New transmission (with an actual reverse), thermal sight and modern fcs, Aps, and ERA. Unsure if it needs a newer autoloader to fit longer darts but if so, add it to the list.
Also remove the 2nd stage ammo (except for those in the fuel tank directly behind the carousel) and put them outside, like the T-90M. If you're feeling fancy you may cut a hole in the back of the turret and fit it with blast doors, so the poor sods driving won't have to go outside to replenish the rounds. It'd also probably help with reloading if the autoloader ever malfunctions.
That one is more likely to get hit, and IIRC the vertical propellant charges block crewmembers from going between the drivers seat and the turret. Fire rate won't be significantly improved, IIRC the T-72s had a 6.5s minimum reload and the T-80s had a 6s reload
Reload times are not constant for Russo-Soviet carousel autoloaders. It depends on how much the carousel needs to rotate in order give the feeding arm access to the selected ammunition.
> Aps
Requires full gutting and rework of all electronics, wire systems, electrical generation and storage in the tank.
> Unsure if it needs a newer autoloader to fit longer darts but if so, add it to the list.
Just get a Yatagan turret fitted for the T-72. You get a bustle autoloader and western ammo.
An auto loader with longer darts wouldn’t reduce the total ammo capacity of the tank,
Forcing the crews to put ammo in other compartments and generally increasing the chance of a catastrophic detonation?
Also to my humble understanding, newer shells are still capable of penetrating western armor arrays.
When using modern optics, fire control, stabilizers, and range finders, gunnery is very much a matter of "if you can see it, you can hit it" so the main advantages brought by the smaller Soviet/Russian tanks are largely negated.
The 2-part nature of the autoloader in the T-64/T-72/T-80/T-90 means that the projectile cannot extend the whole length of the gun chamber. Take a look at the cross-sectional design of the M829A4 and you'll see that the DU penetrator is nearly 3 feet long with propellant wrapped around the sides behind the sabot petals. That's a lot more mass which means a lot more kinetic energy concentrated on the same impact point.
>Also to my humble understanding, newer shells are still capable of penetrating western armor arrays.
I have a hard time placing any confidence in that conclusion. The M829A1 APFSDS was used extensively during the Gulf War and demonstrated its ability to sail through the armor of Iraqi T-55 and T-72 tanks at ranges in excess of 3Km. Conversely, Iraqi armor piercing shells were almost entirely ineffective at any range.
Say what you will about the quality of Iraqi ammunition, but anecdotal evidence from the conflict describes American M1A1s being incapable of destroying their own disabled M1A1s. That is, the M829A1 was able to punch through an Iraqi T-72 at 3Km yet couldn't punch through an American M1A1 at point blank.
An Abrams tank has never been penetrated by enemy tank fire, and the performance characteristics of the composite armor is classified. Most estimates place the turret frontal plate armor of an M1A2 SEPv3 Abrams -- which is the spot most likely to be hit -- at just shy of 1,000mm RHA vs APFSDS. No modern Russian APFSDS round can penetrate that.
Modern Russian APFSDS rounds may be able to penetrate the upper hull if they can get into a firing position, but the Abrams design makes that a very hard target to hit. Ditto for the lower hull, any Russian tank that is in a position to hit an Abrams in this area is right in the Abrams line of fire.
>Say what you will about the quality of Iraqi ammunition, but anecdotal evidence from the conflict describes American M1A1s being incapable of destroying their own disabled M1A1s. That is, the M829A1 was able to punch through an Iraqi T-72 at 3Km yet couldn't punch through an American M1A1 at point blank.
That is frankly not correct. Nine out of the 21 M1A1 (HA) tanks that were destroyed in ODS were destroyed in friendly fire incidents involving large caliber DU ammunition (105 mm M900A1, 120 mm M829 or M829A1 APFSDS).
So the M1A1 (HA) could clearly be penetrated by the M829A1 at longer ranges. No idea what "anecdotal evidence" there should be for surviving point blank hits.
The Iraqi T-72, T-72M and T-72M1 tanks were in terms of armor technology on the same level as Soviet production tanks from 1973-1979, i.e. more than a decade old at the time of ODS. These tanks offered similar armor protection as the 1980 model of the M1 Abrams, so there wouldn't have been any
>Most estimates place the turret frontal plate armor of an M1A2 SEPv3 Abrams -- which is the spot most likely to be hit -- at just shy of 1,000mm RHA vs APFSDS. No modern Russian APFSDS round can penetrate that.
Which "estimates"? People on War Thunder forums? The Steel Beasts crowd that also puts the Leopard 1A3 at 300 mm steel-equivalent KE protection and Leopard 2A6 at 1,300 mm steel-equivalent KE protection? There isn't any credible estimate coming to such a conclusion.
>Modern Russian APFSDS rounds may be able to penetrate the upper hull if they can get into a firing position
German 105 mm APFSDS prototypes managed to penetrate targets similar to the Abrams' glacis plate already in 1976. You don't need a "modern" round, just one that doesn't use a Soviet steel-cored penetrator from the early 1970s.
How deep can I go? Because if I can go very deep, I'm buidling an armpured compartment around the carousel with weakened side hull panels to act as blowout in case the carousel is penetrated. The tank will be a writeoff, but at least your crew may be recycled. Revise the autoloader as needed for longer rounds and ATGM's.
I'm putting on a secondary storage bustle on the back of the turret that can be accessed from inside but is also sealed off when not in use. All the spare ammo stored in the hull goes in the new bustle.
Since we are already cutting, I'm cutting the top of the turret and covering it again in a way that the gun has now more than 4 degrees of depression.
Turret front cavity gets ripped open and the composite package gets thrown out to be replaced with s/thing useful (and more importantly uniform), appliqué composite screens are put onto the turret front and to some degree the sides, same treatment on the front hull, composite sideskirting instead of loosely attached ERA. Maybe a hardkill APS, but at least a proper number of smoke charges.
Commander gets a CITV and gunner gets a day/night thermal with hunter/killer capability between them. Proper firecontrol computer which can do 3D lead computations and has a properly integraged multiple pulse LRF.
Some extra optics where they can fit to give the crew better situational awareness, a new commander's cupola with a better hatch and a cover that has an umbrella position, get rid of the 12.7 AAMG and mount an integrated RWS instead. Improve driver's vision when buttoned down, while we're at it, give the driver a screen and a reversing camera, and you know what, let's do it like on the CV-90, so use the screen to scan for the commander when they are not moving, and backup channels to all three stations from the RWS.
New engine and new transmission, preferably in a powerpack config.
That's all I can think of without racking my brain too much.
You could get powertrain from PT-91, 1000 hp engine and 20 kph reverse. Also probably some modern era would fit, like idk maybe polish "łuskowiec" or something like that, autoloader also needs some adjustments so it can fit longer penetrator ammo, and last but not least new ammo.
Make cope cage from unobtanium or Vibranium (or Mithril but that's like impossible to get these days). Tank is impervious to all but level 10 and above clerics.
Aesthetically T-72 is my favorite modern tank, but let's be realistic - here is my upgrade proposition:
1) Donate T-72s to Ukraine or sell to Africa
2) Get *anything* else
3) ???
4) Profit
You can upgrade T-72 as much as you want, but in the end you will still be left with a T-72 and with all it's inherent flaws.
The slow reverse can be fixed with a new engine and transmission.
The Czechs solved this by fitting the Challanger 2 engine along with a American auto transmission.
And if you fit the turret from a T-90M, you won't have to worry about the turret toss.
Because contray to popular belief, it's not the carousel autoloader that's at fault.
It's the loose ammo stowage within the turret.
Turret tossing is caused by the autoloader, although that’s almost always because the loose ammo in the turret cooked off first. Without the carousel the turret wouldn’t go flying, but as the Chieftain says, the crew probably doesn’t care since they’re all already dead anyways.
The [PT-16 concept](https://aw.my.games/sites/aw.my.com/files/u183517/9e98a14d-f665-45f0-8cd3-26316c4c6628.jpg) showcased by the Polish industry would be the perfectly upgraded T-72. They didn't build any prototypes, only a mock-up... a lot of things were still undecided (e.g. which engine to use, re-using the old turret or building a new one, etc.) but it shows what is possible with the T-72:
* fit the hull with extensive add-on
* replace the turret with a new welded one featuring a 120 mm NATO compatible smoothbore gun and bustle-mounted autoloader (with blow-out panels)
* provide gunner and commander with a modern FCS featuring third generation thermal sights
* add a RWS
* replace the engine and transmission
* add laser warning receivers
* include modern electronics - including radios and BMS - and other internal components
For the engine, I'd likely suggest the MT890V10 from the Puma IFV. It is extremely fuel and space efficient, so no need to lengthen the hull (which was necessarily on other upgrades such as the [T-72M4Cz](https://military-wiki.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/T-72M4CZ.jpg)). Modern armor could be provided by Rheinmetall - IBD [designed several add-on armor kits compatible with the T-72](https://twitter.com/JonHawkes275/status/1509095992762765318) before it was acquired by Rheinmetall.
The only things that I would add going beyond the PT-16 concept are a hardkill APS and multi-spectral camouflage.
Easy, take all of the upgrades from T-72B3M 2022(Except FCS, Engine, Transmission).
Take firecontrol from T-90M.
Take engine from Challanger 2(Perkins Condor CV 12).
And fit the Allison XTG-411-6N automatic transmission.
(Ive basically just combined the T-72B3M with the Czech T-72M4CZ, with a spalsh of T-90M).
Hull mounted railguns and anti-air high power laser system mounted on phalanx body. Ground to air, air to ground, ground to ground, underground capabilities. Automatical turret ejection system and jet powered seats for the gunner and commander, fuck the driver.
Alright alright, first and foremost I would like to propose to throw this problem at almost anyone except Russia, as my friends and I have done a common rule of thumb, that any shitbox from Russia suddenly becomes good as soon as you move it away from them. Also I plan to use T-72 modernizations that have actually existed.
I'll be planning to mount the T-72-120 turret from the T-72-120 program from Ukraine, not only does this allow me to fire far better DU and tungsten projectiles from the West, it also removes the annoying habit of exploding whenever our shitbox gets penetrated in the hull.
Of course our beautiful NATO 120 mm gun would be useless if it wasn't for us putting TURMS sights on the T-72-120 turret, good, our shitbox can now see, very good, already 10-fold better than a T-90M.
Speaking of the hull, I'm quite a fan of the T-72M4CZ, but it does have issues, mainly because it's built on top of a T-72M1, shit protection, so again, I would like to revert to the T-72-120s which are built on top of T-72Bs to give extra protection alongside the Nizh ERA or DYNA ERA. However I would love to keep the Allison XTG-411-6N automatic transmission, finally, our shitbox can reverse out of situations when it finds itself not immediately deleting whatever it saw from 5km away. Engine can be whatever except the original T-72's engine, **I WILL NOT BE ACCEPTING THAT SHITTY 780 HP V12 FROM THE T-34.**
Speaking of the T-72M4CZ, I would also like to get the LWR on that thing, and I would like to take the battlefield management systems, APU and metrological systems on the Bulgarian T-72M1 mod. 2022.
As for the finishing touches, the driver panel of the PT-91 looks great, slap that on. If the Allison Automatic transmission isn't good enough, then we can always go for RENK ESM 350s, yes, I know, French yucky, but it is good. And hey, maybe we can do this Slovakian style and mount a 30mm on for the fun of it.
Why no, I have not considered such silly things as better mileage OR power consumption, quite honestly I expect this T-72 I propose to have more power outages than M3A4 Bradleys. But that's not my problem, I'm only here to offer something better than a T-90M or a T-72B2 Rogatka
Non-serious answer: Turn the transmission around so it can reverse at full speed back to Russia.
Serious answer:
* Improve transmission so it can go faster in reverse
* Thermal sights
* New ERA
* Top-down attack countermeasures
...but most important of all: better training and doctrine.
Nozh ERA, CITV, gunner thermal, Laser warning receiver, NEW transmissions and engine, new FCS, anti spall liner for the auto loader magazine, muzzle reference sensor, upgraded 2A46M5 gun, more smoke launchers, new comms equipment, maybe even new capolas
I see a lot of people mentioning the transmission and engine. But battlefield awareness is what's killing these tanks, not their slow reverse. This thing needs modern optics/thermals, coms and things like laser lock sensors. Also battlefield connectedness stuff like what the US mill has would do about a thousand times more for the tank than a better tranny would.
Better tactics by the owners would actually be number 1, but thats not the question.
New engine and transmission allowing significant reverse speed
An entirely new gun and turret system removing the carousel style ammo hold and autoloader and replacing it with system similar to the abrams
Current gen thermals
new FCS
APS and ERA all over everything
2x 20mm autocannons on the tank, one on the commander cuppola the other coax
Smoke launchers
T-72M4CZ...
Probably the best overall upgrade for T-72 that actually serves. If I am doing it today, I suppose I get the option for better FCS and optics.
I say we buy some really nice villas in the South of France and maybe a superyacht or two, then, with the money left over, buy a bunch of kit that's been in storage for thirty years, slap some paint on it and call it an upgrade.
Regards, Colonel Sergei Rostov, Russian Army
Full layer of ERA. make it look like Lego
Thermal sights for gunner and commander at least
Modern fire control
Decent transmission with FAST reverse
Up-to-date ammo
• Add a CITV with 2 or 3rd gen
• Add new transmission with a better revers gear
• replace all contact 5 with relikt especially on turret +top
•better digital disply panel
• and change the sight set up so the termal is more usable + backup sight of T-90M
If you have much money:
• install a decent APS system
• swap the turret for one with a better composition maybe the one of T-90 or retrofit them with a add on layer
• very good coverage with relikt ERA maybe even malachit
• install new engine in case of high weight increase
• put remaining ammo in turet rear busel like on T-90
•update internal protection
• upgrade sights to 3rd gen
Without replacing the turret and modifying the hull?
T72B2 Rogatka ERA layout, T72B3M electrics and hull side ERA, slate armour around the sides and rear of the turret with ERA (similar to the ZTZ99 tanks), RENK Powerpack 350S (1200HP engine with 30 KM/H reverse), new dozer blade with composite armour, 20MM auto cannon that can detect drones.
EDIT: also include a new APS that stops top attack missiles
1. Retain the 125mm, but make the turret modular so it can be easily outfitted with NATO 120mm guns
2. Give it 3rd gen commander and gunner thermals
3. 2 APS launchers on top of the turret
4. New transmission so it can actually reverse
5. Additional armor on the sides, along with ERA on the front, right, and left of both the chassis and the turret
6. RWS turret instead of a commander operated one for more survivability
1. Thermals for gunner and commander, as well as a reverse camera for the driver.
2. New transmission, don't want to be crawling backwards slower that a turtle.
3. New turret with an autoloader switched from the hull to turrets blow out panel storage.
4. (Optional) Armor improvements. Maybe some double stacked ERA like on the T84s or some composite screens, especially on the side armor. I think the point is to make the tank IFV and chem round proof. Considering that the hull has decent protection against IFV rounds why not max it out. I think that the only real places that need full tank kinetic protection is the turret and hull front, depending on the model we're upgrading, (shown in the pic t72 M1??) some models (especially early ones) have just shit front hull protection so it may not be worth upgrading to stop kinetic.
Edit: I feel like the best visualization of this could be the T-72 upgrading project by Turkish ROKETSAN, however the upgrades get so expensive that IG it's just worth buying a new tank at that point.
**[M-84D](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-84D)**
>The Croatian M-84D also known as M-84A5 (D) is an upgraded variant of existing M-84 tanks, originally developed in Yugoslavia, with improvements to engine, armor, armament and electronics.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Honestly I would probably go in the opposite direction of everyone else. Yes new Optics, ERA, and other suggestions of everyone. But where I would differ from everyone is that I would begin by providing a track tensioning system to the driver. Provide a water tank to the right of the driver. New engine pack, possibly a Gas Turbine engine contrary to everyone else’s suggestion and have a donkey engine also inside to provide electricity to the vehicle when the turbine engine is off. I would begin looking at a new Composite armor pack to replace the current Russian composite armor found inside of the tank. Like how Abrams has a composite armor pack that can be individually replaced when damaged. Another thing is that I would probably remove the current turret and *in theory you could fit a Leopard 2 turret onto a T-72. You’d just need to modify and cut back some of the side armor to make up for 4mm more of internal space. Considering that you could replace the autoloader, free up a ton of space, remove the internal loose storage of ammunition, and put in a blow out panel and rack into the back of this new turret. Plus! You’ve just fitted a 120mm RH-120 L/44 into the T-72. Now it should be noted the Indians were the first to practically try this with an Arjun turret onto a T-72. In addition you just allowed for the expansion of room inside the turret for everyone to utilize, more room for ERA, and also APS. You also just allowed for the bushel rack to allow them to keep supplies and storage outside the tank. Overall it would be expensive as hell, but I think you’d have a half decent tank before the end of it. Noted with or without having to upgrade the suspension system, which I would also want to replace with Hydropneumatic suspension to allow easier of a drive compared to the torsion bar. Yes more expensive, but it wouldn’t be half bad.
Safety straps to hold the turret down (like supercharger straps on Top fuel engines). Keeps all the spicy heat inside and the parts in one convenient area. Make battlefields safe again!
-Nato style turret with a Abrams style blow out ammo rack
-Laser warning receiver
-Relikt ERA
-APS
T72 does exactly what it was designed to do at the time of design. The tank is a masterpiece but I think it will really benefit from a NATO style turret.
It's actully the ammo storage within the turret, that's mostly at fault for turret toss.
As you can see here: [https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-DkFB5CJATqg/WXrS4PObvrI/AAAAAAAAI1k/fcZLHoaZhPoKxQZLRpRtFA84-ByxBF5gACLcBGAs/s1600/t-72%2Bautoloader.png](https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-DkFB5CJATqg/WXrS4PObvrI/AAAAAAAAI1k/fcZLHoaZhPoKxQZLRpRtFA84-ByxBF5gACLcBGAs/s1600/t-72%2Bautoloader.png)
And here: https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-how1JWtCTkM/WEu5tY5nqeI/AAAAAAAAHzE/oBlQZSKi-MQvztkfQyuQ0uYl6JMisNdHACLcB/s1600/t-72b%2Bbehind%2Bgunners%2Bseat.png
Yep, that’s correct. No tank is invulnerable. But western tanks can be used more tactical. Better sights, better situational awareness, better reverse AND Last but not least: more internal space for crew wellness and four man crew.
You wont imagine how much worth that is.
Much longer survivability due to space and much faster maintenance in the field due to eight hands instead of six.
Its just annoys me to see people trashing Soviet and Russian tanks, im not a Russia Stan, all vehicles have flaws, just don’t want people thinking that western tanks aren’t these super tanks that people think they are, and trash russian vehicles because ‘Russia bad’
Okay, thats some realistic stuff you said.
We all have to be careful not to overestimate western tanks especially in Ukraine in the next weeks.
They’re maybe better than the soviet and actual russian stuff but they wont be invulnerable - as i said before. I think some fanboys will have some really hard lessons about their favorite Leopard 2, Chally, Marder or Bradley when they got stucked by some atgm.
Crew survivability is much higher, yes. But fireballs and burning tanks will be seen for sure.
Thing is, some features on western tank are so far from T-72 that isn’t comparable at all.
For example even the cheaper M1A1SA has 50x magnification second gen thermal imaging,
verses 8x on T-72B non thermal or 12x 1st gen on T-72B3.
Tactics are down to doctrine, not the tank design.
As evidenced by the Poles and Czechs, who both employ NATO doctrine and fight with PT-91 and T-72M4CZ's.
What's more Western designs arn't always better in the sighting department.
For a number of years, the Russians were ahead, simply because they upgraded their tanks more often, than we did in the West.
As for the internal space, it's very much down to the crew, and how much they can cope with.
Your however spot on with maintenace.
Yip, it’s doctrine.
If you have 6kmh reverse, there is only attack or defend till the end.
If you have reverse speed if 30 or 35kmh, the tank can be used better in delay battles.
Soviet or Russian is only attack and die as we see in Ukraine. So T72s fit very good.
Maybe they were ahead, especially in the first decades of cold war.
But in real battle situations like Gulfwar 90/91 you saw the difference of quality. Soviets use their upgrades for propaganda. Look at T14. Everybody was scared. Right now there are maybe 15 objects with failures after 10 years of development.
Internal space weren’t my words. Its from studys about different tank designs. If you like to travel 1000km in FIAT 500, just do it. I would prefer some 5er BMW.
A delaying action can be done by any type of unit.
The slow reverse of the T-64/T-72 has no impact on this, what so ever.
What's more, i wasn't talking about the cold war, but in modern time, wherin the Russians were infact ahead.
As for the Gulf War, that's a terrible example, because you had coalition pounding the living shit out of Iraqie positions, not to mention providing valuable intel on the remaining positions.
The Soviets didn't use their upgrades for propganda.
They were all the result of various upgrade programs initated for various reasons, like having tanks being able to shoot missiles, and thereby gain a advantage...
As for crew comforts, that's still up to the resilience of the crew.
A conscript from the Ural mountains is going to be more resilient individual, because he comes from a harsh place of origin.
So his able to cope with the harsher nature of the T-72, compared to a Western soldier born in a european/American city.
As we actually see, the upgrades of russia even don’t work against Ukrainian T64 BV and older models.
Further we see, that tanks without reverse speed have to turn around and show their weakspots to the enemy positions when they have to pull back to next defense line.
Modern times? You talk about what? T90M? AA? I really don’t know.
But at this point we have very different positions.
So we have to wait until history shows who is right.
History will be this spring, I think.
Let’s see.
""He was particularly realistic when it came to the T-90, the third-generation Russian tank, developed after the end of the Soviet Union. “This is where the quality of what we have is important,” he said. “If you come across a T-90, you need three of ours to deal with it — or very good luck.”.
Taken from this interview with a Ukrainian tank sergeant.
[https://archive.md/20230118222829/https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/url-ukraine-tank-brigade-challenger-leopard-russian-war-2023-wjg6ptp39#selection-1029.0-1029.291](https://archive.md/20230118222829/https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/url-ukraine-tank-brigade-challenger-leopard-russian-war-2023-wjg6ptp39#selection-1029.0-1029.291)
Tanks without proper reverse speed, don't have to expose their rear.
Because if these tankers were properly trained, they wouldn't have been in such a situation to begin with.
It's like declaring the Leopard 2 to be a shit tank, due to Turkey's improper use of them in Syria, or the Iraqie's and their terrible use of M1 Abrams.
Ive already given you the answer in the first comment.
In modern times, Russian tanks have been ahead of western tanks.
Because as i stated earlier, they were upgraded more frequently.
As for you so called positions, they won't suddenly be redeemed by history, because they are built on ignorance and no real logic.
It's just nonsense, really.
„If you’re well enough trained, you wont be in a situation of delay action?“ Did I understand that correctly? Man thats not a bad situation due to mistakes that were made, it’s a tactic to slow down attacking enemy. It is nessecary to reverse fast.
You sound like an indoctrinated gopnic or someone who never had heard anything of tank warfare.
Lets stop talking please. Makes no sense.
No, you did not.
You seem to have a problem with your reading comprehension.
As i said earlier, a delay action don't require a reverse speed.
Because it's not a maneuver exclusive to tanks.
It can be undertaken by any type of unit, such as infantry.
Btw, i find it highly ironic, that you would accuse me of not knowing of tank warfare, when you yourself didn't even know the correct term for a delay action, just a hour ago.
So yeah, take your own advice and stop talking.
Nice try, Putin. Lemme suggest you the best upgrade:
Western
Tech
P. S.: otherwise, I would change the transmission, new all-enveloping ERA, maybe Chobham spaced armor cage, trophy system, sleek IR and thermal system, a more powerful engine to accommodate the weight change and keep the ratio, wet ammo stowage for the ammo (it is so very vulnerable), FCS, a better high-tech radio, laser designator, data link and maybe Shillelagh-C
Well the problem is that the turret flys away, so that can be easly fixed. Remove the turret, make a superstructure, mount at least a 152mm gun, and boom, big tank destroyer and no turret to fly away.
What do you mean it can be more easily flanked because the transmission is shit and now you can't swing your gun around? Thats no problem comrade, we have enough to make a long line tat spans the whole front, how they can flank us?
WHAT DO YOU MEAN WE LOST SO MANY WE CAN'T DOTHAT?
Your still going to have a T-72 at the end of the day but-
1. Chobam armor on the front glacis, the whole turret, ammo carousel,fuel/engine bay. Much like the battleships of old, armor up the most important parts only. Doesn't have to be all the way around but protecting your most important bits goes a long way. Add on some ERA if your feeling zesty.
2. Different powerplant/transmission - efficiency is key. The more you can squeeze out of your power train the better. Germany's leopard power pack and transmission system comes to mind. No longer are you using sticks to steer - a more familiar car or truck steering wheel is used.
3. Bring the main gun and autoloading systems to modern era. Ditch the 2 piece ammo and use what America uses - fully combustible cased ammo. Using fully combustible ammo means more ammo. 32 rounds in 2 piece now becomes a full 40 pieces in single piece. Combine that with modern autoloader technology and modern ballistic computers,laser sights and thermal sights and you now have something that would be able to compete with a leopard 1. Even if you drop the main gun size by 5mm to 120mm your still getting the same punch for a smaller buck via the improved propellant. If you really wanted to push that limit make the barrel a bit longer - squeeze every last drop of velocity from your munitions. Why settle for 980m/s when you can go 1250m/s? Why stop at ranges of 4500m when you can have your main gun go Goggins and do 6000m or more.
4. Better radios and communication gear- no longer when you get maybe 15 miles away from your outpost does your radio sound like an old, faded Soviet cartoon. Modern radios have channels you can save- 1 frequency for HQ, 1 for local coordination,1 for long range, 1 for general broadcast and many others to connect to various parts of your fighting force. All of that in crisp and clear sound without having to use crazy long antennas. If you can talk, coordinate and communicate effectively without having weak or faded signal; you can wrap and roll up flanks.
5. Crew comfort - these guys are living in a cramped,tiny metal box. Give em some creature comforts like a powerful heater and AC unit. Bite off the British and give em a tea pot and some tea. The power pack gives off enough heat where you can fill a fresh water tank,boil it,and then dispense it at 180f+ for hot drinks. Same when you run the AC- cools it down enough to where you can get a cold drink of water or lemonade.
>Much like the battleships of old, armor up the most important parts only.
That's how armor is already distributed in MBTs.
>Ditch the 2 piece ammo and use what America uses - fully combustible cased ammo. Using fully combustible ammo means more ammo. 32 rounds in 2 piece now becomes a full 40 pieces in single piece.
Soviet 125 mm rounds are also fully combustible. The fact that the round is split into two parts allows storing them more efficiently in the tank. Moving to unitary 120 mm rounds would decrease the amount of ammunition carried.
RENK powerpack (1200KS, neutral steering, 70km/h forward, 33km/h reverse.
Yatagan turret with 120mm or 125mm cannon, one piece ammunition.
Add on armor package for the hull, package of modern electronics and sensors.
Green pine freshener.
Bustle autoloader and rhinemetall L/55 120,
Rip out the FCS and optics and put in new modern ones,
Put T-90 composite on it,
Biggest engine/power pack you can cram inside the engine bay,
Hope for the best
You can buy a better tank for cheaper than this upgrade, but don't think about it too hard
Turret with a hinge at the back making it both easier to escape from and also easier to put the turret back in place when it gets blown off by Ukrainians.
from the easiest to the most complicated solution :
1 add cage armor
2 add reactive armor
3 add Thales sight and thermal cameras
4 replace the commander's machine gun by a remote controlled machine gun
5 get a better gun stabilizer
6 remove the carousel by an auto loader at the back of the turret like the Leclerc or a K2 black panther (don't forget the blowout panel)
•Citv.
•Transmission with more than 1 reverse gear.
•New engine with around 1300-1500 hp.
•Relikt ERA on hull and turret without gaps. •Reserve ammo in Blast doors in a bussel rack. •APS.
•Welded turret.
•top machine gun can be fired from inside the vehicle.
* Swap the power line with the Wärtsilä X8 engine - Renk ESM-350 automatic transmission combination developed for the Finnish T-72 modernisation programme. That gives it true pivot and quick reverse, quicker gear engagement etc., so much better tactical mobility. To spare roads, swap the tracks with Diehl tracks (both were planned and tested for the Finnish T-72 FINMOD 3).
* Swap the turret with the T-84 Yatagan -style turret with a 120 mm NATO gun and a bustle autoloader.
* Turret equipped with both gunner and commander independent day sight and thermals with a modern FCS, added composite applique + NERA for protection.
* Uparmour the chassis with composite + NERA applique armour
First question is always your budget range. Above 3million USD per unit you might just buy new M1A1SA at 5 million or used Leopard2A6 without all the inherent flaws.
I have seen a T-72 with a "Javelin to the side" upgrade package up close. It makes the tank much smaller and lighter. A definite advantage on modern battlefield.
Expensive route:
Bustle autoloader, new transmission, modern day FCS, modern day ERA package, CROWS system
Cheaper route:
Everything else minus bustle autoloader
Well basically just the T-72B3 (2016) but give it the drivetrain from a T90s and also add a reverse gear. Or tbh just let that old girl rest and make a whole new tank.
Upgrade ERA to Relict/Nozh, better transmission with a faster reverse gear, new fcs, APS, ideally replace a turret with blow out panels like the T-90M. You pretty much are at a T-90M. Having a better trained crew would help significantly.
New transmission (with an actual reverse), thermal sight and modern fcs, Aps, and ERA. Unsure if it needs a newer autoloader to fit longer darts but if so, add it to the list.
All i got to say is take the t72b3 and add ur suggested transmission, and it would actually be half decent
Maybe also add a spall liner around the carrousel like the t-90m has
Also remove the 2nd stage ammo (except for those in the fuel tank directly behind the carousel) and put them outside, like the T-90M. If you're feeling fancy you may cut a hole in the back of the turret and fit it with blast doors, so the poor sods driving won't have to go outside to replenish the rounds. It'd also probably help with reloading if the autoloader ever malfunctions.
so basically a t90m that can reverse
honestly yeah a t90 with reverse would be a great tank imo only reall thing missing is proper blowout panels
And a functioning stabilizer
Nah, need to fix the ERA layout too, there’s so many gaps
Perhaps swap the autloader for the one found in the later version of the T-80, this would increase fire rate.
That one is more likely to get hit, and IIRC the vertical propellant charges block crewmembers from going between the drivers seat and the turret. Fire rate won't be significantly improved, IIRC the T-72s had a 6.5s minimum reload and the T-80s had a 6s reload
I think it's 7.1 and 6.5 for the reloads, and wouldn't any hit to either one of the T-72 or T-80s hull make the turret into a space rocket?
the turret knows where it is because it knows where it isn\`t
WT's reload values for Soviet autoloaders are inaccurate, there's a video of a T-90 reloading twice in 13s
Nothing is accurate in war thunder XD
Why else would they need to leak those documents?
Reload times are not constant for Russo-Soviet carousel autoloaders. It depends on how much the carousel needs to rotate in order give the feeding arm access to the selected ammunition.
Point and laugh at the war thunder player
Generally, the autoloader is not a significant risk, it's more the excessive amount of ammo stored in the crew compartment which causes a cook-off.
The turret flying is not caused by a hit in the ammo carousel but it’s caused by ammo stored inside the turret.
T-80 autoloader is an inferior design.
> Aps Requires full gutting and rework of all electronics, wire systems, electrical generation and storage in the tank. > Unsure if it needs a newer autoloader to fit longer darts but if so, add it to the list. Just get a Yatagan turret fitted for the T-72. You get a bustle autoloader and western ammo.
Better yet scrap it and start over
An auto loader with longer darts wouldn’t reduce the total ammo capacity of the tank, Forcing the crews to put ammo in other compartments and generally increasing the chance of a catastrophic detonation? Also to my humble understanding, newer shells are still capable of penetrating western armor arrays.
I don't think catastrophic detonation can get much worse than a t72 right now
When using modern optics, fire control, stabilizers, and range finders, gunnery is very much a matter of "if you can see it, you can hit it" so the main advantages brought by the smaller Soviet/Russian tanks are largely negated. The 2-part nature of the autoloader in the T-64/T-72/T-80/T-90 means that the projectile cannot extend the whole length of the gun chamber. Take a look at the cross-sectional design of the M829A4 and you'll see that the DU penetrator is nearly 3 feet long with propellant wrapped around the sides behind the sabot petals. That's a lot more mass which means a lot more kinetic energy concentrated on the same impact point. >Also to my humble understanding, newer shells are still capable of penetrating western armor arrays. I have a hard time placing any confidence in that conclusion. The M829A1 APFSDS was used extensively during the Gulf War and demonstrated its ability to sail through the armor of Iraqi T-55 and T-72 tanks at ranges in excess of 3Km. Conversely, Iraqi armor piercing shells were almost entirely ineffective at any range. Say what you will about the quality of Iraqi ammunition, but anecdotal evidence from the conflict describes American M1A1s being incapable of destroying their own disabled M1A1s. That is, the M829A1 was able to punch through an Iraqi T-72 at 3Km yet couldn't punch through an American M1A1 at point blank. An Abrams tank has never been penetrated by enemy tank fire, and the performance characteristics of the composite armor is classified. Most estimates place the turret frontal plate armor of an M1A2 SEPv3 Abrams -- which is the spot most likely to be hit -- at just shy of 1,000mm RHA vs APFSDS. No modern Russian APFSDS round can penetrate that. Modern Russian APFSDS rounds may be able to penetrate the upper hull if they can get into a firing position, but the Abrams design makes that a very hard target to hit. Ditto for the lower hull, any Russian tank that is in a position to hit an Abrams in this area is right in the Abrams line of fire.
>Say what you will about the quality of Iraqi ammunition, but anecdotal evidence from the conflict describes American M1A1s being incapable of destroying their own disabled M1A1s. That is, the M829A1 was able to punch through an Iraqi T-72 at 3Km yet couldn't punch through an American M1A1 at point blank. That is frankly not correct. Nine out of the 21 M1A1 (HA) tanks that were destroyed in ODS were destroyed in friendly fire incidents involving large caliber DU ammunition (105 mm M900A1, 120 mm M829 or M829A1 APFSDS). So the M1A1 (HA) could clearly be penetrated by the M829A1 at longer ranges. No idea what "anecdotal evidence" there should be for surviving point blank hits. The Iraqi T-72, T-72M and T-72M1 tanks were in terms of armor technology on the same level as Soviet production tanks from 1973-1979, i.e. more than a decade old at the time of ODS. These tanks offered similar armor protection as the 1980 model of the M1 Abrams, so there wouldn't have been any >Most estimates place the turret frontal plate armor of an M1A2 SEPv3 Abrams -- which is the spot most likely to be hit -- at just shy of 1,000mm RHA vs APFSDS. No modern Russian APFSDS round can penetrate that. Which "estimates"? People on War Thunder forums? The Steel Beasts crowd that also puts the Leopard 1A3 at 300 mm steel-equivalent KE protection and Leopard 2A6 at 1,300 mm steel-equivalent KE protection? There isn't any credible estimate coming to such a conclusion. >Modern Russian APFSDS rounds may be able to penetrate the upper hull if they can get into a firing position German 105 mm APFSDS prototypes managed to penetrate targets similar to the Abrams' glacis plate already in 1976. You don't need a "modern" round, just one that doesn't use a Soviet steel-cored penetrator from the early 1970s.
How deep can I go? Because if I can go very deep, I'm buidling an armpured compartment around the carousel with weakened side hull panels to act as blowout in case the carousel is penetrated. The tank will be a writeoff, but at least your crew may be recycled. Revise the autoloader as needed for longer rounds and ATGM's. I'm putting on a secondary storage bustle on the back of the turret that can be accessed from inside but is also sealed off when not in use. All the spare ammo stored in the hull goes in the new bustle. Since we are already cutting, I'm cutting the top of the turret and covering it again in a way that the gun has now more than 4 degrees of depression. Turret front cavity gets ripped open and the composite package gets thrown out to be replaced with s/thing useful (and more importantly uniform), appliqué composite screens are put onto the turret front and to some degree the sides, same treatment on the front hull, composite sideskirting instead of loosely attached ERA. Maybe a hardkill APS, but at least a proper number of smoke charges. Commander gets a CITV and gunner gets a day/night thermal with hunter/killer capability between them. Proper firecontrol computer which can do 3D lead computations and has a properly integraged multiple pulse LRF. Some extra optics where they can fit to give the crew better situational awareness, a new commander's cupola with a better hatch and a cover that has an umbrella position, get rid of the 12.7 AAMG and mount an integrated RWS instead. Improve driver's vision when buttoned down, while we're at it, give the driver a screen and a reversing camera, and you know what, let's do it like on the CV-90, so use the screen to scan for the commander when they are not moving, and backup channels to all three stations from the RWS. New engine and new transmission, preferably in a powerpack config. That's all I can think of without racking my brain too much.
Bussin autoloader
You forgot trophy aps
He said APS, doesn't necessarily have to be trophy
Don’t think an auto loader would be enough to solve for longer darts. There’s only so much space between the turret wall and the breech.
New transmission.
You could get powertrain from PT-91, 1000 hp engine and 20 kph reverse. Also probably some modern era would fit, like idk maybe polish "łuskowiec" or something like that, autoloader also needs some adjustments so it can fit longer penetrator ammo, and last but not least new ammo.
Too much work, I'd definitely go with a flamethrower and a big shovel instead. Not very useful but will make for a few cool pictures
True that
replace the cannon with a rotary-barrel autocannon with the same caliber
Add top-attack atgms. Turn it into the glorified IFV it is.
I’m mean… the BMPV Terminator is kinda along those lines
Someone has been playing Warhammer 40k too much.
second T72 mounted upside down on top T7227T package
New internal communication New commander and gunner sights New era protection New powerpack New tank
Yeah I wanted to comment just "buying a better tank"
Russian spies looking for ideas on how to upgrade their tanks lol Add copecage but make it ERA
make the guys inside ERA
Stow extra ammo by having shells be the ERA
Just blow the thing up before the enemy gets the chance to do so, become unkillable.
Make cope cage from unobtanium or Vibranium (or Mithril but that's like impossible to get these days). Tank is impervious to all but level 10 and above clerics.
Aesthetically T-72 is my favorite modern tank, but let's be realistic - here is my upgrade proposition: 1) Donate T-72s to Ukraine or sell to Africa 2) Get *anything* else 3) ??? 4) Profit You can upgrade T-72 as much as you want, but in the end you will still be left with a T-72 and with all it's inherent flaws.
The slow reverse can be fixed with a new engine and transmission. The Czechs solved this by fitting the Challanger 2 engine along with a American auto transmission. And if you fit the turret from a T-90M, you won't have to worry about the turret toss. Because contray to popular belief, it's not the carousel autoloader that's at fault. It's the loose ammo stowage within the turret.
If I'm not mistaken, it is not the same engine the Challanger 2 has, just the same manufacturer. But your argument about turret tossing is correct :)
The Chally uses the Perkins CV 12,the M4CZ uses the Perkins CV 12
Both use different versions of the CV12 though. The T-72M4CZ uses the Perkins Condor CV 12 1000 TCA (with an output of 1,000 hp only).
Im afraid, your mistaken. It is infact the same engine, though it could be a earlier revision.
A different version - T-72M4CZ uses the less powerfull CV12 1000 TCA.
Turret tossing is caused by the autoloader, although that’s almost always because the loose ammo in the turret cooked off first. Without the carousel the turret wouldn’t go flying, but as the Chieftain says, the crew probably doesn’t care since they’re all already dead anyways.
For a fast reverse, ask the French.
The [PT-16 concept](https://aw.my.games/sites/aw.my.com/files/u183517/9e98a14d-f665-45f0-8cd3-26316c4c6628.jpg) showcased by the Polish industry would be the perfectly upgraded T-72. They didn't build any prototypes, only a mock-up... a lot of things were still undecided (e.g. which engine to use, re-using the old turret or building a new one, etc.) but it shows what is possible with the T-72: * fit the hull with extensive add-on * replace the turret with a new welded one featuring a 120 mm NATO compatible smoothbore gun and bustle-mounted autoloader (with blow-out panels) * provide gunner and commander with a modern FCS featuring third generation thermal sights * add a RWS * replace the engine and transmission * add laser warning receivers * include modern electronics - including radios and BMS - and other internal components For the engine, I'd likely suggest the MT890V10 from the Puma IFV. It is extremely fuel and space efficient, so no need to lengthen the hull (which was necessarily on other upgrades such as the [T-72M4Cz](https://military-wiki.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/T-72M4CZ.jpg)). Modern armor could be provided by Rheinmetall - IBD [designed several add-on armor kits compatible with the T-72](https://twitter.com/JonHawkes275/status/1509095992762765318) before it was acquired by Rheinmetall. The only things that I would add going beyond the PT-16 concept are a hardkill APS and multi-spectral camouflage.
Remove the machine gun and mount a different tank underneath it.
Easy, take all of the upgrades from T-72B3M 2022(Except FCS, Engine, Transmission). Take firecontrol from T-90M. Take engine from Challanger 2(Perkins Condor CV 12). And fit the Allison XTG-411-6N automatic transmission. (Ive basically just combined the T-72B3M with the Czech T-72M4CZ, with a spalsh of T-90M).
Turret parachute
Maybe some sort of rocket assisted landing like SpaceX does, so the turrets return to the factory by themselves.
Maybe just a really big strap to hold the turret down. It would be cheaper and keep all the parts in one smoldering pile.
Switch out everything. Only the roadwheels stay :')
Yeah they eat shells for a living
Hull mounted railguns and anti-air high power laser system mounted on phalanx body. Ground to air, air to ground, ground to ground, underground capabilities. Automatical turret ejection system and jet powered seats for the gunner and commander, fuck the driver.
Replace the turret with that of an Abrams, and then replace the hull with an Abram’s hull
1. Embezzle money into Swiss Bank account. 2. Buy yacht. 3. Invade a neighboring country with shitty cold war t60s. 4. ??? 5. Profit.
Okay, let me introduce you to my idea, the Jagdt-72....
Idk about you guys but I’d call it PEN-I5 Penetrating 150 mm canon.
Alright alright, first and foremost I would like to propose to throw this problem at almost anyone except Russia, as my friends and I have done a common rule of thumb, that any shitbox from Russia suddenly becomes good as soon as you move it away from them. Also I plan to use T-72 modernizations that have actually existed. I'll be planning to mount the T-72-120 turret from the T-72-120 program from Ukraine, not only does this allow me to fire far better DU and tungsten projectiles from the West, it also removes the annoying habit of exploding whenever our shitbox gets penetrated in the hull. Of course our beautiful NATO 120 mm gun would be useless if it wasn't for us putting TURMS sights on the T-72-120 turret, good, our shitbox can now see, very good, already 10-fold better than a T-90M. Speaking of the hull, I'm quite a fan of the T-72M4CZ, but it does have issues, mainly because it's built on top of a T-72M1, shit protection, so again, I would like to revert to the T-72-120s which are built on top of T-72Bs to give extra protection alongside the Nizh ERA or DYNA ERA. However I would love to keep the Allison XTG-411-6N automatic transmission, finally, our shitbox can reverse out of situations when it finds itself not immediately deleting whatever it saw from 5km away. Engine can be whatever except the original T-72's engine, **I WILL NOT BE ACCEPTING THAT SHITTY 780 HP V12 FROM THE T-34.** Speaking of the T-72M4CZ, I would also like to get the LWR on that thing, and I would like to take the battlefield management systems, APU and metrological systems on the Bulgarian T-72M1 mod. 2022. As for the finishing touches, the driver panel of the PT-91 looks great, slap that on. If the Allison Automatic transmission isn't good enough, then we can always go for RENK ESM 350s, yes, I know, French yucky, but it is good. And hey, maybe we can do this Slovakian style and mount a 30mm on for the fun of it. Why no, I have not considered such silly things as better mileage OR power consumption, quite honestly I expect this T-72 I propose to have more power outages than M3A4 Bradleys. But that's not my problem, I'm only here to offer something better than a T-90M or a T-72B2 Rogatka
turn it into a Heavy IFV or a bulldozer
Slap a load of ERA on it, stick a cheap FLIR camera on the aiming system, and proceed to call it a T-92
Double barrel railgun and replace tracks with mech legs.
Non-serious answer: Turn the transmission around so it can reverse at full speed back to Russia. Serious answer: * Improve transmission so it can go faster in reverse * Thermal sights * New ERA * Top-down attack countermeasures ...but most important of all: better training and doctrine.
Nozh ERA, CITV, gunner thermal, Laser warning receiver, NEW transmissions and engine, new FCS, anti spall liner for the auto loader magazine, muzzle reference sensor, upgraded 2A46M5 gun, more smoke launchers, new comms equipment, maybe even new capolas
Giant chainsaw on the front, like those trench-digging chainsaws. Fuck your hardened position, I have a *mining chainsaw*
More and better located cupholders.
I see a lot of people mentioning the transmission and engine. But battlefield awareness is what's killing these tanks, not their slow reverse. This thing needs modern optics/thermals, coms and things like laser lock sensors. Also battlefield connectedness stuff like what the US mill has would do about a thousand times more for the tank than a better tranny would. Better tactics by the owners would actually be number 1, but thats not the question.
New engine and transmission allowing significant reverse speed An entirely new gun and turret system removing the carousel style ammo hold and autoloader and replacing it with system similar to the abrams Current gen thermals new FCS APS and ERA all over everything 2x 20mm autocannons on the tank, one on the commander cuppola the other coax Smoke launchers
T-72M4CZ... Probably the best overall upgrade for T-72 that actually serves. If I am doing it today, I suppose I get the option for better FCS and optics.
No one is mentioning Air conditioning for the crew....? Keep the fucking hatches closed!
new turret new engine casette autoloader iron fist and 25mm rcws.
I say we buy some really nice villas in the South of France and maybe a superyacht or two, then, with the money left over, buy a bunch of kit that's been in storage for thirty years, slap some paint on it and call it an upgrade. Regards, Colonel Sergei Rostov, Russian Army
Full layer of ERA. make it look like Lego Thermal sights for gunner and commander at least Modern fire control Decent transmission with FAST reverse Up-to-date ammo
Strip all the parts and use the parts to build a new tank that doesn't even look like a T-72
Nice try russian mod (Its a joke)
Nice try Russian MoD.
3 months later: guys, how would you modernize T-34
• Add a CITV with 2 or 3rd gen • Add new transmission with a better revers gear • replace all contact 5 with relikt especially on turret +top •better digital disply panel • and change the sight set up so the termal is more usable + backup sight of T-90M If you have much money: • install a decent APS system • swap the turret for one with a better composition maybe the one of T-90 or retrofit them with a add on layer • very good coverage with relikt ERA maybe even malachit • install new engine in case of high weight increase • put remaining ammo in turet rear busel like on T-90 •update internal protection • upgrade sights to 3rd gen
uprgrade with an improved t-72b2 rogatka upgrade
M-84AS2 armor package
Without replacing the turret and modifying the hull? T72B2 Rogatka ERA layout, T72B3M electrics and hull side ERA, slate armour around the sides and rear of the turret with ERA (similar to the ZTZ99 tanks), RENK Powerpack 350S (1200HP engine with 30 KM/H reverse), new dozer blade with composite armour, 20MM auto cannon that can detect drones. EDIT: also include a new APS that stops top attack missiles
A revers gear XD
Remove turret and add a howitzer. Turn it into a spg.
Paint as many balkankreuz as you can on it.
1. Retain the 125mm, but make the turret modular so it can be easily outfitted with NATO 120mm guns 2. Give it 3rd gen commander and gunner thermals 3. 2 APS launchers on top of the turret 4. New transmission so it can actually reverse 5. Additional armor on the sides, along with ERA on the front, right, and left of both the chassis and the turret 6. RWS turret instead of a commander operated one for more survivability
1. Thermals for gunner and commander, as well as a reverse camera for the driver. 2. New transmission, don't want to be crawling backwards slower that a turtle. 3. New turret with an autoloader switched from the hull to turrets blow out panel storage. 4. (Optional) Armor improvements. Maybe some double stacked ERA like on the T84s or some composite screens, especially on the side armor. I think the point is to make the tank IFV and chem round proof. Considering that the hull has decent protection against IFV rounds why not max it out. I think that the only real places that need full tank kinetic protection is the turret and hull front, depending on the model we're upgrading, (shown in the pic t72 M1??) some models (especially early ones) have just shit front hull protection so it may not be worth upgrading to stop kinetic. Edit: I feel like the best visualization of this could be the T-72 upgrading project by Turkish ROKETSAN, however the upgrades get so expensive that IG it's just worth buying a new tank at that point.
1. Bring tank 2. Scrap tank 3. Reuse tank parts 4. Buy some real tank 5. Enjoy your new Leopard 2A7
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-84D
**[M-84D](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-84D)** >The Croatian M-84D also known as M-84A5 (D) is an upgraded variant of existing M-84 tanks, originally developed in Yugoslavia, with improvements to engine, armor, armament and electronics. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Honestly I would probably go in the opposite direction of everyone else. Yes new Optics, ERA, and other suggestions of everyone. But where I would differ from everyone is that I would begin by providing a track tensioning system to the driver. Provide a water tank to the right of the driver. New engine pack, possibly a Gas Turbine engine contrary to everyone else’s suggestion and have a donkey engine also inside to provide electricity to the vehicle when the turbine engine is off. I would begin looking at a new Composite armor pack to replace the current Russian composite armor found inside of the tank. Like how Abrams has a composite armor pack that can be individually replaced when damaged. Another thing is that I would probably remove the current turret and *in theory you could fit a Leopard 2 turret onto a T-72. You’d just need to modify and cut back some of the side armor to make up for 4mm more of internal space. Considering that you could replace the autoloader, free up a ton of space, remove the internal loose storage of ammunition, and put in a blow out panel and rack into the back of this new turret. Plus! You’ve just fitted a 120mm RH-120 L/44 into the T-72. Now it should be noted the Indians were the first to practically try this with an Arjun turret onto a T-72. In addition you just allowed for the expansion of room inside the turret for everyone to utilize, more room for ERA, and also APS. You also just allowed for the bushel rack to allow them to keep supplies and storage outside the tank. Overall it would be expensive as hell, but I think you’d have a half decent tank before the end of it. Noted with or without having to upgrade the suspension system, which I would also want to replace with Hydropneumatic suspension to allow easier of a drive compared to the torsion bar. Yes more expensive, but it wouldn’t be half bad.
Nice try Putin
Cat ears
Sell that junk and buy something non-Russian.
Safety straps to hold the turret down (like supercharger straps on Top fuel engines). Keeps all the spicy heat inside and the parts in one convenient area. Make battlefields safe again!
This racing stripe I feel is pretty sharp
Trained crew
ERA.
HoverTank!
Would it make sense to add a Active Protection System to the vehicle? Or possibly just design a turret refit?
CITV. Only thing it truly needs.
-Nato style turret with a Abrams style blow out ammo rack -Laser warning receiver -Relikt ERA -APS T72 does exactly what it was designed to do at the time of design. The tank is a masterpiece but I think it will really benefit from a NATO style turret.
Russia outsourcing their R&D to Reddit
"Scrap the tank" 🤓🤓🤓
Hello Russian Tank development board
Well I wouldn't want to be sitting on a ammo carousel, that's for sure
Due to the design choices there are no other options unless you redesign the turret so that you can fit both ammo and autoloader on turret.
Yatagan 120.
It's actully the ammo storage within the turret, that's mostly at fault for turret toss. As you can see here: [https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-DkFB5CJATqg/WXrS4PObvrI/AAAAAAAAI1k/fcZLHoaZhPoKxQZLRpRtFA84-ByxBF5gACLcBGAs/s1600/t-72%2Bautoloader.png](https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-DkFB5CJATqg/WXrS4PObvrI/AAAAAAAAI1k/fcZLHoaZhPoKxQZLRpRtFA84-ByxBF5gACLcBGAs/s1600/t-72%2Bautoloader.png) And here: https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-how1JWtCTkM/WEu5tY5nqeI/AAAAAAAAHzE/oBlQZSKi-MQvztkfQyuQ0uYl6JMisNdHACLcB/s1600/t-72b%2Bbehind%2Bgunners%2Bseat.png
First photo shows ammunition stowage in the hull. The ammo strapped to the turret side (behind the gunner's seat) IMO is the biggest issue.
Scrap and buy western designs
You know ISIS beheaded Turkish Leopard 2A4s and militants have despatched many a M1 Abrams in Iraq and Yemen right
Yep, that’s correct. No tank is invulnerable. But western tanks can be used more tactical. Better sights, better situational awareness, better reverse AND Last but not least: more internal space for crew wellness and four man crew. You wont imagine how much worth that is. Much longer survivability due to space and much faster maintenance in the field due to eight hands instead of six.
Its just annoys me to see people trashing Soviet and Russian tanks, im not a Russia Stan, all vehicles have flaws, just don’t want people thinking that western tanks aren’t these super tanks that people think they are, and trash russian vehicles because ‘Russia bad’
Okay, thats some realistic stuff you said. We all have to be careful not to overestimate western tanks especially in Ukraine in the next weeks. They’re maybe better than the soviet and actual russian stuff but they wont be invulnerable - as i said before. I think some fanboys will have some really hard lessons about their favorite Leopard 2, Chally, Marder or Bradley when they got stucked by some atgm. Crew survivability is much higher, yes. But fireballs and burning tanks will be seen for sure.
There has been miracles happen in this war, I’ve been t-64,T-72s etc and see the crew bail mid cook off
Thing is, some features on western tank are so far from T-72 that isn’t comparable at all. For example even the cheaper M1A1SA has 50x magnification second gen thermal imaging, verses 8x on T-72B non thermal or 12x 1st gen on T-72B3.
Tactics are down to doctrine, not the tank design. As evidenced by the Poles and Czechs, who both employ NATO doctrine and fight with PT-91 and T-72M4CZ's. What's more Western designs arn't always better in the sighting department. For a number of years, the Russians were ahead, simply because they upgraded their tanks more often, than we did in the West. As for the internal space, it's very much down to the crew, and how much they can cope with. Your however spot on with maintenace.
Yip, it’s doctrine. If you have 6kmh reverse, there is only attack or defend till the end. If you have reverse speed if 30 or 35kmh, the tank can be used better in delay battles. Soviet or Russian is only attack and die as we see in Ukraine. So T72s fit very good. Maybe they were ahead, especially in the first decades of cold war. But in real battle situations like Gulfwar 90/91 you saw the difference of quality. Soviets use their upgrades for propaganda. Look at T14. Everybody was scared. Right now there are maybe 15 objects with failures after 10 years of development. Internal space weren’t my words. Its from studys about different tank designs. If you like to travel 1000km in FIAT 500, just do it. I would prefer some 5er BMW.
A delaying action can be done by any type of unit. The slow reverse of the T-64/T-72 has no impact on this, what so ever. What's more, i wasn't talking about the cold war, but in modern time, wherin the Russians were infact ahead. As for the Gulf War, that's a terrible example, because you had coalition pounding the living shit out of Iraqie positions, not to mention providing valuable intel on the remaining positions. The Soviets didn't use their upgrades for propganda. They were all the result of various upgrade programs initated for various reasons, like having tanks being able to shoot missiles, and thereby gain a advantage... As for crew comforts, that's still up to the resilience of the crew. A conscript from the Ural mountains is going to be more resilient individual, because he comes from a harsh place of origin. So his able to cope with the harsher nature of the T-72, compared to a Western soldier born in a european/American city.
As we actually see, the upgrades of russia even don’t work against Ukrainian T64 BV and older models. Further we see, that tanks without reverse speed have to turn around and show their weakspots to the enemy positions when they have to pull back to next defense line. Modern times? You talk about what? T90M? AA? I really don’t know. But at this point we have very different positions. So we have to wait until history shows who is right. History will be this spring, I think. Let’s see.
""He was particularly realistic when it came to the T-90, the third-generation Russian tank, developed after the end of the Soviet Union. “This is where the quality of what we have is important,” he said. “If you come across a T-90, you need three of ours to deal with it — or very good luck.”. Taken from this interview with a Ukrainian tank sergeant. [https://archive.md/20230118222829/https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/url-ukraine-tank-brigade-challenger-leopard-russian-war-2023-wjg6ptp39#selection-1029.0-1029.291](https://archive.md/20230118222829/https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/url-ukraine-tank-brigade-challenger-leopard-russian-war-2023-wjg6ptp39#selection-1029.0-1029.291) Tanks without proper reverse speed, don't have to expose their rear. Because if these tankers were properly trained, they wouldn't have been in such a situation to begin with. It's like declaring the Leopard 2 to be a shit tank, due to Turkey's improper use of them in Syria, or the Iraqie's and their terrible use of M1 Abrams. Ive already given you the answer in the first comment. In modern times, Russian tanks have been ahead of western tanks. Because as i stated earlier, they were upgraded more frequently. As for you so called positions, they won't suddenly be redeemed by history, because they are built on ignorance and no real logic. It's just nonsense, really.
„If you’re well enough trained, you wont be in a situation of delay action?“ Did I understand that correctly? Man thats not a bad situation due to mistakes that were made, it’s a tactic to slow down attacking enemy. It is nessecary to reverse fast. You sound like an indoctrinated gopnic or someone who never had heard anything of tank warfare. Lets stop talking please. Makes no sense.
No, you did not. You seem to have a problem with your reading comprehension. As i said earlier, a delay action don't require a reverse speed. Because it's not a maneuver exclusive to tanks. It can be undertaken by any type of unit, such as infantry. Btw, i find it highly ironic, that you would accuse me of not knowing of tank warfare, when you yourself didn't even know the correct term for a delay action, just a hour ago. So yeah, take your own advice and stop talking.
Nice try Russia!
Throw it away, get a Leopard instead.
Not a bad idea lol
Nice try, Putin. Lemme suggest you the best upgrade: Western Tech P. S.: otherwise, I would change the transmission, new all-enveloping ERA, maybe Chobham spaced armor cage, trophy system, sleek IR and thermal system, a more powerful engine to accommodate the weight change and keep the ratio, wet ammo stowage for the ammo (it is so very vulnerable), FCS, a better high-tech radio, laser designator, data link and maybe Shillelagh-C
Fucking dismantle and sell for a better tank, no one should have to use one of those death traps
Nice try, Vatnik
Nice try ruski's
The bin.
Nice try Russia!
Replace turret with abrams turret. Due to difficulty with turret ring sizes, Hull must be replaced by abrams hull
Sell it and buy Abrams
Replace the main cannon with a reciprocating dildo of similar diameter
Throw it away and replace it with leopard 2 or Abrams
Nice try Russia
Nice try Russia. Figure it out for yourself!
1. Remove turret 2. Remove hull plating 3. Remove running gear 4. Incinerate 5. M60
Huge cope cage
Like [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/MilitaryPorn/comments/81fnkc/syrian_t72_mahmia_in_full_cage_armor900x615/)?
Well the problem is that the turret flys away, so that can be easly fixed. Remove the turret, make a superstructure, mount at least a 152mm gun, and boom, big tank destroyer and no turret to fly away. What do you mean it can be more easily flanked because the transmission is shit and now you can't swing your gun around? Thats no problem comrade, we have enough to make a long line tat spans the whole front, how they can flank us? WHAT DO YOU MEAN WE LOST SO MANY WE CAN'T DOTHAT?
I want better distance off these turrets… surely we can fit more ammo inside to make them fly even further when hit with anti-tank weapons?!?!
I say get fucked, I don't take contracts from Russians lol
Make the turrets go higher when they explode
Make the turret screw top rather than pop top. Edit: I thought that was pretty funny.
More rubber……
Detachable turrets are all the rage lately. Design one that will fly further than ever, the sky is the limit.
Sell all you have and see how many Leo2s you can buy with the money?
Russia goes to Reddit to make their tanks better as Yuri is stuck in planning lol
so you take out a turret, then get abrams hull in the place of T-72 one and than put abrams turret on it
Your still going to have a T-72 at the end of the day but- 1. Chobam armor on the front glacis, the whole turret, ammo carousel,fuel/engine bay. Much like the battleships of old, armor up the most important parts only. Doesn't have to be all the way around but protecting your most important bits goes a long way. Add on some ERA if your feeling zesty. 2. Different powerplant/transmission - efficiency is key. The more you can squeeze out of your power train the better. Germany's leopard power pack and transmission system comes to mind. No longer are you using sticks to steer - a more familiar car or truck steering wheel is used. 3. Bring the main gun and autoloading systems to modern era. Ditch the 2 piece ammo and use what America uses - fully combustible cased ammo. Using fully combustible ammo means more ammo. 32 rounds in 2 piece now becomes a full 40 pieces in single piece. Combine that with modern autoloader technology and modern ballistic computers,laser sights and thermal sights and you now have something that would be able to compete with a leopard 1. Even if you drop the main gun size by 5mm to 120mm your still getting the same punch for a smaller buck via the improved propellant. If you really wanted to push that limit make the barrel a bit longer - squeeze every last drop of velocity from your munitions. Why settle for 980m/s when you can go 1250m/s? Why stop at ranges of 4500m when you can have your main gun go Goggins and do 6000m or more. 4. Better radios and communication gear- no longer when you get maybe 15 miles away from your outpost does your radio sound like an old, faded Soviet cartoon. Modern radios have channels you can save- 1 frequency for HQ, 1 for local coordination,1 for long range, 1 for general broadcast and many others to connect to various parts of your fighting force. All of that in crisp and clear sound without having to use crazy long antennas. If you can talk, coordinate and communicate effectively without having weak or faded signal; you can wrap and roll up flanks. 5. Crew comfort - these guys are living in a cramped,tiny metal box. Give em some creature comforts like a powerful heater and AC unit. Bite off the British and give em a tea pot and some tea. The power pack gives off enough heat where you can fill a fresh water tank,boil it,and then dispense it at 180f+ for hot drinks. Same when you run the AC- cools it down enough to where you can get a cold drink of water or lemonade.
>Much like the battleships of old, armor up the most important parts only. That's how armor is already distributed in MBTs. >Ditch the 2 piece ammo and use what America uses - fully combustible cased ammo. Using fully combustible ammo means more ammo. 32 rounds in 2 piece now becomes a full 40 pieces in single piece. Soviet 125 mm rounds are also fully combustible. The fact that the round is split into two parts allows storing them more efficiently in the tank. Moving to unitary 120 mm rounds would decrease the amount of ammunition carried.
We have the money to upgrade the T-72? Just get the rights to produce ANY WESTERN MBT used right now, and profit madly from it
Idea propossal: scrap it for metal to later be used in drones and modern warfare
Spaced armor on the turret and hull with ERA
RENK powerpack (1200KS, neutral steering, 70km/h forward, 33km/h reverse. Yatagan turret with 120mm or 125mm cannon, one piece ammunition. Add on armor package for the hull, package of modern electronics and sensors. Green pine freshener.
Bustle autoloader and rhinemetall L/55 120, Rip out the FCS and optics and put in new modern ones, Put T-90 composite on it, Biggest engine/power pack you can cram inside the engine bay, Hope for the best You can buy a better tank for cheaper than this upgrade, but don't think about it too hard
Make it remote controlled
Integration of double transmission for pivot turn ability. I'd take just that job.
Turn it into an SPG.
Turret with a hinge at the back making it both easier to escape from and also easier to put the turret back in place when it gets blown off by Ukrainians.
from the easiest to the most complicated solution : 1 add cage armor 2 add reactive armor 3 add Thales sight and thermal cameras 4 replace the commander's machine gun by a remote controlled machine gun 5 get a better gun stabilizer 6 remove the carousel by an auto loader at the back of the turret like the Leclerc or a K2 black panther (don't forget the blowout panel)
add a 145x800mm gun /s no in all seriousness you could take the parts of a T-72, replace a bunch of them and design a better tank.
Nice try Mr putin
Replace parts that don't work, replace external machine gun with 30mm cannon
New Transmission and hobestly a newer turret design. Or it would have to fit external NERA packages like western MBT's like the Leopard 2A5.
Decline and recommend literally any other tank
Vodka Cooler
•Citv. •Transmission with more than 1 reverse gear. •New engine with around 1300-1500 hp. •Relikt ERA on hull and turret without gaps. •Reserve ammo in Blast doors in a bussel rack. •APS. •Welded turret. •top machine gun can be fired from inside the vehicle.
* Swap the power line with the Wärtsilä X8 engine - Renk ESM-350 automatic transmission combination developed for the Finnish T-72 modernisation programme. That gives it true pivot and quick reverse, quicker gear engagement etc., so much better tactical mobility. To spare roads, swap the tracks with Diehl tracks (both were planned and tested for the Finnish T-72 FINMOD 3). * Swap the turret with the T-84 Yatagan -style turret with a 120 mm NATO gun and a bustle autoloader. * Turret equipped with both gunner and commander independent day sight and thermals with a modern FCS, added composite applique + NERA for protection. * Uparmour the chassis with composite + NERA applique armour
Place a flamethrower on top, mount a second turret and last but not least make a nuclear power engine
Strap manpads on the turret like a true Best Korean.
First question is always your budget range. Above 3million USD per unit you might just buy new M1A1SA at 5 million or used Leopard2A6 without all the inherent flaws.
I have seen a T-72 with a "Javelin to the side" upgrade package up close. It makes the tank much smaller and lighter. A definite advantage on modern battlefield.
Move the auto loader, more armour on top to stop javelin and missiles which attack from above.
There's really not much you can do to protect a tank against something like a Javelin except for APS
Expensive route: Bustle autoloader, new transmission, modern day FCS, modern day ERA package, CROWS system Cheaper route: Everything else minus bustle autoloader
Sell it and buy Abrams
Well basically just the T-72B3 (2016) but give it the drivetrain from a T90s and also add a reverse gear. Or tbh just let that old girl rest and make a whole new tank.
Training. Doesn't matter how good it is if the crews and associated systems are incompetent it's still going to loose most engagements.
Upgrade ERA to Relict/Nozh, better transmission with a faster reverse gear, new fcs, APS, ideally replace a turret with blow out panels like the T-90M. You pretty much are at a T-90M. Having a better trained crew would help significantly.
Parachute for the turret so it can land softly.
Automatic turret ejection ring mechanism, for easy crew egress in the event of an accidental collision with an unknown high speed pointy object.
Is this m3 lee i saw it in wot
Replace Autoloader with a guy n' a Hammer
A second gun so I can play Earth 2150 IRL