T-72: Still Useful or Not?

[Feanor]

Even stranger news coming out from lenta.ru, the T-90 program may be ended prematurely.

Lenta.ru: Îðóæèå: Ðîññèÿ îòêàæåòñÿ îò çàêóïêè óñòàðåâøåé áðîíåòåõíèêè

Specifically the article talks about unmodernized BMP-3 (so does this mean the BMP-3M will be purchased? Or a new modernized BMP-3 will be developed), BTR-80 with side exit hatches, and only machinegun armament, and T-90 tanks. I'm assuming this means that the earlier announced BTR-82 will feature some sort of rear-hatches arrangement, and will only be purcahsed in the BTR-82A variant, with the 30mm automatic cannon.

The same T-90s which were supposed to be modernized this year, and that were previously slated to make up the backbone of Russian tank troops by 2020. We also have had tentative news that Object 195 may be cancelled. If both are true, then MBT procurement would stop entirely.

Finally even stranger are the numbers mentioned in the article, which claim 63 T-90s, 150 BTR-80, and 50 BMP-3 purchased this year. This is at odds with the previous statement of close to 300 T-90 tanks (later corrected to 261). It's also at odds with production schedules, which had over 100 tanks delivered last year, and would mean a major drop in production, if true. The article does say that these are contract numbers that have already been placed. In other words it may be the case that the rest of the contracts will be cancelled without being placed.

EDIT: And more strange news, apparently Russian firms will be purchasing armor in Germany from an un-named German company, for use in auto-mobile and armored vehicles. http://vz.ru/news/2010/4/20/394958.html

I'm assuming this doesn't include MBTs, but may very well include new BTRs, including the un-finalized (at this point from the looks of it) BTR-82, and potential future BMP-3 variants.

 

[Chrom]

Even stranger news coming out from lenta.ru, the T-90 program may be ended prematurely.

.

There is T-90M variant due to be accepted for service this year. So situation is similar to BMP-3 / BMP-3M.

 

[Feanor]

There is T-90M variant due to be accepted for service this year. So situation is similar to BMP-3 / BMP-3M.

It may be a case of bad reporting, and I understand about the T-90M variant. However, the article seemed to imply the T-90 was being cancelled entirely.

What I wonder is if the BMP-3M will be purchased, or whether an new vehicle/variant is being designed. With the announcements about purchasing German armor, and the criticism of BMPs coming out lately, it will be interesting to see.

 

[eckherl]

It may be a case of bad reporting, and I understand about the T-90M variant. However, the article seemed to imply the T-90 was being cancelled entirely.

What I wonder is if the BMP-3M will be purchased, or whether an new vehicle/variant is being designed. With the announcements about purchasing German armor, and the criticism of BMPs coming out lately, it will be interesting to see.

T-90 is not being cancelled, BMP 3 has always been a issue inregards to the Russian top brass even wanting the darn thing, but it is there to stay with future upgrades.

 

[Feanor]

T-90 is not being cancelled, BMP 3 has always been a issue inregards to the Russian top brass even wanting the darn thing, but it is there to stay with future upgrades.

Could that be what the purchase of German armor was related to? A new BMP-3 variant?

Also, what do you mean in terms of the problem of wanting the BMP-3? I've heard you reference this several times, but I've never heard anything specific about it.

 

[Chrom]

Could that be what the purchase of German armor was related to? A new BMP-3 variant?

Also, what do you mean in terms of the problem of wanting the BMP-3? I've heard you reference this several times, but I've never heard anything specific about it.

Basically, where are several points:

1. Exit. Yes, the usual exaggerated myth about rear/side exits.

2. Armor. As always, 18 ton vehichle compared to 40 ton Puma, by incompetent generals, look quite weak.

3. FCS (thermal, etc). We all know thermals cost too much.

4. And well, cost. Althought this problem somewhat faded away now, with much more funds available, But still "light" armor which cost almost as much as new tank raise some questions.

Many think what 5 new BTR-80/82 or 5 overhauled BMP-2 is better than 1 new BMP-3. Others want something like Akhazarit.

 

[Waylander]

While I can accept that budget constraints are always a limiting factor this shouldn't apply in regards to thermals.
Thermals just have too large of a footprint in a tactical sense on a modern battlefield.
AFVs without thermals on a modern battlefield have a severe disadvantage which cannot get emphasized enough.

Especially with a light IFV which has to rely onto superior tracking because of it's rather light armor.

 

[Feanor]

The BMP-3 has thermals (iirc the Namut, developed by SAGEM). However this makes them very expensive. Also the thermals are a French-Belorussian import.

 

[Firn]

The BMP-3 has thermals (iirc the Namut, developed by SAGEM). However this makes them very expensive. Also the thermals are a French-Belorussian import.

The question is how expensive and how effective this thermals are for AFV. Not only recent experience does indicate that AFV without thermals are at a huge disadvantage - hardly surprising if you consider the qualities of the spectrum made available through ever better technology at better prices. Only the degree of disadvantage varies with METT-TC.

Firn

 

[Waylander]

The BMP-3 has thermals (iirc the Namut, developed by SAGEM). However this makes them very expensive. Also the thermals are a French-Belorussian import.

I know but Chrom sounded like he wants to get rid of them because of the costs.
Therefore I wanted to emphasize on how important thermals are these days.

 

[Chrom]

I know but Chrom sounded like he wants to get rid of them because of the costs.
Therefore I wanted to emphasize on how important thermals are these days.

No, i dont. But with proper FCS and good thermals BMP-3 cost, as i said, almost as much as tank. The problem lies here - something must be sacrificed. Either quality, or quantity.

In many cases 200 BMP-3 with bad cheap night vision is far better than 100 BMP-3 with excellent thermals - after all, something is much better than nothing for troops.

This is just usual controvercy between cost, firepower, armor, mobility, etc.

Current variant is of course by far not the best around, but this is not developers fault - they proposed and even made BMP-3 with french thermals, ERA, etc. long ago.
Army got what it orders - even if it is much worse.

 

[Firn]

No, i dont. But with proper FCS and good thermals BMP-3 cost, as i said, almost as much as tank. The problem lies here - something must be sacrificed. Either quality, or quantity.

In many cases 200 BMP-3 with bad cheap night vision is far better than 100 BMP-3 with excellent thermals - after all, something is much better than nothing for troops.

All well, but while I do not know the production costs of the BMP-3 and the thermal sights and better FCS I would be quite surprised if your ratio is close to the mark.

Firn

 

[Feanor]

Meanwhile a T-90 runs around 2.5 million export cost. Internal prices are notably lower. It wouldn't be terribly surprising to see a BMP-3 cost in the 500 000 - 1 000 000 category. USD of course.

 

[Chrom]

All well, but while I do not know the production costs of the BMP-3 and the thermal sights and better FCS I would be quite surprised if your ratio is close to the mark.

Firn

Thermals alone may be not, although they still get fair share of BMP-3 price. But the whole package of "ultimate" BMP-3 (including thermals, ERA, better FCS, etc) vs "standard" BMP-3 - certainly so. I suspect in that case the ratio might be even higher.

 

[Feanor]

What's the actual variant? BMP-3M?

 

[eckherl]

Could that be what the purchase of German armor was related to? A new BMP-3 variant?

Also, what do you mean in terms of the problem of wanting the BMP-3? I've heard you reference this several times, but I've never heard anything specific about it.

I believe that what Russia is looking at would be lighter armor for wheeled vehicles, especially for BTR 80 and 90 series.

BMP-3 was not accepted very well when it rolled on to the scene as a future replacement for BMP-2, Russian Army felt that they had enough heavy armor and this new type of turret configuration would be a waste of time, they were stuck on the concept of offering a auto cannon for vehicle infantry support, also the armor protection was not that great of a increase versus BMP-2, it was better but not in a major way.. With all that said they are starting to change their view point in regards to this vehicle, especially due to the force structure draw down, also you may think that I am loco for what I am about to state but what would you think of a BMP 3 type vehicle that was sporting a 57mm auto cannon as a replacement to the current set up.

 

[eckherl]

I know but Chrom sounded like he wants to get rid of them because of the costs.
Therefore I wanted to emphasize on how important thermals are these days.

They have become a gunners primary weapons sight with every major army that uses them, including the Russians.

 

[Feanor]

I believe that what Russia is looking at would be lighter armor for wheeled vehicles, especially for BTR 80 and 90 series.

BMP-3 was not accepted very well when it rolled on to the scene as a future replacement for BMP-2, Russian Army felt that they had enough heavy armor and this new type of turret configuration would be a waste of time, they were stuck on the concept of offering a auto cannon for vehicle infantry support, also the armor protection was not that great of a increase versus BMP-2, it was better but not in a major way.. With all that said they are starting to change their view point in regards to this vehicle, especially due to the force structure draw down, also you may think that I am loco for what I am about to state but what would you think of a BMP 3 type vehicle that was sporting a 57mm auto cannon as a replacement to the current set up.

I would think it's insane. What role would it serve? The current 30mm offers anti-light armor support, as well as area suppression. The 100mm offers a decent weapon against even MBTs (provided they get a side shot), and offers a guided ATGM.

What's the logic behind replacing this proven design with a single 57mm auto-cannon?

 

[Feanor]

So it's been confirmed, the BTR-80 and 80A will be replaced by 82 and 82A. However the new design still allegedly features the same side doors arrangement, which leads me to question the commentary critical of this set up. There are no news on a BMP-3 variant to come out, as far as I've heard.

EDIT: Some pictures of the new BTR-82 and 82A. The turret looks markedly different.

 

[eckherl]

So it's been confirmed, the BTR-80 and 80A will be replaced by 82 and 82A. However the new design still allegedly features the same side doors arrangement, which leads me to question the commentary critical of this set up. There are no news on a BMP-3 variant to come out, as far as I've heard.

EDIT: Some pictures of the new BTR-82 and 82A. The turret looks markedly different.

Do not be surprised if they do not change the configuration of this vehicle, they are leaning towards placing engine pact to the front of the vehicle, and a exit ramp at the rear of the vehicle, by doing this they are hoping the improvements in crew protection and ease of vehicle entry will bring in future export sales.