You have no idea about accuracy of such guidance system, so better do not argue because I want to engage in interesting discussion, not answering to ignorance and non mature attitude.

1) This means nothing,
2) And what idea You have about accuracy of GLATGM's? Did You ever seen how a tank looks at 5,000m in optics of most tanks sights? It is just a blob, a point, and You think You will be able to such place a sights crosshair and system will be able to guide missile directly in to a weak zone?

What is this a discussion with computer games fan? It is just immposible to do so. Even Americans were pefectly acknowleded with this problem, this is why when modernized M1 tanks recive new sights with 3x, 6x, 10x, 13x, 25x and 50x zoom, so they can be much more effective in long range targets finding, identification and more precisise aiming. With a much lower magnification in sights, it is far more difficult to aim precizely in a specific spot on a tank, not matter if You use conventional or guided munitions.

There is complete overhaul with use of modern elements, and vintage 80s Leopard with no modernisation at all.

I ask again because it seems You do not understand, read carefully.

Did You had opportunity to use FCS of both tanks, to compare ease of use, ergonomics, maintainability? Did You used both tanks?

I explained on my other posts on what aspects we base our comparison to evaluate combat value (For Militarysta it has strange meaning).

No, You only explained that for You, a good comparrision is a comparision where You will choose only such characteristics, that will show Your beloved tank in better light.

How we should treat this?

I'am honest right now, I do not allways agree with Militarysta, especially over Leopard 2, I do not like this tank, and have my own reasons to not like it. But what You are doing right now is just... I don't even find a words to describe it.

Contract in implementation today, modernisation aquired now by Russian army, is it difficult to focus?

No, it is difficult to understand Your way of thinking. You seems to not understand that T-72BA being a simple overhaul, means that there are no single standard for tanks designated as T-72BA. In fact this refurbishment depends on how much money, can Russian MoD spent on it.

In one contract they will be able to deeply upgrade these tanks, in a second one they will only have money for basic repairs and refurbishment to zero miles, zero hours condition. This is the case. ANd I completely not understand what You want to prove here? Thar Russia have a new "super tank" against evil capitalists from NATO?

T-72BA is not a super tank, and neither is something worth to be excited with.

You know, T-72, T-90 variants all use just different versions based on the same V-92 engine which has been uprated to 1000...1200 hp and more. But we focus on comparison, not theoretical games. Understand the difference ?

Yes I perfectly understand Your mentality... talk a nonsense about majority of own tanks to show them as some super machines, and completely ignore achievements of imagined enemy to show how it's tanks are inferior.

I know Your type of people perfectly.

And beofre You say something stupid about me. Ask other users on this forum, I allways defended Soviet, Russian and Ukrainian military technology against unreasonable critics. But at the same time I will not agree with complete nonsense.

 

[hest]

I try one time again... Did You compared ergonomics, Hunter-Killer capabilities, stabilization data (errors in mrad's) etc?

Or Your opinion is based only on new thermal sight, and common components of a sight not FCS, with new FCS Kalina?

You initially said, modernisation consisted of just sight Sosna-U and not FCS (you know what you said ??)

It is unified with FCS Kalina, includes fully stabilised modern multichannel sight, modern ballistic computer including processing of data as desviation of barrel of more accurate and powerfull gun 2A46-M5, ability to fire guided rounds, etc, you compare it with vintage 80s FCS of Leopard, and it's outdated thermal sight.

----------------------------
Since you so far discuss without providing anything usefull for comparison, I will proceed instead of replying as it is not worth.

 

[Damian]

Oh god... talk with complete m...

You initially said, modernisation consisted of just sight Sosna-U and not FCS (you know what you said ??)

Are You capable to read in English?

Read again:

I try one time again... Did You compared ergonomics, Hunter-Killer capabilities, stabilization data (errors in mrad's) etc?

Or Your opinion is based only on new thermal sight, and common components of a sight not FCS, with new FCS Kalina?

Where did I say that T-72BA have newer FCS? Where You uneducated prick?!

It is unified with FCS Kalina, includes fully stabilised modern multichannel sight, modern ballistic computer including processing of data as desviation of barrel of more accurate and powerfull gun 2A46-M5, ability to fire guided rounds, etc, you compare it with vintage 80s FCS of Leopard, and it's outdated thermal sight.

So it have nothing better than any western FCS considered as modern.

Western MBT's had MRS (Muzzle Reference Sensor) in the early 1980's, so in case of barrel deflection, proper correction can be made by FCS, nothing new. 2A46M-5 is also nothing special, neither superior to western 120mm smoothbore guns. Firing GLATGM's with only LOS capability is useless in 90% of Europe. USAEUR estimated that in their sector most engagements during cold war would be below 1,500m (this was one of the reasons why West abandoned for a long time development of guided munitions for tanks), where do You want to use GLATGM's there? I could understand the ones with BLOS capabilities like XM1111 MRM, but GLATGM's like 9M112, 9M119 or Kombat can't do it.

LAHAT can be used in BLOS mode, less capable than XM1111 MRM, but still have it and can be integrated in to a tank without deep modifications.

T-72BA do not have Hunter-Killer capability, so it will be less effective in combat than even old Leopard 2A4.

Only thing that Leopard 2A4 have worse is thermal sight.

Since you so far discuss without providing anything usefull for comparison, I will proceed instead of replying as it is not worth.

And You are providing something usefull besides stupid advertisement? Go back to a computer games forums, and stop waste time of adult people kid. Because it is obvious that You have some inferiority complex against West and You need to prove everywhere Your side of the barricade superiority in everything... which is typical for fanboys, not matter what is the object of their excitement.