T-72: Still Useful or Not?

[Chrom]

From what I know, the Rogatka program was intentionally put on hold, as the priority shifted from modernization to replacement. Last year the army got over 200 T-90s. This year they're getting 260. There is no limit in terms of the production facilities. UVZ has facilities to put out 1500 tanks annually. Last year it only produced ~350. So regardless of how large export orders are the army orders will depend on budgets.

Is this also true for all subcontractors? You know, UVZ dont build these tank right from scratch and iron ore... In short, i pretty much doubt it. I'm quite sure substantial expenses and time will be required to speed up tank production over these limits ~ 300 tanks per year.

What I mean is that other countries have other military doctrines and operating conditions. How well suited would the T-90 and T-72 be to those doctrines and operating conditions?

Waylander your point about vanilla T-72s is an interesting one, especially given that Ukraine and a few other East European countries have been exporting their stock of those tanks for quite some time, with a relatively high degree of success.

If you speak about climate, then T-90 dont have any problem here obviously - it serve in Russia, it serve in Asia, it serve in India. What else our Earth can offer?

If you speak about some tactical or strategical doctrines - give us some example.

As i said, it have some weak or "special" properties, but nothing what would require to completely change doctrine compared to any other tank. In same cases it would require slightly different procedures - (for example deeper digging when firing from reverse slopes) - but nothing out of order.

 

[Chrom]

As for modernized T-72s. The newer T-90s feature a welded turret which is an advantage that T-72s will never get.

Welded turret is not such big advantage for end costumers, if at all.

 

[eckherl]

I also thought that a limited amount of Rogotka upgrades found it's way into the Russian army. But don't ask me were I got this from.

As for modernized T-72s. The newer T-90s feature a welded turret which is an advantage that T-72s will never get.

I for one doubt the export potential of heavily modernized T-72s. But vanilla T-72s as well as modestly modernized ones might very well be interesting for several countries for example to replace a number of T-55s.

That is why Russia is not pushing too hard for heavily modernized T-72 series exports, they very well know that they have better chances just offering up the T-90 and this is what the majority of inquiries/interest have been for. Also you are correct that the all welded design turret is the route to go for protection values, proof in some of the testing that I have seen shows this.

 

[eckherl]

From what I know, the Rogatka program was intentionally put on hold, as the priority shifted from modernization to replacement. Last year the army got over 200 T-90s. This year they're getting 260. There is no limit in terms of the production facilities. UVZ has facilities to put out 1500 tanks annually. Last year it only produced ~350. So regardless of how large export orders are the army orders will depend on budgets.

The Rogatka program package may be going to Hugo Chavez`s empire, but other than this no major takers on the international market. Russia may shift focus on offering some of the upgrades up to countries that are running around with basic T-72M1 series, Russian defense contractors would actually work in participating countries to upgrade these vehicles. T-90 series does have priority over anything else, Russia wants new vehicles serving in active and reserve units, older upgraded T-72s' will serve in training reserve with them eventually going bye bye. But for what I am still seeing is that there are still alot of training(field and gunnery) going on with T-80, thus change does take time, that is why I question if Russia is really complete with their new armor land force structure.

 

[Feanor]

Organizationally the new structure is complete. Equipment wise the new structure will take another decade. (slightly more by current planning actually)

Truth be told there are enough spare T-72s and T-80s floating around to eliminate one of the two types completely, but instead the units retained whatever tanks they had before the reforms. One of the few exceptions seems to be the 42nd MRD which was turned into 3 MRBs that got T-72s from storage.

Also I'm not sure where the T-90s are being deployed now. However after this year there will be ~800 of them including baseline models purchased i the 90s. At current procurement rates they should be able to replace all active duty inventory in another 5-6 years. Reserve inventory (at current rates) will take ~8 years. I suspect they won't finish the active inventory before the Object 195 is introduced. Which means that these T-90s will start being cycled out to reserve units in a 10-15 year timeframe.

Chrom UVZ has made multiple statements along the lines of "we can produce more tanks, we just need orders from the state". There was an explicit article where they mentioned they can produce 1500 tanks annually, but are only producing 350 annually, and as a result are taking a hit because they have to maintain facilities. It was on arms-tass.su

 

[Falstaff]

. I suspect they won't finish the active inventory before the Object 195 is introduced. Which means that these T-90s will start being cycled out to reserve units in a 10-15 year timeframe.

Doesn't look that way: Object 195 seems to be dead.

 

[Feanor]

Doesn't look that way: Object 195 seems to be dead.

Interesting. Shortly prior there were rumors that it would be displayed publicly this summer. You may be right, given the T-90 modernization, lack of BMD-4 procurement, and the stalled induction of the BMPT. However the Sprut-SD is already in service with line units, in particular the 76th airborne, and even participated in exercises recently.

I'll search for more news from Russian sources.

EDIT: The original article comes from kommersant for april 8th, and claims that the Object 195, Coalition-SV, Burlak unified combat module, BMD-4, Sprut-SD, and BMPT are all being cancelled. I don't have the original article but it's been cited and reproduced in various places.

http://www.militaryparitet.com/teletype/data/ic_teletype/7402/
http://www.titus.kz/?type=nweap&previd=17670

EDIT2: An interview that supports the news, apparently Object 195 was cancelled as long ago as last year.
http://andrei-bt.livejournal.com/51662.html

 

[Chrom]

Chrom UVZ has made multiple statements along the lines of "we can produce more tanks, we just need orders from the state". There was an explicit article where they mentioned they can produce 1500 tanks annually, but are only producing 350 annually, and as a result are taking a hit because they have to maintain facilities. It was on arms-tass.su

I repeat what i told. UVZ very well could produce it. IF all subcontractors (most of them btw dont belong to UVZ) supply they parts. Means - gun, engine, FCS, etc. Are you sure the head of UVZ even know about situation on these completely independent plants? Most of them btw under state "top secret" restrictions, so this information even for UVZ head would be not easy to come by.

 

[Feanor]

Given the dynamic of practically un-interrupted output growth on the part of UVZ with last year being another absolute post-Soviet record, I don't doubt that production could be increased further. I'm sure that there will be bottlenecks, but I seriously doubt that they can't be managed.

I also strongly suspect that UVZ would not make public statements clamoring for larger state orders, if they did not think they could produce it.

More singifincantly with the largely reduced tank fleet after the reforms, Russia will never again need domestically more then a few hundred annually.

 

[marq]

well i think theres really only one thing you can say about that

the Russian Army must think the T 72 still has some use or they wouldnt keep somewhere in the area of 6,000 of them in storage in case of war

and i would think "but could be wrong" the Russian Army know if the tank would be just completely outmatched and just scrap it

 

[Feanor]

I wouldn't count on that. T-55s were in storage until recently, incase of war. And before the reforms there was even a unit using T-62s as their regular inventory.

 

[marq]

yes but the Russian do have about 2,000 "i think" still in active service. i guess its just kinda the Russian way of thinking if it aint broke dont fix it.
but thats kinda the debate isnt it if the T72 is well "broken"

ITs like they left the MIR space station up for more then 10 years, so i do see your point

idk im new to this site..

 

[Feanor]

The Russian Army definetly sees the T-72 as useful. And in the case of Russia, it's undoubtable that it is indeed still useful. The point is that the fact that something is retained in storage in case of wartime doesn't mean it's still considered modern or capable.

What I'm really wondering about is why both the T-72 and T-80 are still in service. The numbers in storage allow either type to be eliminated to simplify maintenance and training. And the T-90 replaces both of them. So why retain both types? My suspicion is that it's inertial. But this would indicate little thought given to the planning.

 

[Chrom]

The Russian Army definetly sees the T-72 as useful. And in the case of Russia, it's undoubtable that it is indeed still useful. The point is that the fact that something is retained in storage in case of wartime doesn't mean it's still considered modern or capable.

What I'm really wondering about is why both the T-72 and T-80 are still in service. The numbers in storage allow either type to be eliminated to simplify maintenance and training. And the T-90 replaces both of them. So why retain both types? My suspicion is that it's inertial. But this would indicate little thought given to the planning.

Т-80 is newer and more capable than most T-72 (except latest upgrade). Thats why they are still in service. However it is unlikely what T-80 will be upgraded further, they will be scrapped (or sold or put in storage) after service life ends..

Also about training - units (and reservists) which trained with T-80 - still can use them and dont need to retrain for different tank type. There is no problem here.

 

[Feanor]

You're missing the point. There is enough T-80 units in storage to phase out the T-72 completely. Being a superior tank this would make sense. However it wasn't done.

 

[Chrom]

You're missing the point. There is enough T-80 units in storage to phase out the T-72 completely. Being a superior tank this would make sense. However it wasn't done.

There is not enough of them. But thats not the main point. Main problem will be crew (reservists). Whats the point to have T-72 in storage if there are no trained crews for them? Whats the point to retrain T-72 crews for T-80? Somewhat easer logistic (if even that, both types are became part ofservice chain long ago) will not worth that big hassle.

So you see, as long as both types are in service or in (mobilization) storage - both types should be also in active servce also. The ratio is debatable thought - but current one is relatively ok.

P.S. In short - dont touch something what work as is. That could only break it and will require a lot of resources.

In right time, natural evolution / replacement will take care of old tanks.

 

[ccL1]

I don't see the point in Russia replacing its tanks in the immediate future. Analyzing Russian neighbours, nobody has any real advantage over Russia in terms of tank technology. T-72s have proven useful, even in the latest South Ossetian conflict in 2008 when the Russians just rolled over the Georgian tanks.

If Russia had antagonistic neighbours that constantly upgraded its military capabilities, I can see Russia doing the same with its tanks (replacing the T-72s with newer and more capable MBTs).

There will be a time when the replacements will come, but the Russians have budgetary issues to deal with and the main emphasis isn't on tank replacements.

 

[Waylander]

I assume it has alot to do with the "they have it, they keep it" mentality.

There are T-72s and T-80s in service side by side for the same reason why T-62s kept on being used by active units while thousands of more modern tanks sat in storage.

The idea of reservists being a reason for them keeping both tanks in active service doesn't work.
One could very well put one type into storage and start training new conscripts on the other type.

Nothing prevents the reservists from using the ones in storage for training exercises or in case of war.

 

[marq]

Well to awancer one Question The reason the Russian just dont replace all older models with the T90 is because they dont have very many as of now and they dont really want to spend a large amount of money producing thousands more if the current arms can stop any for seeable threat.

Also the T80 with the reactive amour kit the T80U is a very capable tank even today

 

[Feanor]

There were around 6000 T-80 of various models in the possession of the RF when the USSR broke up. Currently around 2000-2500 are in active duty units. Chrom the issue of maintenance of multiple types was raised in regards to the tank park before, and was noted to be a serious problem. The same, by the way, applies to the BMP, BMD, and BTR fleets, where some units are still using BTR-60PB variants, some are using BTR-70 variants (especially specialized vehicles), some are using BTR-80, and a few will soon start receiving BTR-82 and possibly BTR-90.

I suspect that the real reasons may be twofold. Inertia. And the replacement of all types by the T-90 within the decade.

However as Waylander pointed out the logic of reservists does not matter. The T-62s were left in service because the 42nd MRD was activated from a storage base and ended up with subpar equipment. This was rectified immediately after the 08/08/08 war. Until then it wasn't actual strategic considerations, but simple bureaucracy that kept the obsolete tanks in service.

Marq replacing with the T-90 isn't what we're talking about. The T-90 will replace all active inventory tanks, at current rates, by 2020. The question is about retaining multiple types in service.