Neuvostoliiton ja Varsovan liiton (sekä muiden) tuotantomääristä

  • Viestiketjun aloittaja Viestiketjun aloittaja Antares
  • Aloitus PVM Aloitus PVM
Otetaanpa tämä varalta talteen. En mene takuuseen luotettavuudesta, mutta ainakin sivusto on kyproslainen / sivuston pääte on kyproslainen.

Lainaan vain Kyproksen T-80U ja T-80UK vaunujen määriä ja aikatauluja koskevan osan sekä huvin vuoksi artikkelissa jaetun Youtube-videon: LÄHDE

Cyprus initially bought from Russia 41 T-80U (‘U-uluchsheniye’ meaning improvement in Russian) of which 27 were T-80Us and 14 T-80UKs (Commander version) all featuring the same powerplant with a jet-engine. The total cost of that deal was $ 174 million. The tanks arrived in Cyprus in two batches. The first shipment included 27 T-80Us that arrived in 1996, while the second batch of 14 T-80UKs arrived in 1997.

In 2010 the Republic of Cyprus proceeded to a new purchase of 41 refurbished T-80Us and four Brem-80U armored recovery vehicles for $ 115 million. The delivery of these tanks was completed in mid-2011. All T-80U tanks exported by the Russian Federation to Cyprus were part of the Russian’s army stock, while the Brem-80Us were built in Omsk exclusively for the National Guard (N.G).



-

Lainasin aikaisemmassa viestissä S. Ustyantsev kirjan tietoja, joiden mukaan Omskin tehdas valmisti viimeiset T-80 panssarivaunut vuonna 1996. LINKKI

JOS kyseinen tieto pitää paikkansa, se tarkoittaisi että Kyprokselle vuosina 1996 ja 1997 toimitetut vaunut olivat käytännössä uustuotantoa tai ainoastaan muutaman vuoden vanhoja (ehkä jopa niin että Kyptoksen tilaamat vaunut ovat viimeiset, jotka valmistuivat Omskin linjalta), mutta vuonna 2010 toimitetut vaunut olivat Venäjän varastoista (koska Omskin tehdas oli mennyt konkurssiin jo useita vuosia ennen tätä kauppaa). Ylle lainatun mukaan ne olisivat kuitenkin olleet peruskorjattuja (refurbished) kuten on yleensä niissä tilanteissa kun Venäjä myy vanhoja "varastovaunuja" ulkomaisille asiakkaille eli nämä vaunut käyvät jossain armored repair plant pajassa peruskorjattavana ennen vientiä.

Tämä on tietysti ollut tiedossa jo aikaisemmin, kunhan muistutan asiasta.

Hieman lisätietoa / tiedonmurusia Kyproksen T-80U panssarivaunuista.

Tämä artikkeli on arkistoitu 26.7.2011 mutta alkuperäinen lähde on todennäköisesti vanhempi: LÄHDE

More T-80U for Cyprus

The Republic of Cyprus deposited ten per cent (10%) of the total contract value for the acquisition of forty-one (41) T-80U main battle tanks from the Russian Federation. According to ISDA's information, Nicosia has paid the advancement during the Cyprus parliamentary delegation visit to Moscow, in October 2009. The Cyprus delegation was lead by the President of the House of Representatives Marios Garoyian and during its stay had meetings with numerous high-level Russian officials, including the Prime Minister of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin and the President of the State Duma Boris Gryzlov.

It should be noted that the National Guard expressed the need to acquire an additional battalion of T-80Us in order to complete the nominal strength (82 MBTs) of the XX Armored Brigade. For financial and operational reasons, Nicosia decided to purchase second-hand T-80Us, which have already been inspected by Cypriot National Guard officers and were found to be in perfect condition. The expected MBTs will be delivered after the completion of some modifications that will bring them to the same level with the systems that are currently in service in Cyprus. The EUR 110 million contract provides also the option for the procurement of another forty-one (41) additional T-80Us, while the delivery of the tanks will be completed within 18 months from the activation (October, 2009) of the contract. However, it should be remembered that so far Cyprus had "frozen" the T-80U main battle tank acquisition program since, according to estimations, any purchase of such a magnitude could "disturb" the negotiation process between the Cyprus government and the Turkish-Cypriot community.


-

Otan varalta talteen kuvakaappauksen:

1757955253335.webp

Sivun reunassa mainostetaan Hellenic Defence Monitor Bulletin, Issue 2, Vol. 1, December 22, 2009 - eli tämä nettisivun uutinen voi olla joko web-versio ko. julkaisun lyhyestä uutisesta, tai muuten vain samalta ajalta.

Linkittämässäni vanhemmassa viestissäni lainattiin kyproslaista nettisivua, jolla kirjoitettiin näin:

In 2010 the Republic of Cyprus proceeded to a new purchase of 41 refurbished T-80Us and four Brem-80U armored recovery vehicles for $ 115 million. The delivery of these tanks was completed in mid-2011.

Tämä vihjaa siitä että yllä lainattu i-sda.org artikkeli olisi joko vuodelta 2009 tai 2010, koska Kypros oli maksanut vaaditun 10% "käsirahan" ja odotti toimitusten alkamista. Maksu tapahtui lokakuussa 2009 kun delegaatio vieraili Moskovassa.

-

Tämä seuraava lainaus on Army recognition nettisivulta ja he eivät tietysti kerro lähdettään (artikkeli julkaistu 4.10.2021, alleviivaus minun): LÄHDE

Besides aging Frenc-made AMX-30B2s apparently still in the inventory, 27 T-80Us and 14 T-80UKs were ordered in 1996 from Russia. The T-80Us were delivered in 1996 and the T-80UKs were delivered in 1997. In 1999, a planned order for 41 additional T-80U/UK type tanks was canceled due to political sensitivities.

In 2009, the Cyprus National Guard was to equip with a further 41 T-80U/UK type tanks from Russian suppliers, with a pre-agreement reportedly made for a further 41 tanks of the type. The deal was previously erroneously reported to consist of Russian T-90 tanks.


-

Otin tämän talteen lähinnä mielenkiintoisena tiedonmurusena, joka odottaa parempaa lähdettä. Helppo uskoa että tuo voisi pitää paikkansa ja muut lainaamani artikkelit kommentoivat myös että Kypros halusi alunperin 82 kpl T-80U ja T-80UK panssarivaunuja, mutta toinen 42 kpl erä saatiin vasta 2010-2011. Ne eivät sano suoraan että panssarivaunut olisi haluttu hyvin pian ensimmäisten erien jälkeen, mutta jos raha ei ollut este niin helppo uskoa että ne olisi kyetty toimittamaan 90-luvulla, ehkä juuri 1999 kuten Army recognition nettisivun artikkelissa väitetään.

-

Tässä vielä yksi mielenkiintoinen lainaus aikaisemmin jakamastani kyproslaisesta Defence Redefined -nettisivun artikkelista (artikkeli on julkaistu 28.2.2021): LÄHDE

In any case, the international best practice favours the upgrade and utilization of tanks in their “half-life” (about 20 years) for satisfactory operation for a lifespan between 40-50 years, or even more in some cases (i.e. the M48 which made its debut in the 1950s) . The most common upgrade option includes the upgrade of the Fire Control System, the electro-optical sensors as well as the tank’s armor.

The first series of the N.G’s T-80Us, as said earlier, has already completed 25 years of service on the island. The second batch of refurbished tanks has already completed a decade of operational use with a total lifespan of about the same years as the first batch of T-80Us.
The only upgrade that the Cypriot T-80Us had so far is the optoelectronics systems, which have been modernized in Cyprus with systems offered by the Belarusian JSC Peleng in collaboration with the French Thales (sources refer to Catharine-FC thermal imager).
-

Olen nähnyt toisinaan väitteitä että tämä modernisaatio olisi toiminut innoittajana / rahoittajana ryssän T-80UE-1 projektille. Se täsmäisi ajanhetken osalta, tosin T-80UE-1 on muutakin kuin pelkkä T-80U + lämpötähtäin.

Cypriot T-80U's parading in 2022.

Unlike regular T-80U's, these one have 2nd gen thermal.


1757956373850.webp


-

Viestin kommenteissa häneltä kysyttiin tällaista: Thales Thermals?

Johon T-90K vastasi näin: Bingo.

Toinen kommentoija vastasi jakamalla tämän kuvan:

1757956310393.webp

-

HUOM: ei ole selvää, onko tämä lämpötähtäin asennettu myöhemmin niihin 42 kpl ensimmäisessä erässä toimitettuun panssarivaunuun VAI löytyykö tämä ainoastaan 42 kpl toisessa erässä toimitetusta panssarivaunusta.

Ylempänä lainattu Defence Redefined -nettisivun artikkelin teksti ei sano asiaa suoraan ja se on tulkittavissa miten kukakin haluaa.
 
Viimeksi muokattu:
Kävin pitkästä aikaa venäläisellä otvaga2004 foorumilla, halusin erityisesti kartoittaa mitä venäläinen Alexei Khlopotov / Aleksey Khlopotov / Алексей Хлопотов (tunnetaan nimimerkistä Gur Khan) on kirjoittanut siellä.

Hän on profiilinsa tietojen perusteella rekisteröitynyt foorumille 2009-10-19 ja julkaissut viimeisen viestinsä 2022-01-16, tosin aktiivisimmat vuodet ovat aikavälillä 2009-2018.

Hän on nähtävästi jatkanut foorumin lukemista sen jälkeen vaikkei olekaan osallistunut keskusteluun, ei ainakaan näillä tunnuksilla (last visit = 2025-08-03). Tänä aikana hän on julkaissut 2958 viestiä. LÄHDE

Miksi tällä on merkitystä?

Khlopotov on "vapaa toimittaja" mutta hän asuu Nizhny Tagilissa ja hänellä on hyvät välit Uralvagonzavodin kanssa. Toisaalta tämä tarkoittaa sitä että hänellä on hyvä pääsy usealta muulta suljettuun materiaaliin, toisaalta hän on myös pakotettu olemaan tarkkana sen kanssa mitä julkaisee tai muuten nämä hyvät välit menevät poikki.

Tästä syystä hänen kirjoituksiaan kannattaa lukea, erityisesti T-72 ja T-90 perheiden panssarivaunujen osalta. Hän kommentoi Neuvostoliiton panssarivaunujen historiaa yleisemminkin, mutta niitä lukiessa pitää olla tarkkana, koska eri kirjoittajat ovat toisinaan syyttäneet häntä "UVZ:n mieheksi". Hän myös riitautui pahasti ukrainalaisen Andrei Tarasenkon kanssa - tämä siis vuoden 2010 tienoilla eli selvästi ennen kuin ryssä hyökkäsi Ukrainan kimppuun vuonna 2014.

Eli kun lukee hänen kommenttejaan eri vuosina, pitää aina tehdä tulkintoja, onko kyseessä hyvä ja luotettava tieto vai äkkipikaistuksissaan kirjoitettu tölväisy. Toki näinhän se aina on kun kiistellään mielipiteistä ja tulkinnoista, varsinkin kun keskustelun aiheet ovat usein yhä "valtionsalaisuuksia" ja lähteet ovat ristiriidassa keskenään.

Poimin alle muutamia hänen viestejään, en laita näitä spoilerin taakse koska käytän tätä ketjua omina "muistiinpanoina" ja hakukone ei löydä sanahakuja spoilerin takaa. Nämä ovat konekäännöksiä venäjästä englanniksi joten joskus tulee käännöskukkasia. Lisään vastauksen perään päivämäärän.

Nämä ovat siis minun huomion herättäneitä huhuja tai tiedonmurusia noin 15 vuoden takaa.

-

Fritz: And if the T-90A is supposedly "killed," then what's the point? What's the purpose? I mean, no one's forcing the Ministry of Defense to buy it, so why kill it?

Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2011-02-07): LÄHDE

Firstly, industry—read: corporations—is exerting pressure on the Ministry of Defense, specifically for procurement purposes. Secondly, the market offers the T-84, Leopard, Leclerc, Merkava-4, and Arietta—take your pick. Thirdly, they need to prove the validity of their claims and also blame the industry for the ton of money wasted on all sorts of R&D projects. Look around, people, and see what's happening in neighboring industries—shipbuilding, aviation, small arms—but for some reason they're modestly silent about artillery and ammunition, even though in reality, it's the same old story there...

Why is the desire to crash the plane surprising? Hasn't this ever happened in our history? Let's recall the instructions Ustinov gave Potapov during the 1972 tests! All history—it's high time we realized this—goes in circles, or at best, in a spiral. But a spiral also has two directions: ascending and descending. Pilots call the latter a corkscrew. And sometimes, you never get out of it...

-


hhba: By the way, in the "rev. 184" thread linked by Гайковерта / Gaikovert (it turns out I should have registered there), there's a link to Khlopotov, who claims the T-72B was initially put into production with ERA, while tanks without it (but with the T-72B turret) were considered the last T-72As. Alexey, could you clarify this? So, all the photos of T-72Bs without ERA (some of them are in that thread) are fake? So, they don't match the captions?
UPDATE: But all this somehow doesn't tie in with the timeframe you mentioned for the introduction of the "hundredth" turret.


Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2011-01-29): LÄHDE

I don't know about the signatures, but I've explained everything else to people many times before, and frankly, I'm tired of doing it. But let's get this straight.

First, let's understand and accept without question that the development process is one thing, and the production process is quite another. Both are continuous and parallel, and as Gaikovert rightly pointed out, the development and implementation of various design improvements and enhancements during serial production proceeded continuously, without waiting for the approval of any specific package of documents regulating the appearance of the new vehicle variant. This is a major difference between Soviet tank building and Western tank design – theirs was a discrete, intermittent process, while ours is a continuous flow, resulting in smooth changes in the appearance of vehicles during production. Let's remember this.

How was the T-72B designed? I'll start by saying that I'm still not entirely clear on this, but the general outline is as follows: the R&D project "Improvement of the T-72A" was mandated by the Ministry of Defense Order of September 8, 1981, based on the Central Committee and Council of Ministers Resolution of July 5, 1981. The technical design consisted of two stages, differing in the level of modernization. During development, the new vehicle was assigned the internal designation "Product 184." During the design work, the following changes were introduced into the composition of "Product 184" (improved T-72A):

- turret 172.10.077SB early 1982
- new chassis - 09.07.1982
- turret 172.10.100SB 19.07.1982 for 184 and 02.12.1982 for 184-1
- stabilizer 2E42-2 - 02.12.1982
- KUV "Svir" - 1984 (previously tested on ob. 177)
- fire control system 1A40-1 - 1984
- NDZ system 10.01.84
- A-65 engine March 1984
- the structure of the VLD was repeatedly changed.

"Product 184" was accepted into service under the designation T-72B by the order of the Ministry of Defense dated 23.01.1985 based on the Resolution of the Central Committee and Council of Ministers dated 27.11.1984. At the same time, by the same resolution, "Product 184-1" was accepted into service as the T-72B1 (without the control unit) and "Product 184-2" as the T-72B2 (control unit "Cobra"). The T-72B1 were supposed to enter service until the production of the Svir control unit and guided missiles for it was established. The T-72B2 was accepted as a reserve variant in case of problems with the supply of the Svir control unit; its serial production was subsequently abandoned (as an obsolete control unit system).

Thus, not a single tank produced by the plant before 23.01.1985 had no right to be called "T-72B" or "early T-72B", etc., etc. At best, it could be called "Product 184" with modifications. And a "product" is still not a "tank".

At the time of its adoption into service, the T-72B had the following general appearance:

- 9K120 Svir guided weapons system;
- V-84 (A-65) engine;
- add-on dynamic protection;
- new chassis (very significant changes);
- 2E42-2 stabilizer;
- 172.10.100SB turret;
- new VLD structure;
- 1A40-1 fire control system;
- 2A46M cannon.

This is the "classic" appearance of the T-72B tank and everyone knows it. However, the capabilities of the industry made their own adjustments to the process of serial production of the T-72B. With the KUV, everything is clear. There were also problems with establishing turret casting. Therefore, the 100SB turrets on serial T-72Bs only appeared in March 1985. There were also problems with stabilizer production. M. Pavlov states that the NDZ system also appeared on serial vehicles only in 1985 (again, presumably in March). The latter is debatable, as the exact date and document number have not yet been found. The gun was not produced consistently, and sometimes the 2A46 had to be installed. Thus, the appearance of the T-72B (more precisely B1) from January to March 1985 is as follows:

- V-84 (A-65) engine;
- new chassis (very serious changes);
- 2E28M stabilizer;
- 172.10.077SB turret;
- new VLD structure;
- 1A40 fire control system
- 2A46/46M gun mixed together.

Now let's look at what was happening on the factory assembly line while the T-72B, or "Product 184," was being designed. At the time, the T-72A ("Product 172M1") tank was in mass production.

The following changes were introduced during this process:

- the 2A46M cannon was installed (quick-release connection of the cannon barrel with the breech) instead of the 2A46 from 01.04.1981 from the Я04ВТ1584 vehicle
- the 172.10.077SB turret entered production in September 1982 and began to be installed in a limited way in 1983.
- the 1A40 complex was introduced instead of the TPD-K1 - 1983.
- an overrun was introduced on the serial turret 172.10.073SB (2nd half of 1983 from the Ф05ВТ3908 vehicle)
- a left external spare parts box was installed, the OPTV pipe was moved to the rear box (2nd half of 1983 from the Ф05ВТ3908 vehicle)
- new chassis - 1983
- stabilizer 2E42-2 (limited) 1984
- KUV "Svir" - installation batch 1984
- engine V-84 - installation batch 1984.

In pilot production, batches of T-72A tanks with the following changes were assembled for various comparative tests:

- 2E42-2 stabilizer in 1980 and 1981
- KD-45-3 and V-46-6 engines with afterburner up to 2 nominal (840 hp) - 1981 and 1982
- NDZ complex - 1982.

So what do we see from this? It's that in 1983-84, a batch of vehicles, excluding the NDZ, could very well have rolled off the assembly line and been deployed to the troops, fully matching (except for some invisible "minor details") the appearance of "Product 184." But can these vehicles be called T-72B or early T-72B? In my opinion, this is legally illegal, since the name "T-72B" itself had not yet been introduced into official documentation. Furthermore, according to information I have, the vehicles in the well-known photos at the parade are indeed those produced in 1983-84. Moreover, I have photos (I won’t show them yet) and serial numbers of two interesting vehicles discovered at 61 BTRZ - the first one matches the appearance of the T-72A, but with the installation of the "Tucha" like on the T-72B, the second one looks like a T-72B (without ERA) (the notorious "early" B) but has the "Tucha" on it like on the classic T-72A. Both vehicles were manufactured in 1983. What should they be called? In my opinion, only the registration forms of these very vehicles can finally resolve the issue of naming the vehicles "looking like a T-72B, but without ERA". They are currently concentrated in Totskoye. This summer they will probably again participate in large SCO exercises. Thus, I appeal to everyone who has the opportunity to participate in them - to catch these vehicles there, record the serial numbers and agree with the "owners" of the vehicles - to take photos of the registration forms. A similar request to those who possibly He has friends and acquaintances among the officers in Totskoye - perhaps it would be even more convenient to do all this in the park.


-

hhba: By the way, could you tell me about turret 077? I'm apparently familiar with turret 100, since it later ended up on the T-72B, but what is turret 077 like? (HUOM: tässä puhutaan siis T-72 panssarivaunujen tornien piirustusnumeroista eli 172.10.077SB ja 172.10.100SB - eli käytännössä tornien eri tuotantoversioista)

Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2011-01-29): LÄHDE

I haven't seen the drawings. But from what I understand, it looks very similar to the 100th. In fact, analyzing photographs using several reference points, I've identified at least three turret variations for the B with NDZ and two for the B with ERA. So, you see, are these variants of the same drawing (likely SB-1, SB-2, etc.) or are they different, or are they simply technological differences (after all, B turrets were made by two factories).

-

BAURIS: Alexey, I remember, said that in the 90s there were no more than 5 cars with "Agava-2".

Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2010-10-02): LÄHDE

Two machines, to be precise. After the tests, they were sent to the training center.

-

Edu: So, cars from 2006 and closer... was the Buran also installed?

Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2010-09-29): LÄHDE

No. The Buran-M was installed on vehicles manufactured in 2004 and 2005. These vehicles were primarily assigned to the Tamanka brigade. However, when the brigade was later reorganized according to its new design, some Buran-equipped vehicles were transferred to other brigades, particularly the Volgograd brigade.

Виталий Иванович (PQ) / Vitaly Ivanovich (PQ): How many cars in total are there with Buran-M?

Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2010-09-29): LÄHDE

about 30 pieces

-

Wiedzmin: Is the T-80A the ancestor of the T-80U? Does it have a new turret and a remote-controlled fire control system? They're showing it in Kubinka as the "T-80BV"...

Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2010-08-27): LÄHDE

Apparently, it was not in vain that Efremov / Ефремов wrote "Lessons" (ven. "Уроки"):

"In 1984, an experimental set of dynamic protection was installed on the experimental T-80A tanks, which had insignificant differences from each other. It should be noted that the Kirov designers did this much earlier than their foreign competitors. Following this, a more powerful multi-layer armor was installed on the T-80 tank, equivalent in its protective properties to 500 mm thick steel armor. This tank was called the T-80B. And in 1985, the T-80B tank was equipped with a set of add-on protection, after which the vehicle received the designation T-80BV. A little later, the same complex began to be installed on previously built T-80B tanks, but this was done, as a rule, during major repairs. When the time came for the T-80U tank, its armor protection was significantly strengthened. The design of the armor barriers changed, as a result of which the relative The proportion of armor to a tank's weight. The first series of T-80U tanks were equipped with the latest add-on dynamic protection system, "Kontakt." Later, the add-on elements were replaced with integrated dynamic protection, which can withstand not only shaped-charge (HEAT) projectiles but also kinetic projectiles. The combination of advanced multilayer composite armor and dynamic protection protects the T-80U from all known types of mass-produced HEAT anti-tank projectiles and reduces the likelihood of being hit by "blank" projectiles. In terms of armor protection, with an equivalent thickness of 1,100 mm against kinetic projectiles and an equivalent thickness of 900 mm against HEAT projectiles and grenades, the T-80U is on par with foreign main battle tanks."

Read carefully and digest the original source.


-

GERRPITER: System 902 cloud began to be installed with the T-72A, and if memory serves, this was in 1979.

Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2010-07-04): LÄHDE

Officially introduced on July 1, 1979, but the Ministry of Defense order on accepting the T-72A into service was dated July 22, 1979.

-

GERRPITER: The T-72AV was produced in Chelyabinsk at ChTZ.

Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2010-07-04): LÄHDE

The AVs weren't produced—they were a modification of previously produced vehicles at the military BTRZ. ChTZ produced the A, B, and B1, as well as command versions of the same...

-

злодеище / villain: Um, no one ordered it, it's an initiative of the wagon factory. (aiheena on BMPT-tulitukivaunu)

Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2010-03-14): LÄHDE

For those who don't know:

The experimental design work on the creation of a highly protected tank support combat vehicle (code "Ramka-99") was carried out on the basis of the Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of 1999 No. 440-30 and the decision of the Chief of Armaments of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation and the Chief of Operation of Armaments and Military Equipment of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation - Chief of the Main Armored Directorate of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation of 1999 No. RZ-426-99 under the contract of November 24, 1999 No. H3-632 and the tactical and technical assignment of October 15, 1998 No. T.175-91 (second edition). The vehicle passed the State tests, which were conducted in accordance with the Directive of the Minister of Defense of the Russian Federation of 2005 No. D-28, from June 2005 to April 2006. These tests were conducted in accordance with the "State Testing Program for Tank Support Combat Vehicles" approved by the Head of the Main Armored Directorate of the Ministry of Defense of Russia on July 17, 2004, and the methods developed by the State Unitary Enterprise "38th Research Institute of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation" and agreed upon with the Federal State Unitary Enterprise "UKBTM". Special tests were conducted on the premises of the State Unitary Enterprise "38th Research Institute of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation", the Federal State Unitary Enterprise "12th Central Research Institute of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation", and military units 75221, 61469, and 22737. During the R&D work on the creation of the BMPT and its component parts, all stages of the work were fully completed. Preliminary, state (interdepartmental) tests of the BMPT and its component parts were successfully completed. Based on the results of the Interdepartmental Commission's review of the design documentation for serial production, the BMPT is recommended for adoption and serial production with the designation "O1." The BMPT can also be effectively used by the troops of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Federal Fire Service of Russia.


-

Гайковерт / Impact wrench: What are objects 175, 177 and 185?

Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2010-02-18): LÄHDE

175 - T-72 with improved characteristics (1975) did not go into production; a prototype, at least according to the information I have, has not been built yet. Its components and assemblies were implemented into serial T-72s and, accordingly, specified in the design documentation.

177 - T-72A with the Svir complex. Late 1970s - early 1980s, development of the KUV. The developments were used in the T-72B.

185 - Improved T-72B. The notorious T-72BU. With the Svir, but a new missile. 2A66 gun. The technical specifications for it were published under the index 188.


-

Гайковерт / Impact wrench: Is it true that the Omsk plant produced the T-55A until 1978? And that their index wasn't 155, but 600?

Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2010-02-14): LÄHDE

True. Regarding the indexes, each plant had its own in production. For example, the T-54A in Tagil was 137G; in Kharkov, 419; in Omsk, 625. As for the T-55A, this modification was developed in the design bureau of Plant No. 174 in Omsk. During the design process, it had the index "ob.607". It was accepted into service by the order of the USSR Ministry of Defense dated July 16, 1962 as "ob.155A", since UVZ remained the holder of the documentation and the lead plant for the T-54/55 series. It was in serial production at Plant No. 174 in Omsk from 1962 to 1979. By the order of the USSR Ministry of Defense dated January 27, 1974, the KDT-1 laser rangefinder and the TShS-32PM gunner's sight were introduced. It's possible that during production it had the index "vol. 639"—I'm still not entirely sure about that last index. Either it was for a car with a KTD, or it started to be called that way in the 607 series.

-

Гайковерт / Impact wrench: Is the T-72A an Object 172M1 or an Object 176? Or were the early T-72As the 172M1, and the later ones the 176?

Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2010-02-14): LÄHDE

The T-72A is a rev. 172M-1.

Rev. 176 are purely experimental vehicles, but some of the developments on them were transferred to the T-72A.


-

Lans: What's the story behind installing the Cobra-U system on the T-72A? Why weren't there any production vehicles?

Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2010-02-10): LÄHDE

It's all so banal: where would they get enough Cobras to meet the T-72 production volumes? There weren't enough for the T-64 either... On the other hand, it was impossible to completely ignore this issue—what if war really broke out?! That's why Tagil was allowed to test the Cobra installation, but with a gritted tooth. There was no point in fighting for production. And why the gritted teeth? It's because the VTU jumped sharply when the KUV was installed. This made the vehicles from other design bureaus look unsightly. In fact, why all this fuss about the KUV? It was simply a desire to boost the VTU and show off their supposed superiority. Read what Morozov writes in his diaries—he needed a break from Tagil and St. Petersburg, which were hot on his heels—so he prioritized this work.

-

Гайковерт / Impact wrench: What are the reasons for abandoning the "old" track and using a track with a parallel RMSh on the T-90A and T-72BA?

Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2010-02-03): LÄHDE

The design bureau had one motive: the customer's requirements. But the basis for those requirements isn't entirely clear. This track has only one advantage: the ability to achieve a higher top speed. But then again, the customer's specifications set the T-90S's top speed at 60 km/h. The actual speed is 65 km/h. When asphalt-running shoes are installed on a parallel-running track, the T-90 can reach 72 km/h on asphalt. However, it should be noted that the military recognizes 72 km/h as the maximum speed for safe tank movement in general. Furthermore, at top speed, fuel consumption increases sharply, resulting in a decrease in range and increased strain on the transmission. The new track is heavier, more expensive, less effective at protecting against mines, more labor-intensive to replace, and has some issues with lateral roll (with standard lugs). So, the feasibility of its implementation is highly questionable! Well, it's kind of cool... it gives an increase in maximum speed...

-

Гайковерт / Impact wrench: Even some T-72Ss with Kontakt-1 had DVE-BS. I saw photos of these in Alexey Khlopotov's archive.

Виталий Иванович (PQ) / Vitaly Ivanovich (PQ): Yes, on almost all Iranian T-72S and Yemeni T-72B.

Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2010-02-02): LÄHDE

The "two in series" designation appeared almost simultaneously on production T-72B(M) and T-72S tanks. This was, I believe, in 1991. The Yemeni "B" tanks underwent repairs at UVZ before being shipped, where they were further equipped. In this regard, they correspond to the T-72B "RA" tanks that underwent repairs at UVZ in 1998. So, not quite "B" in the traditional sense, but not yet "BA" tanks. The documentation didn't specifically distinguish them. More details can be found in the article on Otvaga and, more precisely, in TVV #10, 2009.

-


Wiedzmin: Can you tell me anything about object 185 (new AZ?) and 189 (it seemed to have a gas turbine engine)?

Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2010-01-27): LÄHDE

The 185 is an "improved T-72B." Its automatic transmission later found its way onto the T-90. The rubber front mudguards and fenders on the T-72S and later T-72Bs are also from it. It was supposed to be equipped with a TSHU and a D-91T cannon. The Svir KUV, but the missile is different. If all goes well and the model isn't removed during subsequent approvals, his photo will be included in V.N. Venediktov's biography, which is currently being prepared for publication. The 189 is the same as the St. Petersburg 292 or the Chelyabinsk 785—an attempt to shove a big stick into the previous layout. The story about the gas turbine engine on it came from some Cuban, either not very literate or confusing it with the 187.3—the latter indeed had a gas turbine engine, and the most powerful one at that time in the USSR.

-


Сергей Белоног / Sergey Belonog: Regarding the BMPT order? When should we expect it, and will it be based on the T-90 at all, or will they wait for a new platform?

Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2010-01-10): LÄHDE

There won't be any orders anytime soon. Unless the Kazakhs buy it. The vehicle has passed the State Defense and Interdepartmental Commission, and a recommendation for its acceptance into service has been received, but there has been no actual order, decree, or resolution on this since 2006. Moreover, no space has been reserved for it in the new tank and motorized rifle brigades. The corporation's management had an idea to build a dozen vehicles for the Victory Day parade, drag them across Red Square, and then stuff them somewhere else. But the big question is, who's paying for all this fun? So, it all came to nothing... Meanwhile, they plan to slightly modernize the vehicle in terms of armament (increasing air defense capabilities) and replacing some elements of the fire control system. And what's this new platform?

-

10V: What's the right way? Tell me, they'll fix it

Виталий Иванович (PQ) / Vitaly Ivanovich (PQ): I already wrote: In the Moscow Military District, there are T-90s in the Specialized Training Center (about a battalion, tanks from the Siberian Military District) and in the Taman Brigade, there are T-90As, also a battalion. The Kantemirovskaya Brigade has T-80Us and BVs. The 5th Tank Brigade, as far as I know, doesn't exist. The Siberian Military District no longer has any T-90s, just like the Marine Corps. This is pure speculation and conjecture. According to our estimates, there are two tanks in the Leningrad Military District. There were also a couple of T-90s in Kubinka. Yes, a few in military academies.

Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2010-01-09): LÄHDE

"What's the right way? Tell me, they'll fix it"

From 1996 to 2004, you need to put 0.

From 1992 to 1995 - edit...

2008 - 62 pcs.

Edited by Gur Khan (2010-01-09 09:44:23)

Hän editoi viestistään numeron pois JA ketjuun oli tullut tällainen viesti:


Сергей Белоног / Sergey Belonog:

Hello, friends! I'm Sergey Belonog, Lead Engineer and Process Engineer at Uralvagonzavod Research and Production Corporation, in the Transmission Manufacturing Shop, Machining Section.

I'm hoping for a constructive dialogue rather than mudslinging.

I see you're openly discussing the numbers of T-90 vehicles entering service. I want to warn you that at our plant, the number of vehicles manufactured, especially those manufactured for the Russian Armed Forces, is considered classified information. We can't even rely on these numbers for economic calculations, much less publish them.


-

Butcher171: T-90 AK tanks are planned to be delivered starting next year.

Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2009-12-16): LÄHDE

The AK has been supplied alongside regular vehicles since 2004.

-

dron: Perhaps not all tanks are equipped with an ES-100, and some are equipped with a different night light to save money (possibly a modernized Buran).

Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2009-11-05): LÄHDE

You're right. The first batch of T-90As were equipped with the Buran-M. Only about 30 vehicles were produced. Then came the Essa, and now it's installed on all production vehicles.
 
Viimeksi muokattu:
Jatkan edellisen viestin teemassa eli venäläisen Alexei Khlopotov / Aleksey Khlopotov / Алексей Хлопотов (tunnetaan nimimerkistä Gur Khan) vanhojen viestien perkaamista venäläisellä otvaga2004 foorumilla.

Lainaan alle minun mielestäni mielenkiintoisia huhuja tai tiedonmuruja sisältäviä viestejä ja keskustelunpätkiä.

-

Blitz.: Em, there was information that in 2011 the last batch was 62 cars - does this mean that this is not true?

Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2018-03-08): LÄHDE

In 2010! In 2011, it all ended
:(
– they started modernizing the T-72.


Johon Blitz. vastasi näin: Thank you. So, from 2004 to 2010, a total of (14+18+31+31+62+62+62) 280 tanks were produced. It's no surprise that at its peak, the Armed Forces had 258 T-90As.

Johon Artemon vastasi näin: Then where does Wikipedia get the figure of 32 with Buran and 337 with Essa?

Johon Blitz. vastasi näin: It doesn't matter where they got the numbers from.
:)
There was also information that 63 tanks were produced in the 8-10 divisions, i.e. not 2 command tanks, but 3. In that case, 283 vehicles were made.


Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2018-03-08): LÄHDE

Okay, I'll give away a state secret, maybe they won't shoot me:

State defense order for 2008: T-90A - 62 units, including 2 command vehicles; 40 repair vehicles; 14 BREM-1
State defense order for 2009: T-90A - 63 units, including 4 command vehicles, BREM-1 - 14 units.
State defense order for 2010: T-90A - 63 units, including 4 command
vehicles State defense order for 2011: equal to 2010 in terms of money. 87 units overhaul of T-72B with Sosna-U; 6 BREM-1


Johon Blitz. vastasi näin: LÄHDE

Thank you!
^^


So, that's 282 T-90As, 14 of which are T-90AKs. Plus 105 production T-90s , for a total of 387 MBTs.

And 40 repairs for the 8th, T-72BA?

Lastly, have you ordered the BREM-1 before?
:rolleyes:


Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2018-03-08): LÄHDE

1758320601848.webp

Johon Blitz. vastasi näin:

1758317994569.webp

Johon Artemon vastasi näin:
That's 344 T-90As in total. According to the report and your edits, 156 tanks were produced before 2008. Plus 188, according to Khlopotov, from 2008 to 2010. Yeah, 344.

How can there be 282 T-90As if 156 were produced before 2008, and 188 from 2008-2011? Something doesn't add up.


Johon Blitz. vastasi näin: 14 in 2004, 18 in 2005, 31 in 2006 and 2007

Jolloin vastaan harannut Artemon huomasi virheensä: I accidentally added it up with 2008. Yeah, it's sad. I hope they at least modernize the 1992 T-90 and bring back the A-15s from Syria.

Карамазов / Karamazov kysyi suoraan: Could you please tell me how many T-90 and T-90A tanks are in service and in storage with the Russian Armed Forces?

Johon Blitz. vastasi näin: LÄHDE

282 T-90A and 105 T-90

-

Blitz. kirjoitti näin (2018-03-15):

14 in 2004, 18 in 2005, 31 in 2006 and 2007
http://otvaga2004.ru/tanki/istoriya-sozdaniya/t-90-chast-4/


Johon tatarin / Tatar vastasi näin:

There was such data

2006 - 31
2007 - 32
2008 - 63
2009 - 63
2010 - 64

These are only tanks with Essa.


Johon Blitz. vastasi näin (2018-03-15): LÄHDE

+30 with a Buran and two T-90AKs for 4-5. The numbers vary by a couple of vehicles from source to source, which isn't very significant.

-

Blitz.: So, how many T-90s were produced in total, including experimental vehicles, or only serial ones?

Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2017-06-26): LÄHDE

105 production vehicles. Of these, 84 were initially sent to the Khalilovo base, and from there to Siberia. 21 vehicles were sent to the Training Center, VNIITM, Kubinka, and Vystrel. Two of them were transferred from UVZ to UKBTM for modifications and modernization (one of them, in particular, was converted into a T-90K with Agava). One of the Kubinka vehicles was converted into a T-90S, and so on and so forth. Two of these were still undergoing qualification trials (one of which was sent from ChVTKU). ChVTKU had seven vehicles, indeed from 1992, but not the very first ones – the seventh, eighth, tenth, and twelfth were delivered, and three more in 1994, one of which was the very first with Agava. But as I wrote above, one of their vehicles was later sent to a test facility, leaving only six left. I have a detailed inventory of 77 vehicles and the final production figure is 105 units. But... this doesn't include the first experimental units #1-4 from 1988. I also know the serial numbers of at least two more vehicles from 1991 - one in Tagil, the other in Kubinka. I also know at least two more vehicles from 1992 that aren't on the general list (but maybe they're just hulls? Who knows). I also know the serial numbers of two vehicles from 1996 - I haven't looked into them yet, but I think there's one in Kubinka.

Johon Constantine vastasi näin: Gur Khan , are you aware of how the tanks from Khalilovo were distributed among the troops? VIF once wrote that they were transferred to the 21st Motorized Rifle Division. But by 1992, it was already being folded into a brigade, so over 80 vehicles were clearly too many for it alone.

Johon _77_ vastasi näin: I think there was one TP on the T-90 in the Siberian Military District.

Johon Constantine vastasi näin: This probably happened back in the 5th Guards Tank Division. The 21st Motorized Rifle Division's tank regiment was reformed into the 4th Motorized Rifle Regiment while it was still in Germany. And it was apparently converted into a brigade immediately after its withdrawal—either in the fall of '92 or in the winter of '92-'93.

Гайковерт / Impact wrench vastasi näin:

"I think there was one TP on the T-90 in the Siberian Military District."

Still in the Transbaikal Military District, in Kyakhta, I don't remember the regiment number. Then the T-90s from Kyakhta were sent to India, and the regiment was re-equipped with T-62s. The RAV men were hanging themselves while they were swapping 115mm for 125mm in the depots, and then back again.


Johon Meskiukas vastasi näin: I'll ask my friends. I think it's 140 Guards T.P.

Meskiukas jatkoi pian tämän jälkeen näin: I asked. There were T-90s in the 108th tank regiment.

Constantine vastasi yllä olevaan Гайковерт / Impact wrench kirjoitukseen Intiaan lähettämisestä näin:

To India, really? VIM once wrote that in the mid-2000s they were refurbished, after which some of the vehicles were sent to the Taman Division, while the rest were distributed among the Central Military Reserve and training facilities.

Johon Гайковерт / Impact wrench vastasi näin:

I've never heard of any significant number of T-90s at the Central Military Tank Training Center. The training school, or more precisely the 212th Specialized Training Center (Chita, Peschanka), received T-90s almost simultaneously with the T-90s in Kyakhta, and then they disappeared (12, I think), because the training school doesn't train tankers in general, but rather for the district's units, and if the district's units don't have T-90s, then the training school has no use for them either.

I don't know about all the military academies, but the Omsk Tank School received its first two (and only) T-90s in November-December 1993, and one of them is still in use. The next T-90s to arrive in Omsk were T-90As.


Гайковерт / Impact wrench jatkoi toisessa viestissä näin:

VIM is, of course, an unquestionable authority. I heard from RAV officers of the then Siberian Military District (formerly Zabaykal Military District) that the T-90s from Kyakhta would be sent to India (through repairs in Tagil). They were strictly tasked with fully equipping the tanks with spare parts kits for the main gun and machine guns.

Ja sen jälkeen vielä näin:

I'm by no means insisting that the T-90s from Kyakhta went to India; I'm simply sharing what I heard back then.
But the fact that it's difficult to convert the 188 into the 188S in factory conditions—that's just too much...


Sekä näin:

I assume that if the rumors about T-90s from Kyakhta to India are true, they were definitely completely rebuilt.
Then again, the first 40 T-90S tanks shipped to India had welded turrets, supposedly from spare parts...


Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2017-07-02): LÄHDE

Regarding Kyakhta... The T-90s were in service with the 140th Tank Regiment (military unit 33134) and the 108th Tank Regiment (military unit 11585)—that's where they went from Khalilovo. According to the data I have, there were 84 vehicles there. Another 10-12 were in a training facility located somewhere around there.

Then the tanks from there were sent to the Central Military Reserves in Buy and Shilovo. Forget about India! Only new tanks from the factory went there. The first batch did indeed have cast turrets, but these were locally made, "off-the-shelf" turrets.

Converting a T-90 into a T-90S is a piece of cake.
:)
Examples: a T-90S with a welded turret was on display at exhibitions in Tagil for a long time – its serial number is Ш09ВТ4729, meaning the vehicle was produced back in 1991 as a pre-production T-90. But that's the factory and design bureau.

Here's another example: the third production T-90, Э11ВТ5976, was sent to Kubinka in February 1993. It then showed up at the Grokhovetsky Training Center (Mulino station). On January 20, 1997, it was scheduled to be shipped to Kubinka for restoration as a T-90S.

Another example: The Directive of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation dated September 23, 2000, Ex. GABTU 1.11.2000 No. 555/13/608, ordered that 4 T-90 tanks be transferred to the training center of the Combined Arms Academy of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation (Solnechnogorsk) and upgraded to the T-90S. Here is one of these vehicles (photo by S. Suvorov):


1758319599178.webp

-

Constantine: Гайковерт / Impact wrench , speaking of the CBRT. About seven years ago, at least two dozen T-90s were spotted in a photograph from Buy: (HUOM: tämä tarkoittaisi vuoden 2010 tienoilla)

1758319855675.webp

Of course, this is not a regimental set, or even the two battalion sets discussed in that contract, but the fact remains: a certain number of these vehicles still ended up in storage.

Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2017-07-02): LÄHDE

They later ended up in the 27th separate motorized rifle brigade in Alabino in the UBG

Johon Constantine vastasi näin: Gur Khan , thank you, I'll keep that in mind. By the way, could you clarify the situation with the T-90As in the Taman Division? Who used them before the reform, and who received them after the brigade was expanded into a division?

Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2017-07-02): LÄHDE

They were in the 5th and 27th Brigades. The first T-90As, still with the Buran, began to arrive in the 5th Separate Motorized Rifle Brigade. Then they were given to the 20th Separate Motorized Rifle Brigade in Volgograd. At the same time, in 2010-early 2011, the 5th Brigade received T-90As with the PTK (Ob. 188A2), after which the 5th Brigade was replaced in parades by the 27th. The vehicles with the PTK are still sort of secret, or rather, the PTK itself is secret, even the separate operational documentation for it, which is not part of the operational documentation for the tank. I don't know where these vehicles are now. It is possible that some of the T-90As still remain in Tamanskaya. But according to rumors, most of the vehicles went to form the 150th Division (Novocherkassk).

See:
http://bmpd.livejournal.com/2305578.html

HUOM: leikkasin tästä osan pois, jätin vain ne mielestäni oleelliset kohdat eli yksikön muodostaminen, sijainti ja kalusto:

bmpd


Subscribe

December 6, 2016, 00:01


bmpd


The 150th Idritsko-Berlin Order of Kutuzov Motorized Rifle Division was formed in the Southern Military District.​



The 150th Idritsko-Berlin Order of Kutuzov Motorized Rifle Division was formed in the Southern Military District.​

Original taken from a colleagueeagle_rostThe 150th Idritsko-Berlin Order of Kutuzov Motorized Rifle Division was formed


Yesterday, December 4, the DonTR television channel aired a report on the new 150th Motorized Rifle Division. (c)DonTR The 150th Motorized Rifle Division began defending its borders in southern Russia. 12:17 PM Sunday, December 4, 2016. Unfortunately, the video is not available on YouTube. You can watch it here.


A new motorized rifle division has begun defending the country's southern borders. It will be stationed in the Rostov Region and bear the name of the 150th Idritsa-Berlin Division, the soldiers who raised the Victory Banner over the Reichstag more than 70 years ago.

-

The newly formed division will be called the 150th Idritsko-Berlin Order of Kutuzov, Second Class, Motorized Rifle Division. This military unit, subordinate to the district, is now stationed near Novocherkassk. It is housed in three military garrisons in the Rostov Region and adjacent training grounds. Thanks to new construction technologies, the division's first military camp was erected in a short time. The division will be stationed at three training grounds: Kuzminsky, Millerovsky, and Kadamovsky. The infrastructure of the new motorized rifle unit's military camp was built from scratch. The new two- and three-story buildings house the reconnaissance battalion, the communications battalion, and the division headquarters. The soldiers have already moved into their dormitories. Construction work at the garrison continues. The area is scheduled to be fully developed by May. "The camp that is being built allows soldiers and sergeants to feel comfortable. These are dormitories with individual quarters with hot water, showers, washing machines, microwaves, and tea rooms. All this makes them feel at home," explains Andrei Burulev, Deputy Commander of the Southern Military District. Field training, says the Deputy Commander, has already begun; the new military academic year began on December 1. But first, the soldiers are participating in training and methodological exercises. Weapons are ceremoniously assigned to personnel. The Southern Military District plans to increase the number of training sessions.


-

The division will consist of six regiments, three of which are motorized rifle, as well as a tank, anti-aircraft missile, and self-propelled artillery regiment. By the end of next year, according to the deputy commander, new motorized rifle and tank regiments will be formed. Modern military equipment is being deployed to defend the country's southern borders. T-90A tanks, BMP-3 armored vehicles, and BTR-80 BTR-80 armored personnel carriers will be the division's primary armament.

Johon Гайковерт / Impact wrench vastasi näin: I heard a version that the T-90s were allegedly looted in Kyakhta, so they were removed from there.

Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2017-07-02): LÄHDE

There was a little scandal. The information leaked to the press. But I don't know how strong the cause-and-effect connection is.

I also forgot - some of the T-90As from the 5th Brigade ended up at the training center in Kovrov, where there are also a number of T-90s (probably from Buy) with the emblems of the 108th Tank Regiment; from Shilovo, one vehicle (T-90) went to the military department of Novosibirsk State University and two to the Novosibirsk Higher Military Command School.

The most interesting thing is that in the 1998 issue of Tankomaster magazine, #4-6 (built), Alexander Koshchavtsev wrote that "the first tank regiment of 94 T-90s was received by the 21st Taganrog, Red Banner, Order of Suvorov, Motorized Rifle Division of the Siberian Military District." Only later did units of the 5th Division in Buryatia receive T-90s (in company to battalion sizes). I don't know where Alexander got this information; I'll have to ask again. Because it doesn't match my data. The 21st Division was withdrawn from Germany (Perleberg) to Omsk in 1991. But I never saw T-90s there in large numbers. Only vehicles from the training school were spotted. Perhaps the esteemed Гайковерт / Impact wrench heard something?


Johon Гайковерт / Impact wrench vastasi näin: I haven't heard anything about the T-90 in Omsk, except for the training ones.

Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2017-07-02): LÄHDE

And to top it all off—to keep everything in one place—the 150th Division apparently also received all the T-90A tanks from the base in Abkhazia. That base was recently re-equipped with 72B3 tanks. And don't forget Syria—they currently have about 60 T-90s of various modifications in total!

-

Constantine: Gur Khan , thank you for your reply. A couple of years ago, my comrades and I decided to estimate how many T-90As were in active service and counted six battalion sets—one each for the 2nd Guards Motorized Rifle Division, the 19th, 20th, 27th, and 136th Guards Separate Motorized Rifle Brigades, and the 7th Military Battalion. Did we account for everyone, or did we forget someone?

P.S. I heard from friends that the 21st Motorized Rifle Division was withdrawn in 1992 and almost immediately converted into a brigade. It no longer had a tank regiment at that point: it was reformed into the fourth motorized rifle regiment in 1989.


Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2017-07-02): LÄHDE

During the "Age of Brigades", the T-90A was in: 5th Separate Motorized Rifle Brigade (Tamanskaya); 27th Separate Motorized Rifle Brigade (Alabino); 19th Separate Motorized Rifle Brigade (Vladikavkaz); 20th Separate Motorized Rifle Brigade (Volgograd); 136th Separate Motorized Rifle Brigade (Buynaksk); 7th Military Battalion (Abkhazia) - that's all, I think.

-

Alexei Khlopotov kirjoitti näin (2017-07-02): LÄHDE

Regarding Kyakhta... The T-90s were in service with the 140th Tank Regiment (military unit 33134) and the 108th Tank Regiment (military unit 11585)—that's where they went from Khalilovo. According to the data I have, there were 84 vehicles there. Another 10-12 were in a training facility located somewhere around there.

Johon Blitz. vastasi näin:

What year did this happen? Is there any information as to why they were transferred to storage so quickly?

What is this conversion of T-90 into T-90S, installation of TPV and a new engine?


Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2017-07-03): LÄHDE

What happened? They were assigned to the regiments in 1993. They were transferred to the Central Bank of the Russian Federation (CBRT) around 2006-7 (approximately). Is that fast? I think they're rotated much more often now—thrown around by different units. The transfer to the CBRT was most likely connected to the T-90A's being introduced into the troops—apparently some kind of reform was planned, views changed—basically, gathering everything in one place and then redistributing it—that makes sense. There's also information online that when the 34th Brigade expands the Shilovo base, it will receive the early T-90s. But I don't really believe that.

There were no new engines back then. Modifications could have been varied—you need to look at the specific specifications. The sights weren't touched—there weren't any others back then. The design bureau itself was just dabbling with the first thermal imagers at the time. They probably removed the Ainet. They changed some things, maybe translated the signs and inscriptions into English or French... In any case, these are minor details and cosmetic.


-

AlexT: Is the T-90S a modernized T-90SM or T-90MS?

Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2012-06-21): LÄHDE

"The modernized T-90S tank" is the correct official name, and nothing else. "T-90MS" is an abbreviated name initially adopted for advertising the product before the REA-2011 exhibition in Nizhny Tagil at a short meeting in the office of Vladimir Ivanovich Shmakov, First Deputy General Director of UVZ. I was present at this meeting in person. I can name everyone present (two others besides those mentioned). The result was immediately reported to Oleg Viktorovich Sienko by telephone and approved by him. No official documents were signed regarding this matter —everything was decided verbally. This decision merely legitimized a typo in the product's export specifications, where the product was referred to as "T-90MS" in the options section heading. This same abbreviation was included in official advertising brochures. What's written here:

You can see it better here : http://www.uvz.ru/product/70/57

- a mistake by the UVZ website's content managers that they still can't fix. It stems from the fact that virtually no one at UVZ is dedicated to advertising and marketing specialty products – there's no "owner" – but a bunch of petty, powerbrokery bosses, each in charge of their own separate area, often intersecting with others. Frankly, they don't do a damn thing – they're just formally fulfilling their job descriptions (or whatever they're called these days in the new English language?) and dreaming of only one thing – not getting pushed out of their cushy jobs. All they know about tanks is that they actually produce them at UVZ – nothing more. Basically, it's the usual office slump that they just can't seem to overcome. If anyone doesn't believe me, look at what a certain T-72 tank looks like from the point of view of UVZ's advertising and public relations department, which is still being offered as a real product: http://www.uvz.ru/product/70/2 and this despite the fact that there is also a "modernized T-72 tank" there:
http://www.uvz.ru/product/70/16

-

Alexei Khlopotov kirjoitti näin (2012-05-30): LÄHDE

1. Please clarify the list of brigades that currently have T-90A tanks. I believe it is as follows:

5th Guards Motorized Rifle Brigade (Taman) - Alabino
7th Military Base of the Russian Ministry of Defense - Abkhazia
19th Separate Motorized Rifle Brigade - Vladikavkaz
20th Separate Motorized Rifle Brigade - Volgograd
27th Separate Guards Motorized Rifle Brigade - Teply Stan
136th Separate Motorized Rifle Brigade - Buynaksk

Am I forgetting something or mixing something up?


Johon Blitz. vastasi näin:

That's all correct.

-

Гайковерт / Impact wrench: Why did they abandon the normal tracks on the T-72BA and T-90A? What did they gain by using the new tracks?

Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2011-10-19): LÄHDE

They gained one thing: pseudo-unification with the T-80 and the dubious ability to install road-going vehicles.

They lost in cost, manufacturability, reduced roll angles, and, worst of all, they gained a strategic vulnerability. While tracks could previously be cast in almost any foundry, now there's only one factory for them in Tikhvin, which is very close to the border (even though we're not planning a war with NATO). There's no factory, and the entire fleet is without tracks...


-

Wiedzmin: Is there a T-72B with "Buran"?

Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2011-03-22): LÄHDE

No

-

vim: Today I spoke with someone who worked at the USSR Ministry of Defense on conventional weapons production planning. He gave me the following figures for UVZ: peacetime production – 1,700 tanks; with mobilization capacity expanded – 4,000 tanks.

Johon Сергей Белоног / Sergey Belonog vastasi näin:

Per year.

Remember how a certain very competent person from the Ministry of Defense claimed about 1500 per month, that’s how competent he is.


Johon RAMON vastasi näin:

Did this "very competent person from the Ministry of Defense" really come up with the 1,500 per month figure? He doesn't seem like a man with a rich mind, or especially a strong imagination.

And anyway, the 4,000 tank figure for UVZ is strange. That means it's even lower for the rest of the USSR's tank factories. Even if we ignore the figures that have repeatedly popped up online (much higher than 4,000), it turns out that the beloved party (the Communist Party of the Soviet Union) deliberately limited the mobilization capabilities of its military-industrial complex to a paltry 4 factories x 4,000 (overly optimistic) tanks = 16,000 tanks per year. This is despite the fact that in their war games, the General Staff assumed that the enemy (NATO, Japan, China) would be able to reach a production level of 100,000 tanks per year after just one year of war. So what were they expecting in a major war for adults?


Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2011-01-30): LÄHDE

Maybe he made it up, maybe he blurted it out in the heat of the moment, without thinking, or maybe he was misinformed. What's there to guess about? 1,500 a month during the military buildup period for a single plant, even one like UVZ, is an unrealistic, exorbitant figure. However, for the T-72, it's realistic for all the plants combined. The fact is that during the military buildup period, T-72 production was supposed to be expanded to 10 plants. Moreover, everything was ready for this, the technology had been perfected at all of them, and pilot batches had even been produced.

Johon Гайковерт / Impact wrench vastasi näin: Which factories, if it's not a secret? I'd also like to know more about the pilot batches.

Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2011-01-30): LÄHDE

The Stakhanov Machine-Building Plant in Ukraine;
the Cheboksary Industrial Tractor Plant;
the Siberian Heavy Machinery Plant in Krasnoyarsk;
the Mingechevir Road Transport Machinery Plant in Azerbaijan;
ChTZ and UVZ—that goes without saying. I can't recall who else, or perhaps the number 10 just popped into my head.

Besides UVZ and ChTZ, all of these plants had documentation that would have allowed them to set up production within a few months using existing technologies and equipment. At each plant, work was carried out to introduce the product and refine the technology, resulting in pilot batches of 10-15 vehicles. Unfortunately, no further details are available.
 
Viimeksi muokattu:
Venäläinen bloggari tankist_31 julkaisi 4.12.2019 artikkelin jossa hahmoteltiin T-90 obr 1992 ja T-90A panssarivaunujen eroja eli miten erottaa valokuvista, kumpi vaunu on kyseessä. Artikkelissa on paljon kuvia, joten kehoitan vilkaisemaan jos aihe kiinnostaa.

Lainaan alle artikkelin pelkän tekstin käännöksen: LÄHDE

Since I've recently been researching the T-90 tank's hardware, I'd like to start by discussing its features.

This vehicle has been in production since 1992. Not many were produced (by Soviet standards), so there aren't any significant differences between the models, but some details make it possible to distinguish between vehicles of different years.

So, the first production model was the T-90, sometimes referred to as the 1992 model T-90.

Distinguishing features of this model include:

- chassis similar to the T-72B mod. 1989,

- cast turret,

- Buran-PA night sight,

- distinctive exhaust.

About 105-110 of these vehicles were produced (including the 1991 prototypes).

I'd like to mention one more example. In Kubinka (not the one currently in Hangar 2), there's a 1996-produced tank.

This one differs from the previous one in its new chassis.

The exact number of such vehicles is unknown, but I've managed to find one so far.

In 1996, T-90 production ceased.

In 2004, production of T-90A tanks began.

Tanks produced in 2004 were equipped with the Buran-M night sight.

In 2005, the sight's armor was modified (only a few dozen T-90As with the Buran-M sight were produced),

And since 2006, the tanks have been equipped with the Essa sight. Similar sights are still used on the T-90A.

Here's an image to better illustrate the difference between the sights.

Otherwise, the T-90A's appearance has remained virtually unchanged since 2004:

- a welded turret,

- a new exhaust.

These are the main features that help identify the main modifications of the T-90 and T-90A.

I'd also like to point out that there's one remarkable vehicle located in Nizhny Tagil.

It doesn't even have a sight, but a dummy one is installed instead.

Export T-90S tanks are similar in appearance to standard T-90As.

All export T-90S tanks came with the "Essa" sight.

The first batch of tanks had a cast turret, but later welded turrets were introduced.

They can be distinguished from the T-90A by the absence of the so-called "beak."

Command tanks were produced in small quantities and were typically distinguished by an additional antenna.


-

HUOM: artikkelin kommenteissa yksi kirjoittaa että "beak" ei ole yksi piirteistä:

They can be distinguished from the T-90A by the absence of the so-called "beak."
-------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------- ------
Your photos clearly show a T-90A, also without the "beak." The "beak" itself is not an indicator of the tank's "exportability," but merely indicates the ability to mount the TBS-86 tank-mounted snowplow/bulldozer on such vehicles. Incidentally, the self-entrenching blade also looks different - with two "whiskers."

In general, the topic of the differences between the T-90 modifications has not been fully explored. In particular, the installation of an additional armor plate above the driver, I believe, since 2006, has been omitted, and a small piece of the anti-radiation lining on the right side also disappeared at that time.

Command tanks are mainly produced without mine trawl mounts on the upper glacis, etc.


Johon tankist_31 vastasi näin:

I don't recall any missing tail on production T-90As. The Nizhny Tagil vehicle doesn't count; it's not a production model. I didn't know about the additional armor and command vehicles, thank you. I haven't figured out all the details yet, so I'll gradually update this post with more details.

-

Muistan että hän on myös vaikuttanut otvaga2004 foorumilla joten en olisi yllättynyt jos hän vain toistaa siellä kuulemiaan numeroita. Silti, otetaan tämä talteen erityisesti T-90 obr 1992 kokonaismäärän takia.

Hänen blogissaan on myös toisinaan vierailtu museoissa ja erilaisilla monumenteilla, missä on panssaroituja ajoneuvoja yleisön nähtävillä. Hän on kerännyt osasta niistä ko. ajoneuvon runkonumeron talteen mikä mahdollistaa vaunun valmistustietojen avaamisen.

HUOM: näissä vaunuissa on yleensä erikseen runkonumero, tornin valunumero ja tornin kokoonpanonumero - jos en muista väärin niin runkonumero on näistä "tuorein" koska se stanssataan tuotantolinjalla kun vaunu kokoonpannaan, torni puolestaan on valettu ja kokoonpantu hieman tätä aikaisemmin.

Tässä minun koostama taulukko hänen blogistaan löytyvistä panssarivaunujen runkonumeroista (keräsin vain uudempien panssarivaunujen numerot, en toisen maailmansodan aikaisia jne jne.):

1758375923964.webp

Tästä löytyy yksi vuonna 1996 valmistunut T-90 obr 1992 panssarivaunu ja eri lähteiden mukaan tällaisia olisi tiedossa ainakin kaksi. Joka tapauksessa suuremman kokonaisuuden näkökulmasta ei ole väärin sanoa että valtaosa näistä vaunuista valmistettiin aikavälillä 1993-1995.
 
Viimeksi muokattu:
Jatkan edellisten viestien teemassa eli venäläisen Alexei Khlopotov / Aleksey Khlopotov / Алексей Хлопотов (tunnetaan nimimerkistä Gur Khan) vanhojen viestien perkaamista venäläisellä otvaga2004 foorumilla.

Lainaan alle minun mielestäni mielenkiintoisia huhuja tai tiedonmuruja sisältäviä viestejä ja keskustelunpätkiä.

-

Nick: Since 1989, the tower is of the hundredth series.

Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2012-08-24): LÄHDE

I have different information... according to my data, tower 172.10.100sb was commissioned in March 1985 (although perhaps only on paper)

-

Smell_U_Later: Ob.176 is a modernized 172M-1, although also a T-72A.

Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2012-08-29): LÄHDE

No, that's not true. Obj. 176 is a modernized T-72. "176" is an internal index. When it was accepted into service, it was assigned the index 172M-1 and the designation T-72A. So, de facto, obj. 176 and obj. 172M-1 are the same thing, but the 176 were still experimental vehicles.

So, if you read the TOi IE, the cover will show the index 172M-1, and the document code is 176.

Here's a picture of the cover as proof:


1758478376236.webp

For those who claim there is a TOi IE for obj. 166A, please show me a similar picture again—then I'll believe it! And a small addition: the posters with the index 166A were published neither by the design bureau nor by the factory—they were published by the Ministry of Defense, represented by the Military Publishing House of the USSR Ministry of Defense, in 1969. That same year, the same Voenizdat published the following TO:

1758478415391.webp


What's the difference? The TO is marked with a stamp, while the poster isn't! So, gentlemen, draw your own conclusions...

-

отрохов / отрохов: Maybe someone knows - is this a further modernization of the automatic gun for even longer and more powerful shells or was the modernization of the T-72B this year, with the exception of these two units, carried out without any modifications to the automatic gun for L=740mm?

Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2012-08-20): LÄHDE

The modernized automatic transmission was not installed on the T-72BA, even though it was developed as part of the same project. I don't know how it works on the 2011 vehicles.

-

Damian: Can someone please describe the T-72BA correctly and in detail, and the difference between it and the T-72B and T-72B2?

Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2012-08-19): LÄHDE

T-72B See: http://www.kubinkamuseum.ru/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=213&Itemid=416 or http://www.zelezki.ru/catalog/russia/t72b.html

T-72BA See: http://vadimvswar.narod.ru/ALL_OUT/TiVOut0809/T-72BA/T-72BA001.htm

T-72B2 (ob. 184M) See: http://btvt.narod.ru/5/rogatka/rogatka.htm

modernized T-72B model 2011 with FCS "Sosna-U" - this is essentially a major overhaul of the T-72B with the installation of the fire control system from the T-72B2.


-

bg13: Regarding the number of T-90MS, a question for Alexey Khlopotov. Is the photo of the MS turret that you have on your blog from the one that's being shown at exhibitions or from something else?

Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2012-08-18): LÄHDE

So far, there's still only one piece. The turret—as I already wrote—is a 2009 photo of the same turret that was installed on the exhibition model. A second model is currently being assembled, but it will likely differ significantly from the one currently on display (IMHO, it will already have a new hull).

-

Kysymys: How reliable is the information that the Pakistani contract was carried out by the plant practically from scratch, and that no vehicles from the Ukrainian Armed Forces' stockpiles were supplied?

Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2012-09-28): LÄHDE

There's a book like this out there: N. T. Krivomaz. The Pakistani Contract. A Documentary-Publicistic Essay. — Kharkov: Mytets, 2001. (rus. Н. Т. Кривомаз. Пакистанский контракт. Документально-публицистический очерк. — Харьков: Мытець, 2001г.)

I'd really like to read it. It might clear up some questions. But alas, I can't find it anywhere... maybe someone else will be lucky?


-

Kysymys: How many T-80UD tanks are still in the Russian army?

Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2012-09-28): LÄHDE

I don't know "still", but at the beginning of June 2005, there were 383 units in service at the Central Bank of the Republic of Tatarstan and the BTRZ. Of these, approximately 60 were at the BTRZ. According to Spetsmash.

-

Korban Dallas:

I read on one website http://army-news.ru/2011/07/tank-t-90-dast-sto-ochkov-vperyod-abramsu/

about a T-90 being hit in the front with real modern shells and RPGs in the side.
And supposedly, after six hits, the tank was able to move around the training ground under its own power. Has anyone heard of this? Perhaps there's a photo report of the event.


Johon Blitz. vastasi näin: In the mid-1990s, the T-80UD was subjected to fire tests to debunk the myth that domestic vehicles were easily damaged after the First Chechen War. Perhaps they were mistaken, as it ran smoothly after the fire.

Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2012-11-15): LÄHDE

As the respected Blitz. correctly points out, there is some confusion. This refers to the show trials in Kubinka after the first Chechen War in 1996. They fired at T-80UD and T-72B tanks. The results of this firing are often extrapolated to the T-90. Further, there was a report online at one time about the firing of T-80U and T-90 tanks on October 20, 1999. Perhaps this is still being confused with it. It used to be on the Chebitka forum or on gans.ru. Now I've found it in a greatly abridged version and in English only here:

http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/TRIALS/19991020.html

These claims are often attributed to the 2009 T-90A control trials, with photos of the fired-up vehicles appearing online after them. But there, if my memory serves me right, was an "empty box" - a tank without an engine and most of the other internal components.


-

отрохов / otrokhov: I'd like to believe that during the modernization of the T-72B, the T-72BA began installing the 2A46M5 gun with an automatic fire control modified for the S1 and S2 APFSDS, but I haven't found any information confirming this anywhere other than you. So far, I've only encountered statements like these:

Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2012-10-26): LÄHDE

During the modernization of the T-72B in the BA, the 2A46M5 cannon and automatic transmission for the S-1 and S-2 were not installed, and I never said that anywhere—no need to distort things. I wrote that the aforementioned cannon and automatic transmission were also tested during the "Motoball" project, which was the context for the T-72BA's development. Moreover, I didn't call the article about the T-72BA "A Mediocre Modernization or an Affordable Modernization?" for nothing, as it criticizes the Ministry of Defense for rejecting the new cannon and automatic transmission during the modernization of the T-72BA.

vilenich: There are also claims that in 2012, even the B84 engines in the T-72BA were not replaced with B92 engines, due to the supply of the latter only for export vehicles.

Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2012-10-26): LÄHDE

Feel free to tell these "approvers" to go to hell. Since when did the T-90A suddenly become an "export vehicle," and all of them use the V-92S2. Regarding the T-72 modernization, during the overhauls with modernization elements that were carried out at UVZ between 1997 and 2003, the original V-84 engine remained on the vehicles; since 2003, the V-92S2 has been installed. It's worth noting that the V-92 was just appearing in 1999-2000, and all of its initial batches were indeed used to equip export T-90S tanks for India. However, after fulfilling contractual obligations for India and increasing production volumes, these engines were first used in the modernized T-72B (which became known as the BA in 2005) and then in the T-90A. However, in 2011, the Ministry of Defense decided to save on procurement costs and ordered a modernization of the T-72B with the Sosna-U fire control system (an element of the Rogatka-1 R&D project), but retained the same V-84 engine. Only the lazy didn't write about this and criticize it at the time—try browsing the forum archives and scouring the internet. Moreover, the tanks modernized in 2011 are not considered BA. The UKBTM proposed calling them "Modernized T-72B tank model 2011." Journalists, including military personnel, began calling these vehicles T-72BM. I wrote about the 2012-13 modernization above.

отрохов / otrokhov: And as I understand it, something similar is happening in terms of replacing guns with 2A46M5.

Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2012-10-26): LÄHDE

Regarding the guns, things aren't quite as you describe. The M5 isn't installed on export vehicles—all exports are carried out with the "good old" 2A46M. However, the guns aren't taken from warehouses, but manufactured at Plant No. 9. The S-1 and S-2 BPSs don't have export approval, and therefore there's no need to equip export vehicles with the new automatic transmission (I wrote about this quite recently). Regarding the gun on the BA, see above. But the T-72B modernization in 2011 installed both the M5 and the new automatic transmission (but again, it's not a BA!), and the M5 and the new automatic transmission have also been installed on the T-90A since 2005-06.

отрохов / otrokhov: But initially the T-72BA should have armament at the level of the T-90A

Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2012-10-26): LÄHDE

Initially, we should have a lot of things at the right level, but it’s probably not for nothing that the Prosecutor General’s Office is currently “shaking up” the Ministry of Defense, don’t you think?

Counter question: you weren't too lazy to search for and find some incomprehensible statements, and you weren't too lazy to drag this nonsense here, so why were you so lazy to find everything I just wrote? It was all already out there online, including on this forum.


-

отрохов / otrokhov: I still don’t understand, from 2013 the modernization of the T-72B will be carried out under the State Defense Order to the level of the T-72BA or still to the T-72B2 “Slingshot”, if of course such statements are not lies: http://www.sdelanounas.ru/blogs/18140/

Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2012-10-25): LÄHDE

1. The modernization is already underway, with about a hundred vehicles planned for this year and next.

2. It's neither one nor the other—something in between—a major overhaul with some modernization measures developed during the Rogatka R&D project. They're installing the Sosna-U fire control system with an ASC, an M5 cannon, an autoloader for the S-1 and S-2, and an engine that, apparently, is 1,000 hp, unlike the 2011 modernized vehicles. The stumbling block is the Relikt ERA—I don't yet know if it will be installed. There are vague rumors that the Relikt never received the RO designation, meaning tanks built from scratch can install it, but modernizations cannot. This is a bureaucratic snag caused by the fact that they didn't allocate funds for the formal completion of the project. But maybe I'm wrong—those in the know will correct me.


-

Гайковерт / Impact wrench: Here in Kubinka is a 172M, the one that wasn't yet a T-72. It has the spare parts boxes on the right shelf, and the fuel tanks on the left. On production vehicles, as we know, they were swapped. I wonder why?

Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2013-01-03): LÄHDE

The prototype vehicles, the 172 and 172M, were converted from the T-64A and, accordingly, retained much of its design. In fact, this "unification" was originally mandated by law. Later, based on test results, the fuel tanks and spare parts kits were swapped. The main reasons for this were the exhaust port on the left side and the specific layout of the fuel system. Relocating the exhaust pipe to the side reduced the tank capacity and increased the fire hazard (there were fires due to both the tank's position and the suboptimal fuel line layout).

-

Федорович / Fedorovich:

There are several modernization options to suit every taste and budget, just choose those that have passed the IDC and been accepted into service. Moreover, classified work hasn't been lost; its results have been used on other aircraft. I'll try to systematize the things that are known to everyone a little:

- T-80U + Arena = UE2 - a comprehensive modernization of the B and BV - VSU, Relikt, Arena, engine, gun, FCS, MZ, stabilizer, communications - lost its relevance after the decision to decommission the UD - closed

- the B and BV chassis with measures from the comprehensive modernization + turret from the UD + ... = UE1

- FCS, sight and stabilizer from the comprehensive modernization + a new 125 mm gun, a welded turret and much more ... = UBO - the unit turned out to be overweight and requires a lot of modifications to the chassis + the gun and other components were not ready on time - the FCS is closed, the sight and stabilizer after adaptation were used in another machine, not the Omsk one, if I'm wrong about this, then there is someone here to correct, and the gun will be finished and we will see it again.

- UE1 + Arena = UE3


Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2012-12-05): LÄHDE

Following the esteemed Blitz, I'll repeat: "Wow!" - but then I'll ask: "Where's the fuel coming from?" because there are some misunderstandings. Namely:

1. / the comprehensive modernization of the B and BV... lost relevance after the decision to decommission the UD - closed / work on the 219M was stopped in 2008, and the decision on the T-80UD was made much earlier, and what does the UD have to do with it anyway? If we're talking about installing a UD turret on the modernized 219RV, then this is precisely the UE variant - the original turret was planned for the 219M.

2. /UE2, UE3/ where did this even come from? Quite recently, commissioned by ROE, I collaborated with A.S. Efremov on an article about the T-80, which included a large section on modernization. Everything was written based on Spetsmash materials and subsequently approved by them—there's no mention of the UE2 or UE3 there! There are UE1Sp.1 and UE1Sp.2, but they have nothing to do with the Arena. T-80U + Arena = T-80AM2.

3. /Regarding the UBO, it's not Burlan, as you write, but Burlak. Burlan is the code name for the research project "Research on the development of a promising combat system of the future using weapons and systems based on new physical principles." The work was completed in 2010, and the Burlak R&D project to create the UBO was closed in 2009. In addition, the Burlan report mentions developments in modernizing the T-80, namely in Book 2, "Analysis of the scientific and technical groundwork for modernizing T-80 tanks and creating promising models of armored vehicles," but only there is talk of modernizing the T-80 in retrospect, and there is no mention of the UE2 or UE3.

So, I'd still like to clarify what UE2 and UE3 are and where they came from.

And for those interested, everything related to the 219M was deleted from the article in question during the approval process at Spetsmash. I was quite surprised by this until I read the following in the 2011 annual report: "Meetings of the Scientific and Technical Council were held to consider various issues, including:

- a meeting of the expanded Scientific and Technical Council on the comprehensive modernization of the T-80BV tank with the participation of the head of the 29KTTs Federal State Unitary Enterprise, the executive director of 61BTRZ OJSC, the head of the 3377th Military Detachment of the Russian Ministry of Defense, and the deputy chief designer of KBTM OJSC (Omsk). The meeting was held twice. At the second meeting, proposals from Spetsmash OJSC, revised based on the results of the first meeting, were approved for presentation to the General Customer (These materials were reported by the chief designer to the head of the GABTU of the Russian Ministry of Defense on 20.10.2011)."

Having put 1 + 1 together, I concluded that the comprehensive modernization is not yet a complete waste of time.


-

transdim: Where did the German T-72s come from? USSR, Czechoslovakia, or Poland?

Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2012-12-01): LÄHDE

USSR - 135 pieces
Czechoslovakia - 260 pieces
Poland - 157 pieces


-

отрохов / otrokhov: It's strange, but I actually saw an article a long time ago with a photo of a remote-controlled T-72, with a turret and a cannon.

Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2013-01-21): LÄHDE

Yes, it was. I just don't have it handy. And there was a video somewhere. There were several projects, and everyone was involved. Generally speaking, the guys from St. Petersburg were ahead of the game in this area—it's understandable that a tank or engineering vehicle with a gas turbine engine is easier to control, meaning the control system is simpler. But even back then, Tagil wasn't far behind. I don't know about now at the 38th Research Institute, but six years ago there was an entire department for robotics and information-control systems. Its founder was a man I highly respect and whom I happened to know personally, Colonel A.A. Ilyin. He commanded there from 1988 to 1994. I think we even had something like "Robot Tanks" (or maybe it was on the old Otvaga—I can't remember).

отрохов / otrokhov: But as I recall, experiments on a similar teletank, apparently based on the T-72, were carried out

Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2013-01-23): LÄHDE

At the request of viewers, I dug through my stash. Particular attention was paid to a film about a teletank based on the T-72B, created as part of the Kaliningrad research project. Previously, I only shared a few screenshots from it.

-

Nick: Until recently, the existence of the 75th and 100th towers from 1985 to 1989 was a mystery to you.

Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2013-01-13): LÄHDE

1. I was the first to openly mention drawing numbers online, particularly those of turrets – just in case you missed something.

2. Please provide the drawing of turret 75 – at least a photocopy of its title block! The fact is, such a turret simply didn't exist! At least not in the series. There were turrets 073, 077, and 100. Or are you, Nick, again using the "I remember this, I don't remember that" approach?

Accordingly, the following were introduced:

073 – from July 1978,
077 – from September 1982,
100 – on paper from December 1982, in fact from March 1985.

Thus, "from 1985 to 1989" and even further, with regard to tanks supplied to the Soviet Army, we can only talk about the "hundredth" turret. And it goes without saying that during this period, the T-72B1 and B-72B were already being supplied to the Soviet Union.

Regarding exports, the T-72M1 continued to be produced until 1989-90, and these vehicles were equipped exclusively with 073 turrets.

Regarding the T-72A and T-72AV, their production continued until 1986 inclusive, with the AV still featuring the same 073 turret. However, in 1982-83, individual batches of T-72As were produced with 077 turrets, and they were not equipped with ERA either at the factory or during repairs. During the same period, 1982-83, individual T-72As with 100th turrets and even equipped with the Svir turrets were produced, but again, all of them lacked ERA.

3. If you, dear Nick, want to prove that the vehicles shown in the photo are T-72AV, then I kindly ask you to provide photos of their serial numbers and photocopies of their factory forms


-

Blitz.: Are the late-production T-72A with a KUV different from similar T-72As in terms of the names of the indexes?

Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2013-03-11): LÄHDE

no way

Blitz.: And what kind of turret did the serial T-72AVs have?

Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2013-03-11): LÄHDE

Serial "A" 172.10.073sb. There are many such machines in the Kharkiv TRZ storage yard.

-

dron: Is a tank equipped with a KUV also an A or is it already a B?

Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2013-03-11): LÄHDE

Also A. These tanks were produced in 1983. And the Decree on the T-72B was issued only in December 1984. Therefore, "legally" the tank could only be called "A". Actually, I have photos of vehicles from the same 1983 model year that have a turret "like the B's" but also a Tucha "like the A" and without ERA, of course; there is a photo with a "standard" "A" turret, but with a Tucha on the console "like the B's" and also without ERA. Moreover, back in 1986, in addition to the T-72B1, the T-72AV (in its standard guise) was also rolling off the assembly line - this was normal for such mass production. It is worth remembering here that the V-84 engines, "legalized" only on the T-72B, were used in series on the T-72A long before the T-72B appeared, instead of the standard V-46-6. And so on. etc.

Johon Blitz. vastasi näin: Hmm, I didn’t think that the T-72AVs were made new.

Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2013-03-11): LÄHDE

Oh, how many wondrous discoveries
are prepared for us by the spirit of enlightenment,
and experience, the son of difficult mistakes,
and genius, the friend of paradoxes,
and chance, the god of invention...

:rolleyes:

I didn’t know it myself - when I saw it, I was surprised...


-

Goodvin: I also have a piece of this material lying around the house!

Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2013-04-12): LÄHDE

Well, if it's lying around, then, Igor, post a photo of it for people to see. Although I also think it's not cast corundum, but rather pressed aluminum oxide powder (Ai2O3), perhaps with some kind of binder—that's why you mistook it for a monolith. Then again, if it were cast (crystallized melt), then the piece at your fracture should have a clearly defined crystalline structure of a trigonal cleavage (look at the way you bent it—I used to have an A in geology :))) .

And if it really is pressed white powder, then it turns out that the tower you saw is simply a type of cap with sand cores. It's just that in this case, the core was formed not from silicon oxide, but from aluminum oxide.


Johon Goodvin vastasi näin: I'm keeping my promise and posting a piece of T-80B turret filler.

https://s3.uploads.ru/t/MGs0P.jpg

404 Not Found​


Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2013-04-14): LÄHDE

Now it's clear that this is a heterogeneous granular structure. As I said above, it's the same rod, only the quartz sand has been replaced with emery or something similar.
 
Viimeksi muokattu:
Jatkan edellisten viestien teemassa eli venäläisen Alexei Khlopotov / Aleksey Khlopotov / Алексей Хлопотов (tunnetaan nimimerkistä Gur Khan) vanhojen viestien perkaamista venäläisellä otvaga2004 foorumilla.

Lainaan alle minun mielestäni mielenkiintoisia huhuja tai tiedonmuruja sisältäviä viestejä ja keskustelunpätkiä.

-

Starshina: Do you want the latest product line at the world's largest plant in 2 years, without your face getting dented?

Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2013-07-08): LÄHDE

The S-88 project has been underway since 1988. If memory serves, the specifications were updated in 1995 and sometime in 200. Armata is yet another logical evolutionary continuation of the 195. If you disagree, name what's new about Armata compared to the 195, and how much this "new" differs from the "old." The Armata project itself was a R&D project, launched in 2010. R&D in 2009. The idea had been incubating even earlier. Purchase of the pilot batch is planned for 2016. So, from the start of R&D to the first pilot batch, it's already been six years. And if we count back to the 195? Or do you think there was no order issued to the plant at the time to prepare for its production? There was an order, and all the necessary measures were developed. So, it's not a big deal... they had, and still have, plenty of time. But will they be able to?

-

caferacer: A good film from VIAM, it gives some idea of the prospects of gas turbine engines, especially in terms of modern temperatures and service life. If you don't believe me, then listen to smart people :) Here.


Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2013-06-24): LÄHDE

Commentary by E.B. Vavilonsky:

1) VIAM is conducting the right work to create heat-resistant and heat-resistant materials for gas turbine engine blades and disks. Increasing the gas temperature in front of the turbine is the way to improve the performance (power and efficiency) of aircraft engines and the gas turbine engine of the M1 tank (it is equipped with a two-stage cassette cooling system). These engines operate on clean atmospheric air.

2) Unfortunately, these expensive materials cannot be used for the gas turbine engine of the T-80 tank, which is equipped with a cassette-less cooling system, which allows dust to enter the engine. When operating the engine in the southern regions of the former USSR (as well as desert regions of the world, for example, India), at a gas temperature in front of the turbine above ~925 °C, dust components melt and are deposited on the turbine blades in the form of a glassy crust during the gas expansion process, with a drop in temperature in the interblade channels of the turbine. This leads to engine surge and its failure. Therefore, the T-80 tank has a "Desert" mode, which limits fuel flow to the engine in order to reduce the gas temperature below the melting point of dust components, with the inevitable loss of power and deterioration in engine efficiency. This is a dead end for further improvement of the fuel efficiency of the domestic gas turbine engine of the T-80U tank. The American M1 tank does not have this dead end!

3) The future theater of military operations for Russia and its allies can only be in the south. What is the point of using state-of-the-art heat-resistant and heat-resistant turbine blade materials that can withstand 2000°K (1727°C) if, when operating tanks like the T-80 in the desert, the "Desert" switch will limit fuel flow in order to reduce the gas temperature below the melting point of dust? This is covered in detail in the book by three authors (E. Vavilonsky, O. Kuraksa, V. Nevolin, "The Main Battle Tank of Russia. A Frank Conversation on the Problems in Tank Building." pp. 126-130).

4) I will also note the following: The actual operation of tanks in the troops is completely different from that demonstrated at arms exhibitions and troop trials. When tanks are moving in a column during military trials, the engine load of the T-80 is only 31-37%, and for the T-72 ~ 70%. With a decrease in engine load, the fuel efficiency of the engine worsens. With an increase in engine power (the dream of A. Efremov and others), the GTE load will decrease even more. This is called: "Waste of money."

During military operation, "The need to move a tank above 20 km/h does not exceed 4%!" This explains why the hourly fuel consumption of T-80 tanks in actual military use (and therefore combat use!) is 3.0-4.2 times lower, and the fuel consumption per trip is 2.2-3.7 times worse than that of T-72 tanks. This data was carefully hidden from us! And not only from us, but also from the highest military command!

For reference: Eriy Borisovich Vavilonsky (born 1933). Graduated from the Kazan Aviation Institute in 1957, specializing in Aircraft Engines. He was directly involved in the creation of the world's first experimental battle tank with a gas turbine engine (Object 167T). In 1967, he was appointed head of the T-64A tank power plant (PU) bureau in connection with the proposed organization of this tank's production at UVZ. From 1969 to 1988, he was head of the power plant department at UKBTM. He was the technical director of all conceptual technical solutions being developed that determined the characteristics of the PU systems created during this period (the PU of the T-72 and its modifications, engineering vehicles, the T-62M, etc.). The technical solutions discovered were used in the creation of the PU of the T-90 tank with the V-92S2 engine. He has received 28 Russian Federation inventor's certificates and patents. He has received state awards. In 1980-1981, he completed the Research and Development Management course (highest level) at the Bauman Moscow State Technical University. After retirement, he worked as a lead designer in the new design department. He retired from the design bureau on January 1, 2007.


-

10V: Tell me, what kind of T-72 is presented on the UralVagonZavod website?

Johon Blitz. vastasi näin: T-72M1M, or rather one of its versions, with Relikt on the hull and K-5 on the turret.

Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2013-07-22): LÄHDE

Don't trust the Uralvagonzavod website's descriptions of their armored vehicles—it's complete crap. The people who made them, filled them, and accepted them... they don't know a thing about tanks.

In this case, the picture doesn't match the description. The picture is of a T-72M1M (version 172M2), but the description is of a T-72M1 variant. And even earlier, it was of a T-72S.


-

Iskander: What's the latest on "Object 187"? Are they not planning on handing it over to the museum? Will it just rust in the Kubinka storerooms?

Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2013-07-14): LÄHDE

Probably, yes. Because no one is planning to give anything from the museum to the factory right now. No one wants to fight a war over it either. The 140 and 167T have seen enough fighting...

I also forgot to mention... here in the "questions and answers" thread we were talking about early T-72Bs, as well as transitional variants of the tank. Turret drawing number 172.10.077SB came up.

Well, now I have these drawings and we sorted out this turret. It turns out the T-72B never had it. In appearance, this turret is almost identical to 172.10.073 - i.e., like the classic T-72A. I still haven't figured out the difference between them - probably something in the filler. It turns out that in 1985-86, UVZ was simultaneously producing T-72Bs with the "hundredth" turret and T-72AVs. And it was on these AVs that the 077th turret was installed. It also ended up on some "transitional" ones. Meanwhile, the T-72M1 with the 073 turret was also being produced at the same time. What fun it was in production!


-

Alexei Khlopotov kirjoitti tällaista (2013-07-14):

Some news from Tagil.

1. Production documents from 1982 have been declassified at UVZ. Reports, production orders, and the like have all been scanned and transferred to the museum. The second phase of this work is currently underway – declassifying and transferring documents from 1982 to 1990.

2. In accordance with the General Director's order, a book with the working title "T-72, T-90, and Beyond" is planned for publication in time for the September arms exhibition. The same tandem – Ustyantsev and Kolmakov – is working on it. A considerable amount of documents was prepared for declassification for this book, but the UKBTM leadership ignored the General Director's order and suppressed two-thirds of them with an absolutely fantastic excuse that goes something like this: "This work was not successful, and publication of its results could harm the enterprise." So now we know that UKBTM officially has a 100% success rate, and everything else is as if it never happened... The book will be very light on the nuts and bolts, more on theory and philosophy. But it will definitely provide accurate data on T-72 production as of 1990. I know for sure what has been declassified, and photos of obj. 186 will be included.

3. With my modest participation, an order from the general director is being prepared for the restoration of obj. 781 and 765 (with automatic transmission), currently located at ChTZ and being prepared for scrapping, to the tank industry museum (in Tagil). Preparations for the planned scrapping have naturally been halted. Here's a photo of obj. 781 in its current state:


1758380913403.webp

-

Инквизитор: Do you have any real experience in managing such a colossus as UVZ?

Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2013-07-08): LÄHDE

There's no such thing as UVZ. But Sienko didn't have that kind of experience either. But mistakes in marketing strategy and production planning are obvious to anyone who studied economics not from Harvard, but from Soviet textbooks. Personally, I've carefully preserved a very thick "Management Course for Senior Management Personnel" (rus. "Курс управления для высшего управленческого персонала") from the shaggy Soviet era, inherited from my father—a treasure!

-

Валерий Мухин / Valery Mukhin: Was this technically possible in 2009? I remember it was announced in 2009 that retooling the production facility (at a significant additional cost) and several more years were required to begin serial production of the 195.

Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2013-08-13): LÄHDE

They could have announced anything. No one ever turned down extra cash, especially when there was an opportunity to ask for it for something. In fact, the order from the association's general director, Mr. Malykh, to prepare for production of the 195 was signed long before 2009, just as the corresponding action plan was approved and, most importantly, implemented! What Sienko's team now calls "technical re-equipment" at UVZ is simply following Malykh's plans, which were interrupted by the need to oust him and install "their own" supervisor. So, in 2009, UVZ had every opportunity to begin small-scale production of the 195. Technically, there were no problems!

-

Alexei Khlopotov kirjoitti näin (2013-08-12): LÄHDE

Returning to the 195 and 148, I'd like to clarify once again. If the decision had been made in 2009 to accept the T-95 into service and begin its serial production, then by 2016—the planned procurement date for the T-14 troop series—we would have had a fully combat-ready production vehicle. By 2020—the planned rearmament deadline—we would have had a significantly strengthened tank fleet. However, its core would still be made up of lighter-class vehicles, such as the T-90mod. Why? Because the T-95 is not only a heavy and powerful vehicle, but also an expensive one. It would never have been mass-produced. But we would have returned to a completely logical division of tanks into classes. This is natural, and it has been proven by the Great War. We would have had a "heavy" "breakthrough" or "support" tank like the T-95, and we would have had a primary workhorse like the T-90mod. (a la T-34) and we would have a light (mountain, reconnaissance and whatever else) tank, which is essentially what the "Octopus" is.

I wouldn't be upset if the Armata were based on the T-95 chassis. Then, in a critical situation, we could easily swap out the 125mm gun module for a 152mm one. But! The Armata, despite its similarities, still has its own chassis, and one with a lower load-carrying capacity. It's simply unrealistic to make this vehicle fully operational by 2016. But no one is planning to extend the deadline. Given Sienko's political and administrative leverage, the T-14 will be accepted into service, flaws and imperfections included, and will be further refined during production. Doesn't it already smack of "Morozovism"? An attentive reader will notice and ask: what's the difference? Khlopotov "proposes" to refine the T-95 during production, while the T-14? Let me answer: the T-95's maturity level, even taking into account the proposed component replacement and modernization, was much higher in 2009 than the Armata will be in 2016. While Khlopotov "allocates" 6-7 years to perfecting the T-95, another 12-15 years will be needed to bring the T-14 to combat readiness. That's the difference.

Furthermore, the design bureau's management has the idea that the T-14, weighing up to 50 tons, will become the only Russian tank type for 30 years. But this won't happen. Because, in my estimation, the cost of the T-14 will be at least 2-2.5 times higher than that of the T-90mod. In other words, the T-14 also won't be a mass-produced tank. Moreover, in terms of combat capabilities, other than protection, it will be virtually indistinguishable from a potential T-90mod., thus it will not be able to fill the "heavy" tank niche. Moreover, we have not produced the T-90 in any form for three years now. We've been wasting money on the fucking modernization of the T-72 for the past three years. So, if the disarmament and chaos in our tank forces weren't deliberately planned by the country's leaders, then the state of the fleet we'll have in 2020 can only be described as a disaster. What do I propose? I propose replacing the design bureau's leadership. I propose immediately starting production of new T-90-type tanks with the Proryv combat module and the 2A82 cannon; modernizing the T-72B and BA tanks in Omsk, as well as the T-80BV with the same Proryv BM and Relikt ERA. Stop working on the Armata and return to work on the T-95, so that, albeit late, we'll get a "heavy" tank. At the same time, develop an "interim" version of the vehicle: a T-95-type chassis, or the same Armata, if you prefer, but with the Proryv BM. This variant could replace the T-90mod in the series and subsequently become the basis for export (we need to think about that, too). Something like that.


-

Wiedzmin: We didn't use ceramics in T-80U and Object 187 because of the price or because of their low strength.

Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2013-08-07): LÄHDE

I don't have a precise and unambiguous answer, but as far as I can tell, there were problems with ensuring the homogeneity of the structure, and the second question is purely practical - the possibility of repairs in case of combat damage.

Blitz.: If I remember correctly, it stands on welded towers,

Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2013-08-07): LÄHDE

Not only that, but there were also ceramic-filled variants for cast turrets. In particular, when, back during our friendship and mutual collaboration, I showed Andrey Tarasenko a drawing of a cast UD-15 turret with a ceramic filler, he was quite surprised and puzzled.

-

Filinin:

- Do you have the VLD 785 profile?
- Is the TIUS developed by VNIIITM still in Leningrad?
- Is the 299 still in service?
- Did they install the Izdeliye 39 in the 187, or is it the T-80's MTO with the Izdeliye 29G?


Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2013-08-06): LÄHDE

1. No, there isn't. I have a photo of a mockup made according to the project and a photo of a prototype, but I'm not allowed to show them.

2. I don't know anything about the Tius VNIITM. I only know that the rotor for the Piter was made by Barsuk, and a little about the work from the second half of the 2000s.

3. It was never made in metal.

4. Yes, it had the 39th.
 
Viimeksi muokattu:
Jatkan edellisten viestien teemassa eli venäläisen Alexei Khlopotov / Aleksey Khlopotov / Алексей Хлопотов (tunnetaan nimimerkistä Gur Khan) vanhojen viestien perkaamista venäläisellä otvaga2004 foorumilla.

Lainaan alle minun mielestäni mielenkiintoisia huhuja tai tiedonmuruja sisältäviä viestejä ja keskustelunpätkiä.

-

slesaric: Is the T-90 turret of the 1992 model a completely new product or a development of the turret of the later T-72B?

Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2013-08-05): LÄHDE

The casting is almost a copy of the T-72B turret

-

Blitz.: zy and what is the 189th?

Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2013-08-04): LÄHDE

Well, I've written about it before, and more than once... the T-90 modernization project "Rogatka-1," stage 1. If memory serves, the work began in 1998 or a little earlier. I'm saving the details for future publications, sorry...

-

slesaric: This is the first time I’ve read about 150-200 T-90s in the early 90s, and I’m pleasantly surprised!

Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2013-08-04): LÄHDE

Well, hello...! This was written about back in 1998: Koshchavtsev A. T-90 – Russian MBT. Tankomaster Magazine, No. 4-6, 1998.

"Serial production at Uralvagonzavod actually began in November 1992, when the first T-90s rolled off the assembly line. However, by Soviet standards, when we produced 1,800-2,000 tanks per year, serial production was certainly small. The main reason for this situation is the chronic lack of funding for the army. It cannot purchase tanks in large quantities, although Uralvagonzavod can fairly quickly launch large-scale production of the T-90. By mid-1998, no more than 150 serial tanks had been produced. The first regiment of 94 T-90s was received by the 21st Taganrog Red Banner Order of Suvorov Motorized Rifle Division of the Siberian Military District. T-90s also entered service with the 5th Guards Don Tank Division in Buryatia."


-

slesaric: So, between 1992 and 1999, UVZ produced nothing but individual T-90s and experimental vehicles? Not even for export (T-72S)?

Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2013-08-03): LÄHDE

The T-90 was produced from 1992-95. Somewhere around 150-200 units. I believe a few were also produced in 1996. Also from 1995-96, the BREM-1 and IMR-2M were produced in very small batches. In short, nothing significant was produced from 1996 to 2001. Then came the "Indian" contract.

-

slesaric: What year were the latest T-72B/B1s assembled? And if it's not a secret, how many B/B1s have been produced since 1985?

Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2013-08-03): LÄHDE

In 1991, or perhaps early 1992, they captured some. But as a memento, it seems to be 1991. UVZ is threatening to publish a new book for the exhibition, tentatively titled "T-72, T-90, and Beyond"—the authors are the same: Sergei Ustyantsev and Dima Kolmakov. So, Sergei promises that it will contain the exact number of vehicles produced up to 1989 (their subsequent releases have not yet been declassified). But the manuscript is delayed because UKBTM, despite Sienko's order, coordinated with Terlikov, delayed releasing the necessary materials, and then rejected two-thirds of the prepared material with the explanation "this work was not successful, and therefore, its publication could harm the enterprise." Apparently, they only have victory reports in there! Tarasenko was shouting a lot about the falsification of history in UVZ books—well, now, it seems, the design bureau's management has decided to satisfy his "persistent pleas." True, Sergei said that he would get by with documents from UVZ itself, but they are still secondary in relation to the UKBTM documents.

-

Alexei Khlopotov kysyi tällaista (2013-09-06): LÄHDE

Can anyone tell me how the 2011 and 2012 serial numbers are coded?

2С is 2010; at the biathlon, the T-72B3 tanks are coded as 2Ц, which is probably 2012, but I'm not sure.


Johon Брєйнштиль vastasi näin: LÄHDE

2011 - 2И

-

антабка / antabka: Gur Khan's position is a little unclear. (keskustelu koski T-95 ja Armata panssarivaunuja)

Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2013-08-25): LÄHDE

A week ago, we were celebrating a friend's birthday. We were sitting at his dacha, in the fresh air, drinking beer, and eating meat. Among the company was a man I hadn't personally met before, but who, as it turned out, worked in hull production. Since the birthday boy is a WoT "tester" (or whatever the correct term for people who test proposed new features is), the conversation briefly touched on tanks. No one forced the "huller" to say anything—he himself let it slip that in 2005 (!) the T-95 was ready for production. At least, everything was ready in his workshop: tooling, templates, patterns, etc., etc. Soon after, after a change in management at the plant, orders were received to scrap everything related to obj. 195! This was said with great regret. I'm a skeptic, and I don't take just anyone's word for it. But I believed this guy. Why? Because I recently listened to an interview with Mayev (I hope it'll be published soon and not be too truncated), where Sergei Alexandrovich also cited 2005 as the planned start date for T-95 production. Yes, there were delays due to testing issues. But, according to Mayev, only 800 million rubles were needed to fine-tune the vehicle. Of that, 500 million was for creating another prototype with all the modifications and addressing the issues, and 300 million for conducting the final state tests. The vehicle could have been put into production in 2010-2011. Instead, more than 2.3 billion rubles (far from the final figure) were allocated for the Armata, which is a "bastardized" version of the 195 and won't provide the same performance advantage the 195 could have. This is all according to Mayev. So what position can I take after this?

-

Serj_: Is the Kirov Plant (LKZ) capable of producing a "cart" with a gas turbine engine?

Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2013-08-25): LÄHDE

Not for a long time. And it doesn't matter what engine they have. We're talking about mass production, of course. They can build one-off cars if needed.

Serj_: Or put another way: is it possible to produce a gas-turbine engine-powered MBT in Russia? Or will the last T-80 to be hacked up, and this engine will be consigned to history as a dead end?

Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2013-08-25): LÄHDE

The plant, in principle, doesn't care what it produces. It makes even less of a difference from a production standpoint, as to which engine will power the product. Only Tagil maintains a full production cycle.

St. Petersburg has already spoken above. Chelyabinsk has long since irrevocably lost this capability. Omsk still has a glimmer of life, but a full production cycle there is only possible if some production facilities are rebuilt—its current state is one of modernization and conversion. Meanwhile, a second assembly plant is being built in Tagil. From an economic standpoint, this is the right thing to do. From a redundancy and wartime security standpoint, this is not good.

We can still produce turbines ourselves. Moreover, our design bureaus are capable of developing new gas turbine engines for ground vehicles with improved performance and economic indicators. This just requires funding. As for designing tanks with gas turbine engines, things are bleak. Tagil, despite having spent a lot of time on turbines in the early 1990s and returning to them in the early 1990s as part of the S-88 project, has no real experience. Even when Tagil developed gas turbine-powered MTOs for the 187 and 195 aircraft, Omsk and St. Petersburg were co-developers. Naturally, St. Petersburg had extensive experience. But the Spetsmash design bureau has now completely reoriented itself from tanks to various drilling and similar equipment. It seems they no longer even have any modernization work underway. However, the appearance that they are still capable of working on armored vehicles is maintained by the Corporation's management. The fact is that no one has cancelled tenders for development. So, when necessary, Spetsmash creates a quorum. Naturally, it loses to Tagil. Nevertheless, behind-the-scenes struggles continue, and Spetsmash still holds out hope. But the design bureau's resources are practically nonexistent, and its personnel are even worse. There are almost no young people. The old hands are leaving, taking their experience with them. Incidentally, a similar trend has been observed in Tagil since late 2011, the only difference being that the design bureau now employs many young people, and they're still hiring, but they're completely clueless young people—products of the 1990s and early 2000s. They're practically perfect with computers, they can draw beautiful 3D drawings, but their minds are empty. And all the old, experienced "dogs" have simply been kicked out. Or conditions have been created that make them leave. The method is simple: a task is set—do this by that deadline. The person, based on experience, replies that it's impossible to accomplish within that timeframe. The answer is - if you can't - fuck you (this is in the face of a man over 60, with 40 years or more of experience)! Naturally, the person leaves, and a young one is put in his place - young people are always welcome here. Naturally, the young man is also incapable of fulfilling the assigned task, but he knows to whom he is grateful for career advancement and a higher salary, and he looks at him with devoted eyes, like that spaniel. Thus, work is slowed down, but a cohort of personally loyal young managers is being created who don't dare tell their boss to fuck off. As for Omsk, the design bureau there has never been particularly strong in new design, and remains so. Moreover, just like in St. Petersburg, it has thinned out considerably. True, not as much, but still. To summarize: we can still design and produce tanks. Gas turbine engines - too. But the further we go, the worse it will get. The gas turbine engine topic - my personal opinion - should not be abandoned under any circumstances. It needs to be supported by a series of leisurely R&D projects, with the goal of achieving not just 1,500 hp, but rather a model range with a capacity of 2,000-3,000 hp for future "electric" vehicles.


-

Blitz.: No one cut them up; they're still in storage. The T-80U is currently in service, and some are also in storage. If someone suddenly needs a tank to race against the M1, Leo-2, and S1 for show and self-importance, it's much more cost-effective to mount a Kalina on a T-80U, and cheaper, too.

Johon Виталий Иванович (PQ) / Vitaly Ivanovich (PQ) vastasi näin: Most of them were cut up. The turrets were supposed to be used for modernization of the T-80B.

Blitz.: So this project failed.

Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2013-08-22): LÄHDE

1. Some vehicles were actually modernized – the work was carried out by Omsk together with 61st BTRZ (and it doesn't matter that there are thousands of kilometers separating them) :) There are photos confirming the modernization of the vehicles in the Kantemirovskaya Division's fleet. About a dozen UEs were built, give or take.

2. Most UDs in Russia were either gutted with the "heads" – meaning the turrets – preserved, or are ready for this – they are stored at BTRZ.

3. A reserve of turrets is stored at BTRZ. In particular, at the 61st, there are quite a lot of them – I saw it myself. The reserve is not a burden, as it were.


Goodvin: I don’t think they would dismantle the T-80U, there were only a few of them produced anyway!

Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2013-08-23): LÄHDE

All the T-80Us that were withdrawn from Kamchatka—apparently 50 of them—were cut up at the 206th BTRZ in Ussuriysk. Sergei Poddubny once reported on this, and now you can admire the mortal remains in photos from this plant—you'll have to Google them, I'm too lazy.

Goodvin: Only BV will be modernized (if they will be?) to the U(UE) level; they have approximately the same VLD filler.

Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2013-08-23): LÄHDE

In light of the previous post... 50 T-80Us were scrapped, 30 T-80BVs were brought up to UE standard—what's the big deal?

I suspect:

1. They were extorting money in both cases.

2. They announced the army's modernization: decommissioning "old" equipment and commissioning "new" equipment.

3. The actual combat effectiveness of the Armed Forces has declined—the "owners" (on the "Marauder") upvoted...

Overall, everyone's happy...

-


Organic: I watched a video about the Arena - there really is a T-72B from the mid-80s with the Arena complex!

Johon Wiedzmin vastasi näin: This is the so-called T-72M1M, but it's not from the mid-80s.

1758383693163.webp

They used to show it at exhibitions, but it's unclear why it's called an "M1M"; its turret is actually from the B/S, but then they started bringing it in under the M1M name, which already had an A/M1 turret. Can you show a video?

Well, again, Arena has nothing to do with the detection of LI.


Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2014-01-09): LÄHDE

this is the early 2000s

Wiedzmin: Why it's called "M1M" is unclear

Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2014-01-09): LÄHDE

Because the R&D project was called "Modernization of the T-72M1 with the Arena active protection system"

-


Kommentti: A pretty decent upgrade, although there aren't any special details about the panorama yet. (keskustelu koskee T-72B3 obr 2014 eli "Tankbiathlon" versiota)

Corwin: Did they crank out 118 of these panoramic ones? Why so many, or will they be sent to the troops after the biathlon?

Johon Виталий Иванович (PQ) / Vitaly Ivanovich (PQ) vastasi näin: Initially, 31 of them were supposed to be made.

VaanDarD jakoi tällaisen ITAR-TASS uutisen:

LÄHDE


Russian enterprises are modernizing and preparing 118 T-72 tanks for the 2014 Tank Biathlon Championship, according to Lieutenant General Yuri Petrov, Deputy Chief of the Main Directorate for Combat Training of the Ministry of Defense.

"Industrial enterprises are preparing equipment for the Russian team, as well as that intended for transfer to teams of foreign countries," he said at a meeting of the interdepartmental organizing committee for the competition.

According to the general, 31 T-72B3 tanks are being modernized at enterprises of the Uralvagonzavod Scientific and Production Concern . The first batch of these vehicles (15 units) is scheduled for completion in May, and the entire batch will be delivered to the troops by June 2014.

In addition, 87 T -72B (22 units) and T-72B1 (65 units) tanks are being repaired at the Spetsremont enterprise . Petrov noted that the first batch of this equipment—21 T-72B1 tanks—has already been delivered to the 2nd Taman Guards Motorized Rifle Division.

After the championship, this equipment will remain with the formations and units of the Western Military District and will be part of a combat training group for the combat training of tank and motorized rifle units.

Thirteen countries have so far confirmed their participation in the competition. The arrival of foreign crews in Russia and the start of their preparation for the championship is scheduled for July 17. The final stages of the tournament will take place from August 4 to 16.


Alexei Khlopotov vastasi Виталий Иванович (PQ) / Vitaly Ivanovich kommenttiin vaunujen määrästä näin (2014-05-30): LÄHDE

"Initially, 31 of them were supposed to be made."

Only 16. The remaining 15 are regular B3s. And 16 crews are being trained for them. Incidentally, they completed all the practice at Staratel in two days. Although, maybe there will be more later. But I think these were the test runs before departure.

-


Blitz.:

Approximate count of T-72B3 in linear units

ZVO:
200, 138, 9 omsbr and 6 brigade. 220 tanks

Southern Military District:
205th, 18th, 17th separate motorized rifle brigades. 126 tanks.

Central Military District:
21st Separate Motorized Rifle Brigade. Considering that this is a "super-new look" brigade, i.e., a heavy one, it should presumably have 84 tanks.

Eastern Military District:
64th Separate Motorized Rifle Brigade. 42 tanks.

Total 472, excluding vehicles in training units and reserves.

This is only what is mentioned in open sources.


Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2014-09-15): LÄHDE

I'll add my 5 cents:

Eastern Military District:

38th Separate Guards Motor Rifle Brigade, Vitebsk Order of Lenin, Red Banner, Order of Suvorov (military unit 21720, Amur Region, Belogorsk) + Sakhalin (probably the 39th Separate Motor Rifle Brigade, Red Banner (military unit 35390, 693002, Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk).

64th - I don't know, is it definitely on B3 now? It seems like there were 80BVs just recently.


Johon Виталий Иванович (PQ) / Vitaly Ivanovich (PQ) vastasi näin:

By the way, there are also T-72B3s in Sertolovo.

LINKKI

And as far as I remember, in the Pakistani training camp.


Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2014-09-15): LÄHDE

+ 2 units in the Kovrov training center

-


Blitz.: Is it true that T-72s were only produced in Chelyabinsk for export?

Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2014-08-21): LÄHDE

Exactly the opposite – only for SA. All exports were made to UVZ.

Blitz.: Thank you! Are there any differences between tanks from different factories? It's still a strange decision to organize a small production of tanks there; it would be better to stamp out infantry fighting vehicles.

Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2014-08-21): LÄHDE

According to what I heard from the UKBTM people, there were differences. They say the ChTZ hull was laid out differently, and that because of this, something didn't fit into their hull during the modernization at UVZ. However, in my opinion, this is nothing more than an urban legend. Personally, I didn't notice anything of the sort. But what I did notice was that certain design changes at ChTZ were introduced into production later than at UVZ. For example, bullet deflectors. This is clearly visible in the photo if the serial numbers of the removed vehicles are recorded. Otherwise, if anything was changed, it was within the limits of the technological implementation.

Well, by the time they started producing T-72s there, they were no longer churning out IFVs—everything had gone to Kurgan. The decision to deploy the T-72 there must be considered in the context of the mobilization reserve. While UVZ was operating at full capacity and had mobilization capacity, ChTZ was operating at a reduced capacity, "warming up," so as to be able to ramp up production more quickly if necessary. After all, the other factories that were supposed to be producing T-72s during the mobilization needed time to restructure their production. Again, I wouldn't call a production run of almost 2,000 vehicles small. Keep in mind that ChTZ's capacity wasn't as large as UVZ's—they called the wrong plant "Tankograd"!

-


константин / Konstantin sa: 24 T-72B1s were sent to the 151st Tank Regiment of the 78th UMS Division in Chebarkul in 1989. They said that this was the last batch of T-72s at ChTZ.

Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2014-08-21): LÄHDE

It is also not true - production at ChTZ ceased in 1991.

-


abhh: The T-72As in 1986 could not have been fresh from the factory.

Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2014-08-18): LÄHDE

They could have. And how could they have? The T-72AV was definitely produced in 1986. They could have produced simpler ones, too.

abhh: Because they were no longer in production. Moreover, the vehicles he served on, judging by the descriptions, weren't even from the final T-72A series. They definitely didn't have a booster, meaning they were manufactured, at the latest, in the first half of 1983 (given Alexey Khlopotov's data on the start of production of vehicles with booster).

Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2014-08-18): LÄHDE

And who will guarantee that a) they really were without any problems, b) that they weren’t M1s that for some reason didn’t go abroad?

The plant continued producing the T-72M1 almost until the very end—until 1991. Remember the ANT case!

-


abhh: All this was also on the tanks of 1989.

Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2014-11-30): LÄHDE

The K-5 was just entering service in 1989. It entered mass production in 1990. The VLD changed several times.

-


Антитэнкмэн / Antitankman: I could be mistaken, but already in 1984 there was a pilot batch and the T-72B was produced only from sb.100.

Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2014-12-26): LÄHDE

Officially, on paper, it was introduced in March 1985! The 2E42-2 stabilizer was also introduced in March 1985. And the mounted ERA, by the way, was introduced on January 10, 1984...

According to other sources, the new 2E42-2 (Jasmine) stabilizer was introduced by notice No. 172M93-82 dated March 30, 1982. The turret was also introduced into production at the same time.

Here is what the then chief engineer of the plant wrote in his diaries: "On August 26 [1982 - my note], the newly introduced turret 172.10.100sb was dismantled. The new design without metallurgical processing required 263 types of tooling, including 131 fixtures, 20 dies, 22 press molds, 96 tools... ...The "Jasmine" theme - an indispensable part of the new turret 100sb - required a lot of preparation. This theme required 2400 projects for implementation (1230 were completed). The theme, which had not yet been implemented, was changed in the process of experimental development (by August, 358 changes had been made, including 16 on the hull - 15 press molds and 1 stamp were canceled). On August 30, they dismantled the production of the "top" at the ZSO. Questions: 1. Transfer of drawings for the new turret, 2. production of the 2nd model set of tooling, 3. future price of the turret, 4. schedule of delivery of new turrets.

The draft plan for 1983 was being worked out. Approximately xxxx pieces, incl. xxx export and xx command. xx3 IMR vehicles (637).

On the 31st, order 406 of 14.07.82 was considered. The topic “CONTACT” (Dynamic protection). UKBTM completed the development of the technical documentation on 30.07.82, which was considered on 10.08.82. Joint production of containers and fastening units by UKBTM and UVZ - September 1982. Shipment of the product for testing on October 15, 1982 (responsible UKBTM). Tests from October 25 to November 25, 1982 (UKBTM). " So the bulletins with The realities have a very big difference.

Here's another one from him about the 100th tower: "On June 4th, we received the technical specifications for tower 172.10.100sb, which arrived at the plant on May 31st, 1983 (TU-V3-304-83)."

In 1987, a turret and nose with an "increased level of protection" were introduced.

-


kulikov: A simple question: could you point to a page in TOiIE for this designation?

Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2014-12-25): LÄHDE

There's no such designation in either the Technical Inventory and Experimental Manual or any other documentation. There's the T-72B—product 184—and that's it! The designations "T-72B model 1984" and "T-72B model 1989" were introduced by Dmitry Kolmakov, a designer at UKBTM's Department No. 2, in his book dedicated to the 60th anniversary of UKBTM, "From the History of Domestic Tank Building. Time. People. Tanks," (ven. "Из истории отечественного танкостроения. Время.Люди.Танки") pages 52 and 54, in order to somehow differentiate them. Since this was done in the official corporate publication, I personally adhere to this designation and nothing else.

-


joker: Just how busy the plant is with producing new equipment from scratch.

Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2014-12-23): LÄHDE

Last week I spoke with the deputy general director – the plant is simply overloaded with tanks, especially exports. There are problems with railcars, but... today there was information about an order for 40 yards of railcars (albeit under a tricky leasing scheme). Getting back to the tanks – not everything there is fully finished – many vehicle kits are produced for assembly. Now, besides India, another company will be doing licensed assembly.
 
Viimeksi muokattu:
Jatkan edellisten viestien teemassa eli venäläisen Alexei Khlopotov / Aleksey Khlopotov / Алексей Хлопотов (tunnetaan nimimerkistä Gur Khan) vanhojen viestien perkaamista venäläisellä otvaga2004 foorumilla.

Lainaan alle minun mielestäni mielenkiintoisia huhuja tai tiedonmuruja sisältäviä viestejä ja keskustelunpätkiä.

-

Realist: Is the reason for the sharp increase in the price of the T-90 in 2011 from 70 million rubles to 118 million rubles known? If so, did the increased price apply to the T-90A or the new T-90MS?

Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2017-03-27): LÄHDE

Where the sum of 118 million rubles came from should be asked to Commander-in-Chief Postnikov. Perhaps then he voiced UVZ's desires for at least the T-90A version with the PTK, or maybe something else. But the Ministry of Defense definitely did not plan to purchase the T-90MS back then - firstly, it is an export vehicle, secondly, it has not passed the state inspection and would need to be improved for several more years. In general, the last purchases of the T-90A were in 2010. The regular T-90A cost 64,415,000 rubles then, but the T-90A version with the PTK (Sozvezdie-2M) - 71,915,000 rubles. In the period 2006-2010, the price increased initially by approximately 5 million, and later by 4 million rubles per year. At the same time, the profitability is interesting: 2004 - -12.42%; 2006 - -7.01%; 2007 - +0.85%; 2008 - -6.51%; 2009 - -8.6%. Thus, UVZ armed the army at its own expense! For comparison, in 2010, the Sprut cost 77 million rubles; BMD-4 - 75 million rubles; Msta-S - 82 million rubles.

-

Wiedzmin: Regarding the turrets, a question again for respected Gur Khan.

I understand that 1 and 2 are copies of each other, but the second one was made with the TPD-K1 in mind, not the TPD-2-49?

The 3rd turret is sometimes listed as "the 2nd with DG," but it looks more rounded to the eye, and possibly thicker. So is this a different turret or the 2nd with DG?

4 is apparently the 73rd tower, 5 is either what came before it (23?) or it's the same one without the DG?


1758394395837.webp

All in a row (if you open it in a separate window, it will be full size)

Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2017-02-04): LÄHDE

Well, something like that...

1758394256516.webp

I'll add that there's still a lot to figure out with the turrets, including the early T-72 turrets and the export versions.

Regarding the "hundredth" turret, I suspect 1982 was the year the notice was issued; they weren't actually installed until later. But I don't yet know what to make of the second date—March 1985. It's clear that vehicles with this turret were definitely being produced in 1983.

I've seen claims that T-72B1s were produced with the 077sb turret from January to March 1985, but I've personally observed and photographed several T-72B1s produced in March 1985—all with the "hundredth" turret. I'm also not sure what the 113th turret is—I suspect it's some variant of the 100th, roughly the same as the 77th—very similar to the 73rd.


-

Navigator: What kind of T-72B modification is this in the Kazakh Armed Forces? Judging by the K-5 and wind sensor, it looks like a T-72BA, but the tracks seem older.

Johon Wiedzmin vastasi näin: A wind sensor is not a sign of a BA; they were installed on regular T-72Bs in the 90s (started in 1991 from memory)

Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2016-09-17): LÄHDE

This is a regular B, from the very last series produced in 1991. They were sent to Belarus and Kazakhstan back then, and that's where they remained.

-

Kysymys: Any guesses on what 77 looks like? And what kind of tower do the Algerians have? Or is this the 73rd?

Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2016-07-29):

Yes. The 77th is very similar to her.

Wiedzmin: Is it even possible to visually distinguish them? I just couldn't figure out what the difference was.

Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2016-07-30): LÄHDE

Something in the little things, and on 077 there must be welds for fastening the overhead guard

-

Blitz.: By the way, the T-72B has a vol. 1989 and the T-90, is the turret different than the T-72B?

Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2016-07-29): LÄHDE

Judging by the drawing numbers, it's different. I still can't tell the difference from the outside.

Blitz.: Thank you, could you tell me the number?

Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2016-07-30): LÄHDE

188.10.001SB

-


Wiedzmin: Before the 73rd tower, there was another one with sand, but the core in it was smaller

1758394944372.webp

Isn't this the same one by any chance? Unlike photos 73 above, there's no cutout for the grenade launcher wiring, and the windshield appears slightly smaller


Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2016-07-30): LÄHDE

In memory - 023SB

There's also information about the T-72B, which received a turret and upper glacis plate with "increased" protection in 1987. But I don't know whether this only affected the filler material or whether the drawing number was changed.


-

Blitz.: The first T-72B3s were made from late T-72As.

Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2016-08-23): LÄHDE

At one time, VNIITM conducted research and development to determine the feasibility of modernization. The conclusion: vehicles manufactured no earlier than 1985 are eligible for modernization. That's how they're currently being modernized. Moreover, if we have a T-72B manufactured, say, in December 1984, it's no longer included in the rejuvenation program, but a T-72A, for example, manufactured in 1985-86, is.

Johon Blitz. vastasi näin:

1758395820015.webp

-

BkktMkkt: Breakthrough-3, T-72B4, T-72B3, T-14... Isn't that a bit much? Or is B4 the same as Breakthrough-3? (ven. прорыв-3, т-72б4, т-72б3, т-14... Не многовато ли? Или Б4 это и есть прорыв-3?)

Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2016-05-02): LÄHDE

And remember the BA, UE, etc....
;)
Seriously,

the B4 is a special case. They made it for biathlon - it won't work any further. The vehicles are now in storage, and two (there was a photo) are in disrepair.

The T-14... well, even алекспро is writing here - they're seeing a repeat of the T-64 story. Moreover, due to the vehicle's cost, the Ministry of Defense doesn't really want it anymore. Remember the recent statements by the higher-ups. In short, a mass-produced T-14 is still a long way off, if it ever happens.

The B3 is our everything! Right now, it's the main tank of the Armenian Army.

The P3
(ven. П3) is an upcoming modernization of the T-90 and T-90A fleet.

As I've said many times, we'll be driving the T-72 and T-90 for a very long time.


-

abhh: Here is his comment on tower 077: "I haven't seen the drawings. But from what I understand, it looks very similar to the 100th."

Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2016-05-20): LÄHDE

I've already seen it. And to be honest, I still don't understand how it differs from the 073 in appearance.
:(


abhh: T-72B1 turret - 172.10.113sb

Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2016-05-20): LÄHDE

To my shame, I've never heard of such a thing
:(
(((((


-

a89: The Russian Ministry of Defense will decommission all T-80 tanks.

Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2016-02-07): LÄHDE

So far, it's finishing off. The T-80BVs will be replaced first. Then it'll be the Ushkas' turn. Although the latter might be held in reserve, just in case.

Johon Виталий Иванович (PQ) / Vitaly Ivanovich (PQ) vastasi näin: The T-80BVs aren't being decommissioned; they've been moved to storage bases and are being repaired. Incidentally, many of them are still in good condition. There's no such thing as a spare tank these days.

Johon vim vastasi näin: Direct statement from the head of the GABTU, A. Shevchenko, from a 2011 interview: "Tanks of the T-72/T-90 family will undergo major repairs and modernization and will remain in the combat inventory of the Armed Forces for a long time. Moreover, we will determine the scope of necessary modernization measures based on the cost-effectiveness criterion. It is no secret that T-80 tanks are more expensive to operate than tanks of the T-72/T-90 family. Therefore, tanks of the T-80 family will undergo repairs to maintain their service life, and as this service life is exhausted, they will gradually be decommissioned from the Armed Forces."

Johon Джеронимо / Geronimo vastasi näin: So no one seems to be saying that the 219RVs are going to open-hearth furnaces, especially since the question was about the reserve. But they continue to be repaired.

In 2012, for example, there was a tender for the technical repair of 115 T-80BVs.

http://twower.livejournal.com/748487.html

Or the performance indicators at 61 BTRZ - from 2010 to 2015, 266 T-80s were repaired, and in the last year of 2015, an entire tank battalion (34 vehicles) underwent repairs. But T-72B3s are still being overworked, even with the complicated military-political situation in the world and the re-establishment of old units and formations; I don't think the T-80 will get a second chance.


-

Bitnik: This is about the events in Dagestan. There are "Indian" T-72Ss there.

Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2016-02-29): LÄHDE

There were no T-72S tanks there, especially not Indian ones. There were several T-72AVs, converted from T-72M1s, smuggled in the ANT case. Because the vehicles had imported badges (in English), they were nicknamed "Indians." The Chichi mistook T-72Bs with explosive reactive armour for T-90s. That's where the T-90 legends originated.

-

abhh: Let me try asking again here: is the ratio between the numbers of T-72B and T-72B1 produced known?

Johon Mark Nicht vastasi näin: Perhaps Mr. GurKhan is aware.

Johon инженер / engineer vastasi näin: Even if he knows, it is classified information.

Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2016-03-11): LÄHDE

No, that's all already out in the open. I don't have that figure, but I know where it is (at least for UVZ itself). The only problem is that I'm too busy to dig it up. A lot of work is currently underway to prepare archives on the domestic tank industry for publication. This includes the publication of UVZ's reporting statistics. As soon as I receive these documents, I'll be able to announce the figure. No one is going to sift through the entire document trove for a single figure right now.

инженер / engineer: How many T-72s were produced? If possible, break it down by year.

Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2016-03-11): LÄHDE

This is already in the book by Ustyantsev/Kolmakov "T-72/90" - sold at UVZ-Shop.ru

(ven. Устьянцева/Колмакова "Т-72/90")


Mark Nicht: "A major effort is now underway to prepare archives on the domestic tank industry for publication."

Until what year will it open?
:crazyfun:


Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2016-03-11): LÄHDE

At UVZ, it's open until 1991. I don't know for sure about other archives yet, but I think they've already opened up the early 1970s, and maybe some from the 1980s are available too. Organizational, technical, and legal issues are currently being resolved. Unfortunately, we live in a world of rampant bureaucracy—because of this, the project's documentation is being processed very slowly. For now, I'll say that the document database will be linked to UVZ's "Tankopedia." The project's codename is "Tankprom DIGITAL. The Tankopedia Electronic Archive." It's planned to publish at least 10 thematic document collections monthly, each containing 500-6,000 pages. There will be drawings and photographs (and entire photo albums). I will keep you informed about milestones. UVZ will also issue press releases. I really hope the first major results will be by September-October—the anniversaries of UVZ and UKBTM. By that time, we should also expect a commemorative book about UVZ and, apparently, even two books about UKBTM. A new volume on Sverdlovsk self-propelled guns will also be published. That's all the news I have.

Mark Nicht: Now the main thing is to wait

Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2016-03-11): LÄHDE

The project has been in the works for three years. So, according to a well-known Russian proverb, there's hope that now it will finally come together...
;)


отрохов / otrokhov: This ratio was planned as 4 to 6

Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2016-03-12): LÄHDE

Perhaps something was planned or implied, but judging by the production documents I've seen, production was dictated by the availability of KUV kits. Especially at first, they were mainly churning out B1s. Naturally, all of this was coordinated with the customer. There were some initial plans, but they were constantly being adjusted along the way. Overall, 1985-86 were very interesting – the B, B1, AV, and M1 were all in production at the same plant. The production workers were simply shooting themselves in the foot!

-

Alexei Khlopotov kirjoitti näin (2015-08-06): LÄHDE

Production output of the 61st BTRZ by year and type from 1985 to 2015:

http://gurkhan.blogspot.ru/2015/08/61.html

-

Василий Фофанов / Vasily Fofanov: Rooms up to 199 are reserved, and all rooms above are already taken

Johon gattus vastasi näin: From 140. But not all were chosen, far from all - for example, 189, 190, 191, 192 were assigned?

Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2014-12-01): LÄHDE

Yes.

189 - T-92 R&D "Rogatka-1" 1 stage
190 - UR-88 R&D "Oboy"
191 - R&D "Vector-E"
but I don't know about this one yet 192.
193 - IMR-3
194-?
195 - T-95
196 - IMR-2MA = IMR-3M
197 - BMR-3M
198 - IMT Kort-K
199 - BMPT

I'll also add some fresh ones:
142 - BREM-1M
143 - MTU-92
144 -?
145 - IMT Subgroup-T
146 - BREM-72
147 - Prototype, which was developed into ob.151
148 - T-14
149 - BMP-T-15
150 - IT-1 (old stuff)
151 - Prototype, which later became ob.167, and also T-72 with the Sprut system (a thing of the past)
152 - BREM-T-16

183 - BMPT-72

Just when you start spreading it around the Internet, don't forget to remember it with a kind word.


Johon gattus vastasi näin: Some of this is from Worldoftanks. If you Google it, what do tank trailers have to do with the T-72? What do they have to do with UVZ? They weren't produced there.

Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2014-12-02): LÄHDE

Let's not waste time on nonsense. You can Google anything you want, all this information is mine or somehow leaked out from under me.

What are you even talking about? Did you even know that UKBTM was heavily involved in engineering vehicle development, while UVZ has an entire engineering vehicle assembly facility? And yes, minesweepers were developed in Chelyabinsk at SKB-200. But UVZ developed minesweepers—can you see the difference?


abhh kiinnitti huomiota tähän:

"189 - T-92 R&D "Rogatka-1" stage 1"

Shaitanama! What is this?
oO


Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2014-12-02): LÄHDE

An attempt to modernize the T-90 immediately after the First Chechen War. Much was implemented later. The most interesting part is the meter-long "Vakuum" BPS.

Johon abhh vastasi näin: YOBA! Where can I see all this?
:)


Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2014-12-02): LÄHDE

Mere mortals haven't seen it yet. As for the BPS, it never really came into being back then. Although work on it continued, it was somewhat scaled back. The last information I had on it was from 2009. Unfortunately, I don't know how things are now. But as far as I understand, the turreted AZs were built for it.

Alexei Khlopotov kirjoitti toisessa viestissä hieman lisää tästä T-92 projektista (2014-12-02): LÄHDE

Now about "imagination." First of all, comrade, if you're going to troll me, please read this post of mine from October 7, 2012: http://gurkhan.blogspot.ru/2012/10/90_7.html

It's about something slightly different, but it does contain a scan of the original document that started the T-92 story.

I quote myself:

"This document was signed by the chief designer of the FSUE UKBTM V.I. Potkin, and subsequently served as the basis for formulating the technical specifications and opening the R&D project "Rogatka-1" (stage 1) for the creation of an improved version of the T-90 tank - the T-92 tank. For reference - the index "T-92" was spelled out directly and clearly in the technical specifications: "... create a T-92 tank" - in the design bureau documentation, this machine was designated "Object 189." Now, I will name the documents on the basis of which this work was carried out: Technical Specifications 11897 R&D project "Rogatka I" "Improving the combat and operational characteristics of the T-90 tank" (Product 189) "Tank T-92 - an improved T-90 tank". Technical Specifications (corrections) T-239-98. Then, based on Decree 115 of November 9, 1999, technical proposals are issued for a variant with a 7-roller chassis. This is followed by the second edition of the T-239-98-1 specifications of March 12, 2003, and Decree 38 of April 25, 2003, with the same title, "Improving the combat and operational characteristics of the T-90 tank." Based on this, we obtain product 184M—the T-72B2 tank. Most of these documents are classified as DSP. Check!


-

БочкаВТанке / BarrelInTank:

The first version of the T-72S was the “object 172M-E7” and differed from the final version by the absence of the DVE-BS.

However, some vehicles had a third turret toolbox and eight mounts on the lower glacis plate, as on vehicles for the Soviet Army, instead of the four typical for export vehicles. Externally, it differs from the B-15 only in the reduced number of ERA guns on the sides.


(tässä kohtaa on kolme kuvaa)

And in another form, the car was already in an almost “classic” form, with two boxes and 4 bonnet mounts.
(tässä kohtaa on kaksi kuvaa)

One such, for example, entered service with the Ukrainian Armed Forces in 2015.
(tässä kohtaa on kaksi kuvaa)

A question arose. Were these vehicles somehow different in designation, or were they both "Object 172M-E7"/"Object 172MSB-11" according to the drawings? And how did the first vehicle, with three cargo boxes and eight mounting points, emerge? Was it built from a T-72B, to begin with? Or was it a reworked T-72B, initially?

I apologize in advance if this question has already been addressed.


Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2017-05-28): LÄHDE

"Externally, it differs from the "B" only in the reduced number of ERA on the sides."

Another lack of overbeat
(ven. Еще отсутствием надбоя)

"Were these vehicles somehow different in designation, or were they both “object 172M-E7”/“object 172MSB-11” according to the drawings?"

The E7 was never mass-produced. Only a prototype existed. The 172MSB-11 and 172MSB-12 drawings refer to the E8 specification. Initially, it did not have the 2DVE. The E8's configuration was revised based on orders from December 1990 and January 1991, when the 2DVE and the SB-12 drawing appeared. Therefore, the first photos are of the E7, and the rest are of the "early" E8.

"And how the first machine appeared, with three boxes and 8 fasteners"

The first prototype. Then the roller trawl was discontinued, and consequently, the booms were also removed. The I-1 vests (personal radiation protection) were removed from the kit, and the left turret storage compartment also disappeared.

"a reworked, initially ready-made 72B?"

No. The T-72S had a completely different upper glacis plate and turret interior design—no reflective plates. The liner material was also different.


eburg1234:

"No. The T-72S had a completely different upper glacis plate and turret interior design—no reflective plates. The liner material was also different. "

Are Iranian T-72Ss really like this? Is there sand in the turrets?


Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2017-05-28): LÄHDE

Yes, unless they figured something out later. But in any case, when they received the towers from Tagil, they had sand in the cavities. Accordingly, the licensing documentation also contained sand.

Wiedzmin: And the niche for the filler itself was no different? What's the point? Well, the T-72 and 72A were exported in exactly the same way as in the USSR, no fancy filler, they just weren't the latest versions.

Johon Венд vastasi näin:

Forming cavities in castings with sand cores is a standard and inexpensive solution.
Using this core as an anti-cumulative filler is also a cost-effective solution.
Producing continuous steel protection of equivalent resistance is significantly more difficult.
Therefore, with the sand-filled turret already in production, there was no need for a different export version.


Johon Wiedzmin vastasi näin: Isn't it true that the T-72S/B cap has nothing in common with the T-72A cap? And if the niches are the same as the B, then it's designed for sheets. In the case of sand, most likely the first few hits will knock the niche cover off and the sand will come out.

Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2017-05-28): LÄHDE

Oh! There's a lot of sense here. Look, what needs to be done to give the customer a "non-extreme version"? That's right - produce it! But what if production of this version has already been discontinued?

It needs to be restored. It's a real pain in the ass for industry, for production! Back in the day, many turrets for export vehicles were cast in Chelyabinsk at the Sergo Ordzhonikidze Plant,
and those involved in that process, over a glass of tea, would recall instances when they were pushing through a series (and this was a plan that was often never cancelled or changed) and then an order for some other version of the turret cap would suddenly fall on them - everything and everyone would immediately go nuts.

And it was like that all the time. But as for the turret with the filler recess - nothing needed to be changed. The recesses were identical. It's just that if the turret was intended for the Soviet army, the molding sand core was removed from the recesses, and if it was going for export, it was simply left in place - untouched. This was a huge savings in labor costs, even compared to the "B" version, not to mention the hassle of restoring production of the old turret variant. I remember when they were placing an order for Iran, I had no interest in tanks at the time, but I had a good friend, a modeler (sadly now deceased), who was working on a welders' machine, welding these niches shut with sand. I remember him sketching out in pencil on a piece of paper what the niche looked like and how to weld it shut. I didn't care at the time, but it was still interesting, which is why I remembered it. Later, I found other confirmation. But why the USSR disliked its allies so much that they treated them like that—I don't know—it's a matter of high politics. They were probably afraid that our "secrets" might leak to the US.

As for the T-72S, there were many potential customers: Iran, Iraq, Syria, China, India, East Germany, and even the Czech Republic (the Czechs wanted to modernize their EM tanks by installing the S-type turret on the old hulls) plus some Arabs. But after the antics of first Gorbachev and then Yeltsin, the buyers fled...


dron: That is, when a number of publications reported that the armor of the T-72 S hull and turret was maintained at the level of the T-72M1 (with the exception of the NZ), is this correct? Or is the level of protection still somewhat higher than that of the M1 due to the larger armor dimensions of the S turret?

Johon Wiedzmin vastasi näin: The VLD there is clearly not Mochnaya, something from the early B or something like that, photos from the production were a long time ago, there is a multi-layered new barrier, which of course does not change the fact that the level of its protection may not have changed much, and accordingly, it is the same in the early B.

Constantine: Gur Khan , since we're talking about export "seventy-twos," could you describe the main differences between the E1-E7 modifications and specify when they were produced?

Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2017-05-29): LÄHDE

Me, no. I don't have time for that. But Polikarpov wrote a pretty good article back in the day. It'll do for a start:

http://uploads.ru/dzUPT.pdf


1758398799108.webp
 
Viimeksi muokattu:
Jatkan edellisten viestien teemassa eli venäläisen Alexei Khlopotov / Aleksey Khlopotov / Алексей Хлопотов (tunnetaan nimimerkistä Gur Khan) vanhojen viestien perkaamista venäläisellä otvaga2004 foorumilla.

Lainaan alle minun mielestäni mielenkiintoisia huhuja tai tiedonmuruja sisältäviä viestejä ja keskustelunpätkiä.

-

Wiedzmin: A question arose: how is the T-72B3 actually worse than the T-90A? I'm interested in the opinions of tank users, and of course, respected Gur Khan.

Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2017-03-27): LÄHDE

Let's start with the fact that this (B3), while overhauled, is still an old vehicle. Its main weakness is its armor protection. The upper glacis plate hasn't been updated, nor will it be. The same goes for the turret—not only is the package outdated and doesn't meet modern requirements, but the casting itself is less resistant to damage than a rolled, welded turret. The second major flaw is the lack of a proper observation device for the commander. It seems that on the B3, the commander is essentially ballast—he's blind! A TKN, even a modernized one, is just that. On the T-90, the commander's observation capabilities are incomparably better. Although both would benefit from a panoramic view. The T-90A has a laser warning system and automatic curtain deployment—the B3 lacks these. I don't particularly believe in the Shtora system itself, so I'm not giving the 90 a +, although I probably should have. The Essa and Sosna are practically equivalent at night – it's determined by the sensor's capabilities, and they're identical in both. Operators will be able to correct me, but I think the Sosna has the advantage of making it easier and more convenient to fire missiles at maximum range. At the same time, if the Sosna is damaged, you can't fire a missile – there's a backup 1A40, but that's only for daylight firing and only with conventional ammunition. The T-90A's thermal imager is only for basic nighttime firing. It's hard to say which is better. The B3 has an ASC. It could have been installed on the T-90A, but they didn't. But the T-90A has an Ainet, which, if I remember correctly, the B3 doesn't have. In terms of protection, the T-90A's big advantage is its closed machine gun mount. Sure, a commander leaning out of the hatch has an excellent view, but... the Syrians are crying foul - they've lost a lot of tank commanders. They're practically equal in terms of power. Since the B3 is 2.5, maybe even 3 tons lighter, its 840 hp is more than enough. Plus, the V-84 with its supercharger means no turbo lag (which can be useful when you need to get going fast). Overall, I'm all for the T-90A, but it's already outdated. That's why, in my opinion, the only reasonable course of action is to modernize the entire T-72 and T-90 fleet to a single standard with the Proryv UBO. The Proryv combines the best of what's currently available and what's been developed. The only thing is that the Proryv has a rear ammo box - that's idiotic. But it's not useless - it can carry loot and serve as a rear-mounted weapon. Again, this crate could be fitted with PU blocks to protect the upper hemisphere, like on the Armata. The new Arena design would also be a good idea... And on the hull sides, ERA blocks like on the T-14.

Regarding VLD protection... I've been wondering if it would be possible to install a Relikt module on top of the integrated K-5? And how would it work? In my opinion, it should work...
-


БочкаВТанке / BarrelInTank: Was there any distinguishing feature in the first 6 T-90s produced?

Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2017-06-24):

An interesting question
;)
: Where does it come from, if it's not a secret? What are these rumors?

If we're talking about the T-90 mod. 1992, the entire series was practically identical. The only difference was that some vehicles had a plate on the nose for attaching the TBS, while others did not.

But, according to the recollections of design bureau veterans, the very first vehicles, either 6 or 12, did have two differences. The first difference was that due to a shortage of TShU illuminators, they were only equipped with one. The second was sent to an active unit, where it was installed in its standard location, after which these tanks lost their "specialness." The second difference was the OPVT cover on the gun mantlet and the OTShU elevation drive rod. They say that when the barrels were elevated to their maximum angle, the lower part of the cover stretched so much that the seams cracked. At the same time, the tie rod mounting bolts stuck outward, toward the barrel, and could snag and tear these boots. On later vehicles, these bolts were reversed, with their heads facing the barrel. I'm writing this from memory. It's all written down somewhere, but I can't find it right away...


Johon БочкаВТанке / BarrelInTank vastasi näin: Well, I was curious myself. A few years ago, I read a clever discussion about some distinctive six early T-90s at the VIF, but I didn't pay it any mind. But recently, I came across something similar again in a discussion under a photo online. I wanted to understand what they were talking about and whether it was true. Thank you very much for your answer!

Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2017-06-24):

Can I see the link?

Johon БочкаВТанке / BarrelInTank vastasi näin:

Of course.

There's nothing much to see there, but since you asked, it's worth it.

It is hardly possible to find the discussion on VIF anymore.

I came across a mention on the old GSPO forum: "Here's one of the first!" http://gspo.ru/lofiversion/index.php/t3434.html

After which, Googling the image yielded something no more meaningful: "What a beauty! This is one of the first six production cars ever made. Preserved in its authentic form. And I thought they were all cut up into needles."
http://dvinetz.dreamwidth.org/146216.html?thread=761128

Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2017-06-25): LÄHDE

Thank you! Yes, the photo shows a vehicle from the Chelyabinsk Tank School. They actually had six of those. At one time, they were considered the earliest. But now I have my doubts. I don't detect any significant differences from regular vehicles. When I get a chance, I'll ask again whoever told me about the OPVT covers on the gun mantlet and the OTShU drive rods. Also, not long ago, I received a list of almost all production T-90s, listed by serial number and with shipping addresses. But I haven't processed it yet. I can only now say that in total, somewhere around 105 or 107 of these vehicles were produced in 1992-94.

Johon Blitz. vastasi näin: So, how many T-90s were produced in total, including experimental vehicles, or only serial ones?

Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2017-06-26): LÄHDE

105 production vehicles. Of these, 84 were initially sent to the Khalilovo base, and from there to Siberia. 21 vehicles were sent to the Training Center, VNIITM, Kubinka, and Vystrel. Two of them were transferred from UVZ to UKBTM for modifications and modernization (one of them, in particular, was converted into a T-90K with Agava). One of the Kubinka vehicles was converted into a T-90S, and so on and so forth. Two of these were still undergoing qualification trials (one of which was sent from ChVTKU). ChVTKU had seven vehicles, indeed from 1992, but not the very first ones – the seventh, eighth, tenth, and twelfth were delivered, and three more in 1994, one of which was the very first with Agava. But as I wrote above, one of their vehicles was later sent to a test facility, leaving only six left. I have a detailed inventory of 77 vehicles and the final production figure is 105 units. But... this doesn't include the first experimental units #1-4 from 1988. I also know the serial numbers of at least two more vehicles from 1991 - one in Tagil, the other in Kubinka. I also know at least two more vehicles from 1992 that aren't on the general list (but maybe they're just hulls? Who knows). I also know the serial numbers of two vehicles from 1996 - I haven't looked into them yet, but I think there's one in Kubinka.

-

Wiedzmin: Is it known who made such eyebrows?

Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2017-06-26): LÄHDE

I don't know about those. Actually, eyebrow production was handled by the UVZ branch in Volchansk (if I remember correctly). I just don't know if they had a full assembly cycle there or just casting.

Well, I'll throw in some more goodies... The second half of the 1990s, up to and including 1999, the following T-90 variants were being developed: 188B, 188BK, 188B1, 188B1K, 188BA, 188B1A, 188SM. The last one was built and shown at exhibitions. All the others were supposed to have the KD-34. The differences were in the sights - Buran/Agava and the turret design - cast/welded (on the last three variants).

And one more thing - the V-99 N=1200 hp engine was actually installed in the T-90. For a while, the 2P12AT8572 engine was used in T-90S No. 3 (of those tested in India). It was originally intended to be installed in conjunction with the main transmission, but in reality, it was apparently only installed with the automatic transmission. It appears there were issues with the engine's reliability and service life. This was back in 1999-2000.


Blitz.:

"188B, 188BK, 188B1, 188B1K, 188BA, 188B1A"

I'll try to figure out what and how it was:

188B cast turret, Buran
188BK same, commander variant
188B1 cast turret, Agava
188B1K also same, commander variant
188BA rolled turret, Buran
188B1A rolled turret, Agava


Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2017-06-26): LÄHDE

Bingo!

-


Пехота: Another option would be a T-90B, for the transition period to the Armata. Production of 300 units by 2020.

Johon servismen vastasi näin: It seems like the Tagil design bureau hasn't created anything like that yet. The best one everyone's ever heard of is the T90M.

Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2017-06-17): LÄHDE

The coolest thing is that they actually worked on a car with that name. It was on paper!
:)


Johon servismen vastasi näin: Can you give some details? At least a little? And the project is frozen, I suppose? If so, for what reasons?

Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2017-06-18): LÄHDE

T-90B (version 188B) Second revision of the "Rogatka-1" design specifications. Based on the T-90A (version 188A1). Implementation of the "Polzunok" (PTK-1) system, AP or DGU, "Essa", T01-K04, and satellite navigation. 2006.

1758400286741.webp

Partially implemented in this: And "the best is the enemy of the good." I'm referring to the 188M...

Johon f22r vastasi näin: All this state stuff has already passed, as I understand it?

Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2017-06-18): LÄHDE

What is "THIS"? What are we talking about? If you're talking about the T-90AK with the power pack in the photo, it's already in service. I don't know how many were made, but very few. It's in Tamanka.

Johon f22r vastasi näin: About 188B

Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2017-06-18): LÄHDE

"The coolest thing is that they actually worked on a car with that name. It was on paper!
:)
"


(hän lainasi aikaisemman viestinsä vastaukseksi)

-

Constantine: Gur Khan, by the way, could you remind me of the indexes of other experienced "seventy-twos" with a control system and/or an automated fire control system?

Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2017-07-13): LÄHDE

172M with "Cobra" and "Ob" - the second half of the 70s
151 (1979-82) - "Sprut-S" with radar
172M with PNK TKN-5U (1980) - R&D "Agat-U"
177 (1981) - "Svir"
179 (1981-82) - 9K122
184 - "Svir"
184-2 - "Cobra" (also 9K116) was being developed
185 - "Svir" with 9M125

There was also an automated SKB Rotor control system—I've written about it somewhere before, but I can't find it right away. I don't know the model number of the car with it, though. Perhaps they were referring to the Sprut.

-


Сергей Белоног / Sergey Belonog:

2. What could this phrase mean?:

"The BMPT was developed on a modernized T-72 tank chassis."

Does this mean the T-90 chassis, or a modernization of the T-72 from older vehicles?


Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2011-02-09): LÄHDE

That's exactly what it means. According to the technical specifications, the BMPT is to convert old T-72 tanks. The design documentation was also developed for producing vehicles from scratch, naturally on the T-90 platform. However, in terms of cost, the first option (conversion) is almost as expensive as the second. The factory would prefer the second option, of course, but the Ministry of Defense, while it still wanted the vehicle, demanded a conversion, while also pushing for a lower cost. Ultimately, no agreement was reached.

-


scout:

T-90 (Object-188)
T-90K (Object-188K)
T-90S (Object-188SM)
T-90SK (Object-188SMK)
T-90A (Object-188A1)
T-90A (Object-188A2)
T-90AK (Object-188?)
T-90SA (Object-188SA)
T-90SKA (Object-188?)
T-90SM (Object-188?)


Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2011-11-14): LÄHDE

T-90 (Object 188)
T-90K (Object 188K)
T-90S (Object 188SM) T-90S (Object 188S)
T-90SK (Object 188SMK) T-90SK (Object-188SK)
T-90A (Object-188A1)
T-90A (Object-188A2) (
tämän pitäisi varmaankin olla = T-90A with PTK (Object-188A2))
T-90AK (Object-188A1K)
T-90AK with PTK (Object-188A2K)
T-90SA (Object 188CA) T-90S (Object 188SA) - for Algeria, Turkmenistan, Uganda. (A-Algeria)
T-90SKA (Object 188?) T-90SK (Object-188SKA)
T-90SM (Object 188?) T-90MS (Object 188M - but this only applies to the combat module, although it may be extended to the entire vehicle)

-


Anduriel: Wait a second. What about the biathlon T-72B3 (if I remember correctly, object 184.4)? What's it called then? These are clearly not last year's vehicles, and look more like combat vehicles. The engines are clearly V-84-1, judging by the exhaust. How are they different from the combat B3?

And what is the T-90A1? That's the tank mentioned in the recent tender (though I think it was listed there as the T-90S).


Johon Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2015-07-29): LÄHDE

Let me try to clarify, because our idiotic practices are causing confusion again.

1. There is a modernized tank, the "Object 184-3." It passed the state inspection and was accepted into service under the designation T-72B3. According to the "Specifications List" (VS), it is listed as "Product 184 with the Sosna-U PNM", and exactly the same thing is written on the cover of the TO and IE. These tanks are currently participating in the biathlon.

2. To participate in last year's biathlon, a "sports car" was made on the basis of the T-72B3. In the design bureau, it is listed as "Object 184-4". But it did not pass the State Inspection and was not officially accepted into service. It was produced according to temporary documentation, the specification is called "Product 184 with modified performance characteristics". The names "T-72B3M" and "T-72B4" are conditional and invented by "experts" only for the purpose of somehow distinguishing between the vehicles. However, most likely, upon acceptance into service, it will receive the index T-72B4. Apparently, 3 contracts for modernization were recently concluded with UVZ, one Of which (the last one) seemed to be related to the mass procurement of these vehicles. It will probably be put through the service acceptance procedure before that.

3. The mentioned "T-90A1." In fact, it is "Object 188A1," and it has been officially called the T-90A since its adoption in 2005. The last serially produced T-90As, according to the "factory" index, were already known as "Object 188A2" - these were vehicles with the anti-tank missile system. Accordingly, in the Armed Forces, there are the designations "Product 188A1" - this is the T-90A with the "Buran-M," "Product 188A1 with the "Essa" TP - it's clear, "Product 188A1 with the anti-tank missile system" - also clear. The T-90A at the biathlon is simply at the exhibition, and, perhaps, will participate in the show program.

4. The only tank currently being purchased is the "Object 188S"—the T-90S. Its modification is determined by its configuration. For what purpose it's being purchased—who knows! By the way, pay attention to the price—at the current ruble exchange rate, it costs less than $1.8 million—the cheapest new tank in the world—only used ones are cheaper. And for that price, they're selling a tank with practically every possible feature. Also, it's especially worth noting the 4S23 ERA components, which were officially approved for export, even a couple of years ago they were forbidden to even mention. Draw your own conclusions...
 
Viimeksi muokattu:
Otetaanpa tämä talteen, erään japania kirjoittavan twitter-tilin kommentit T-90A modernisoinnista T-90M malleiksi sekä yleisemmin T-90M tuotantosopimuksista sekä spekuloi lyhyesti että onkohan osa T-90 obr 1992 panssarivaunuista toimitettu Intiaan osana 90-luvun lopulla allekirjoitettua T-90S sopimusta (ensimmäiset 40 kpl Intiaan toimitetuista vaunuista olivat valetulla tornilla, loput olivat hitsatulla tornilla kuten Venäjän armeijalle valmistetut T-90A ja vientiin valmistetut T-90S/SA sarjatuotantomallit):

It seems that the confirmation of the T-90A to T-90M upgrade in the overseas OSINT community has become a bit of a topic, but this itself was included in the pre-war upgrade contract, so it's not particularly surprising.

From the deployment pace, it's clear that the majority are completely new production vehicles, and the line for export T-90S has probably been switched to T-90M production.


-

Viitatun 18.4.2020 julkaistun viestiketjun teksti:

There was an article detailing the production and unit deployment of the T-90M

https://topwar.ru/169235-partija-se...ravlena-v-moskvu-dlja-uchastija-v-parade.html

A batch of production T-90M "Proryv" tanks has been sent to Moscow to participate in the parade.​




A batch of the latest T-90M "Proryv" series tanks has been manufactured by Uralvagonzavod. These tanks are ready for shipment to Moscow for the Victory Day Parade on Red Square on May 9. A video of the tanks' preparations was provided by the Zvezda TV channel.

As previously reported by the Ministry of Defense, the latest T-90M "Proryv" tanks will be displayed for the first time at the parade dedicated to the 75th anniversary of victory in the Great Patriotic War. It was also announced that testing of the newest Russian T-90M "Proryv" tank has been successfully completed, and the Ministry of Defense will determine the timing and volume of serial deliveries of the tanks to the troops. Funds for the purchase of the T-90M tanks have already been allocated, and delivery of the serial vehicles is expected in 2020.

According to available information, between 2017 and 2018, the Ministry of Defense signed two contracts for the supply of 60 T-90M tanks. Under the first contract, the company was to supply 10 new tanks, with another 20 being converted from T-90 tanks during major overhauls and modernization. The second contract is for 30 tanks, modernized from T-90s to T-90M standard.


A third contract for the modernization of another 100 T-90A tanks to the T-90M standard was signed on June 28, 2019, at the Army-2019 International Military-Technical Forum. Another contract for the modernization of another 100 T-90 tanks to the T-90M standard is possible this year.

The T-90M tank was developed as part of the Proryv-3 research and development project and represents a major upgrade of the T-90, enhancing its combat and operational characteristics.

As part of the modernization, the T-90M was equipped with a new turret module with a 125mm cannon with increased survivability and accuracy. A remote-controlled 12.7mm machine gun mount is mounted on the turret. Furthermore, the new tank is equipped with a highly automated digital fire control system that enables target search, recognition, automatic tracking, and engagement.



Author:


-

Procurement Numbers of T-90M for the Russian Military

1st Contract (2017): 10 newly built + 20 upgraded from T-90

2nd Contract (2018): 30 upgraded from T-90

3rd Contract (2019): 100 upgraded from T-90A

Total: 160 vehicles

As expected, the main focus is on upgrades from T-90s in reserve storage, and the fact that from the 3rd contract it's T-90A seems to back up the theory that the production number of unmarked T-90s is around 60 in total.


-

The total of 60 units is a misrecollection.

The established theory is that the production number of the unmarked T-90 for the Russian military is 120 units, so after subtracting those in poor condition and unusable, those modified into other prototype vehicles, and those supplied to places like Syria, it’s probably around 50 units, right?


-

The question arises whether 120 T-90 tanks by 1998, starting from just 13 tanks delivered in the initial year (1992), seems a bit too many.

For the T-90S destined for India, the first batch of 40 tanks was delivered in 2001, and 82 tanks were delivered the following year in 2002, so production capacity seems sufficient, but the lack of precise annual figures makes it somewhat suspicious…

(The face that wonders if the T-90 made for the Russian military is being diverted for export...?)


-

Official announcement that the first mass-production batch of T-90M was delivered in April 2020

As expected, the deployment is to the 2nd Taman Guards Motorized Rifle Division

Probably, as usual, to the 1st Guards Tank Regiment, right?


https://structure.mil.ru/structure/okruga/west/news/more.htm?id=12286544@egNews

-

The T-90M has been announced for deployment to the 90th Guards Tank Division of the Central Military District as well, so it should be delivered soon alongside the armored units of the Western Military District.

With just the confirmed units, it amounts to the equivalent of five tank battalions, so combined with the T-72B3UBKh, it seems likely that the outdated T-72s of the tank division can be replaced.



-

Lainasin aikaisemmin tässä ketjussa useita eri pätkiä venäläiseltä otvaga2004 foorumilta ja yhdessä niistä oli vastaavaa spekulaatiota T-90 obr 1992 vaunujen toimittamisesta Intiaan, TOSIN Alexei Khlopotov tyrmäsi tämän.

Alexei Khlopotov vastasi näin (2017-07-02): LÄHDE

Regarding Kyakhta... The T-90s were in service with the 140th Tank Regiment (military unit 33134) and the 108th Tank Regiment (military unit 11585)—that's where they went from Khalilovo. According to the data I have, there were 84 vehicles there. Another 10-12 were in a training facility located somewhere around there.

Then the tanks from there were sent to the Central Military Reserves in Buy and Shilovo. Forget about India! Only new tanks from the factory went there. The first batch did indeed have cast turrets, but these were locally made, "off-the-shelf" turrets.


-

Hän on ekspertti kaikessa UVZ:n tuotantoon liittyvässä, joten oletan aina ensimmäisenä että hän on oikeassa ja muut kirjoittajat väärässä.

Toisaalta jokainen meistä on vain ihminen ja siten virheitä tapahtuu ja toisaalta tuo kirjoitus voi olla hänen vanha tietonsa, joka voi muuttua jos saadaan myöhemmin uutta tietoa (oletus, JOS saadaan).

Loogisesti nähtynä en pidä mahdottomana sitä ajatusta että ensimmäiset valetulla tornilla varustetut Intiaan toimitetut T-90S panssarivaunut olisivat tosiaan alunperin Venäjän armeijalle myytyjä T-90 obr 1992 malleja, jotka on muutettu Intian vaatimusten mukaiseksi.

Khlopotovin mukaan virallinen sarjatuotannon koko oli 105 kpl, joten jos tästä lähtisi 40 kpl Intiaan, niin jäljelle jäisi 60 kpl sekä pieni määrä ennen sarjatuotannon alkamista ja sen päättymisen jälkeen valmistettuja T-90 obr 1992 vaunuja (kokonaismäärä vaihtelee lähteestä riippuen välilllä 120-125 kpl, useimmiten näkee numeron 120 kpl).

60 kpl T-90 obr 1992 modernisointi T-90M malleiksi täsmäisi siis tämän teorian kanssa.

Tämä Intian kauppa oli valtava vientimenestys Venäjälle, kun puhutaan uustuotantona valmistettujen panssarivaunujen viennistä. Sen on myös sanottu pelastaneen UVZ:n konkurssilta, tosin heidän tuotevalikoimansa sisältää myös muita tuotteita (esim. junanvaunuja) joten ehkä tuo on turhan dramaattinen ilmaisu. Epäilen että tehdasta ei olisi päästetty konkurssiin, olipa Venäjän taloudellinen tila miten paha tahansa.

Voisiko Venäjä olla vahvasti mukana tukemassa UVZ:n vientiä ja sallia että 40 kpl T-90 obr 1992 malleja otetaan pois armeijan käytöstä ja muutetaan Intian vaatimusten mukaisiksi? Ei tuolle ole mitään teknistä estettä, varsinkin jos päättävät tahot näkevät tällaisen kauppapolitiikan edistämisen kannattavana (ja jos UVZ maksaa sopivat lahjukset oikeille tahoille?)

Toisaalta tuo numero on selitettävissä muillakin keinoilla: kenties osa T-90 obr 1992 mallin vaunuista oli niin huonossa kunnossa että alkuun allekirjoitettiin sopimus pienemmän määrän modernisoinnista ja myöhemmin voidaan allekirjoittaa toinen sopimus joka sisältää jäljellä olevien vaunujen modernisoinnin.

40 kpl valettuja T-90 obr 1992 / T-90S vaunun torneja ei ole myöskään valtavan suuri määrä UVZ:n kokoiselle tehtaalle. Ne on voitu valaa joskus aikavälillä 1992-1996 kun oltiin toiveikkaita että Venäjä tilaisi suuremman määrän T-90 obr 1992 panssarivaunuja. Kun tälaista kauppaaei tullut eikä vienti lähtenyt vetämään, tornit ovat voineet jäädä odottamaan käyttökohdetta ja ne on lopulta hyödynnetty ensimmäisten Intialle toimitettujen vaunujen kohdalla.

En myöskään pidä spekuloinnista vaan kaipaisin painavampia todisteita. Sellaisten puuttuminen saa epäilemään tarinan paikkaansapitävyyttä.
 
Viimeksi muokattu:
Back
Top