MBT upgrade news

A number of countries has presented or ordered upgrades for main battle tanks (MBTs) in the past months. Unfortunately low activity on this blog has resulted on some of the more recent events not being properly covered. This article is trying to recapitulate a few new developments and news reports that couldn't make it into a full-sized article. While this approach will increase the coverage of "recent" events, the quality of the post might not be up to typical standards. In three countries low-cost upgrades of the T-72 were presented, while three other news a related to the Leopard 2 tank. The Argentine Army is also looking to improve more TAM tanks.

The T-72BME is fitted with Kontakt-1 ERA

The T-72BME is a new upgrade developed by the 140th repair plant of the Belarussian Army, which was first presented at the MILEX 2017 defence exposition. The upgrade is focused on improving the electronics mainly - in Soviet/Russian nomenclature, the original T-72 variants didn't even feature a proper fire control system (just a "ballistic calculator") - but it also includes a few improvments to armor protection and mobility. While called T-72BME, the MBT is apparently not based on the T-72B version, but is rather a T-72A as identifiable by it's turret. The main change in regards to protection is an altered layout for the Kontakt-1 explosive reactive armor (ERA) compared to the old Soviet layout. The T-72B1 originally feature a single ERA row mounted flat to the turret, whereas the T-72BME now uses multiple tiles arranged into a wedge shape - similar to the Kontakt-1 ERA layout on the T-80BV and the T-72AV. The rear section of the turret and the rear section of the hull sides are fitted with slat armor, which should provide protection against older types of RPGs. The slat armor on the turret rear section is used as mounting point for Kontakt-1 ERA.

The turret shape reveals this tank to be an upgraded T-72A

The T-72BME also features a more powerful engine, now providing up to 840 horsepowers output instead of only 780 hp. This is an increase of only 60 horsepower; it is not known if the Belarussian tank designers opted for uprating the existing engine or adopting a new one. There are quite a few different sub-versions of the V-84 that provide 840 horsepowers.

The upgraded MBT from Belarus is fitted with  new LED headlights and a Barret-2082 radio system from the Perth-based Australian manufacturer Barret Communications. The gunner's sight is replaced with the ESSA-72U from the Belarussian manufacturer Peleng. This sight is commonly including a French-designed Thales Catherine-FC thermal imager, providing three different magnification stages - x3, x12 and x24, although the latter is understood to be digital zoom only. The respective fields of view are 9° x 6.75°, 3° x 2.25° and 1.12° x 1.5° (in case of the electronic zoom stage). The original ESSA-72 had no independent dual-axis stabilization, however the improved ESSA-72U might feature it. The thermal imager works at a wavelength of 8 to 12 micrometres; overall the target detection range is claimed to be 8.6 to 11.7 kilometres, however this is not based on NATO-standardized testing.

Different versions of the ESSA sight have also been used on the Indian T-90S tank and the Russian T-90A. It is not known if the T-72BME will be introduced in the Belarussian Army, it seems rather unlikely given that a number of upgraded T-72B3 MBTs was recently handed over by Russia.

The M-84AS1 is a Serbian upgrade of the Yugoslavian M-84

In Serbia an upgraded version of the M-84 main battle tank was demonstrated to the public, although this supposedly won't be adopted by the Serbian Army in the near future. The M-84 is a Yugoslavian version of the T-72 tank that received several local improvments. The new model by Yugoimport has been described as the M-84AS1, a designation that is extremely similar to the M-84AS, an older M-84 upgrade including many Russian-made components of the T-90 tank, including the Shotra electro-optical protection system, Kontakt-5 ERA and a new fire control system. In many aspects the M-84AS is superior to the newer upgrade solution.

The side armor coverage is quite lackluster

While the previous model already had a digital fire control system, the upgrade to the M-84AS1 configuration introduces thermal imagers with the DNNS 2ATK sight and gives the tank commander the ability to override the gunner's input in case of emergency. The commander of the M-84AS1 is responsible for operating the new KIS M84 battlefield management system. A new radio from French manufacturer Thales is replacing the older Yugoslavian-made radios.

As common for most T-72 upgrades, the commander of the M-84AS1 is not provided with a proper turret-independent main optic, but has to rely on his fixed optics, cupola and the sights of the newly added remote weapon station (RWS). The RWS is armed with a 12.7 mm heavy machine gun (HMG) and contains three different optical devices, understood to be a thermal imaging system, a daysight camera and a laser rangefinder.

Like the T-72BME, the new tank upgrade makes use of Kontakt-1 ERA; however a locally improved type is used, which has been claimed to provide a very limited amount of additional protection against kinetic energy projectiles such as APFSDS ammunition. This new ERA covers the frontal aspect of the main battle tank. The rear section of the hull and turret are fitted with slat armor to resist older types of RPGs. Three large panels - probably containing six smaller ERA tiles each - are mounted at the frontal section of each hull flank. However the largest aspect of the hull sides is still only covered by rubber skirts, which are understood to be either a single or two approximately 25 mm thick rubber sheets with an internal steel wire mesh for increased rigidity. At most impact angles this won't be enough to reduce the armor penetration of even the oldest RPG-7 warheads in such a way, that the 80 mm steel plate forming of the M-84 hull sides would be able to stop the residual penetration. Therefore the decision to not extend the slat armor or ERA over the full hull sides appears to be questionable.

The tank is fitted with a radar and laser warning system connected to the smoke grenade launchers in order to work like a simple softkill system. Upon detection the smoke grenades can be used to disguise the tank's position with a multi-spectral smoke screen.

The T-72 Scarab uupgrade focuses on improving frontal protection by adding DYNA ERA

In the Czech Republic defence company Excalibur Army spol. s r.o. has presented a new upgrade solution for the T-72 tank, which has been nicknamed Scarab. The T-72 Scarab is mainly intended for export, although it was supposedly also offered to Czech Army according to Defence-Blog.com. The Scarab is focused on increasing the tank's protection level by adding a new ERA package to the turret and hull front. This is claimed to be a variant of the DYNA reactive armor, that is also used on the T-72M4Cz tank. It's installed in a new, sloped configuration and provides nearly seamless coverage in case of the turret. Some photos show the turret front with an additional layer bolted ontop of the ERA package, creating the illusion of a passive composite armor package being used instead. If the new armor is really based on the DYNA ERA, then it should not only protect against ATGMs and RPGs, but also affect the armor penetration of tandem shaped charge warheads and APFSDS ammunition.

The ERA covers the frontal arc and the some parts of the roof of the turret, aswell as the upper front plate (UFP) of the hull. The rear section of the turret is fitted with slat armor, the hull sides and rear however are not fitted with any type of applique or add-on armor.

The altered optics and the remotedly controlled machine gun

Aside of the new armor package, the T-72 Scarab provides only minor changes to the tank. A new RWS with a 12.7 mm NSVT machine gun is installed ontop of the turret roof, while the old V-46-6 engine is replaced with the 840 horsepower V-84 engine. The new powerpack has a maximum torque of 3,335 Nm when running at 1,350 rotations per minute (rpm). The engine can provide at most 2,100 rpm. The T-72 Scarab is claimed to reach a top-speed of up to 60 kilometres per hour on road and 45 kph in light terrain; this is (together with the unaltered T-72 suspension) not on par with other modern tanks. The fire control system received no major upgrade, but apparently the night vision sight was replaced by a passive system, leading to the removal of the Luna IR searchlight usually located at the side of the main gun. Overall this leads to a combat weight of 45 metric tons.

All these T-72 upgrades seem to have a rather small scope, being either limited by budget or avialable technology. Other tank upgrades developed in Europe and Asia seem to be much more capable. The T-72M4 Cz, currently in service with the Czech Army, might be the most capable T-72 upgrade operational within NATO, being fitted with anti-tandem HEAT ERA (the previously mentioned DYNA), the British Condor CV12 with 1,000 horsepowers output and the Italian TURMS-T fire control system with modern thermal imagers and turret independent optic for the tank commander. Despite some minor issues of the current model, the PT-91 of the Polish Army also seems to have a number of advantages over the T-72 Scarab, T-72BME and the M-84AS1. Both the T-72M4 Cz and the PT-91 are however much older tanks, which were accepted in general service more than a decade ago! A more modern T-72 upgrade like the PT-16 will enhance the tank's capabilities even further. There is not much wrong with the T-72 tank - at least when considering it's age - but poorly made, budget-oriented upgrades won't help much to boost its combat value or its reputation!

Even the Iranian Karrar tank seems to be superior to the three recent European upgrade solutions, despite Iran being a third world country based on various available definitions.

Leopard 2SG with COAPS sight (red arrow)

Singapore has decided to upgrade an unknown quantity of its Leopard 2SG tanks. The Leopard 2SG originally was a standard Leopard 2A4, formerly used by the German Army, fitted with parts of the Evolution armor package from the German company IBD Deisenroth Engineering. This package consists of various types of AMAP (Advanced Modular Armor Protection) composite armor, covering the frontal section, sides, roof and bottom of the tank, while slat armor is protecting the rear part of hull and turret. Singapore is understood to have bought only some parts of the Evolution package, giving the Leopard 2SG a distinctive shape with a flat-walled turret compared to the partially rounded/sloped turret front of tanks like the Leopard 2PL, Leopard 2RI and Rheinmetall's Leopard 2 ADT. At least one Leopard 2SG - maybe only a single prototype at the current point of time - was fitted with the Commander Open Architecture Panoramic Sight from Elbit Systems.

The COAPS is apparently marketed with a rather aggressive pricing, having being featured in tank upgrades with very limited budget such as the Arjun upgrade and the Argentinian TAM-2C modernization. It is dual-axis stabilized and includes a thermal imager operating at either a mid-wave infrared spectrum, an extended medium-wave spectrum or at a long-wave infrared spectrum - based on the size of the lens opening the Leopard 2SG apparently uses one of the former options - a HD daysight camera and an eyesafe laser rangefinder. The thermal imager is available with a detector resolution of either 640 by 512 or 1,024 by 768. This allows the tank commander to detect targets at ranges up to 10.5 kilometres, recognize them at a distance of up to 4.5 kilometres and identify the target at 2.2 kilometres range or closer. The daysight camera provides slightly better DRI (detect, recognize and identify) ranges of 11.5, 5.1 and 2.3 kilometres respectively. The laser ramgefinder has a range of 7,000 metres.

Leopard 2A5DK: To be upgraded in the near future

Other countries also have decided to upgrade their Leopard 2 tanks. Denmark has contracted Krauss-Maffei Wegmann (KMW) for a midlife update of 38 Leopard 2A5DK main battle tanks. Sixteen of the tanks will receive a full upgrade to a Leopard 2A7V-like configuration, including the new 120 mm L55A1 high-pressure smoothbore gun from Rheinmetall, aswell as a mine protection kit. The other 22 MBTs will receive a basic modification package with reduced scope. The midlife update is claimed to improve firepower, protection and mobility at the same time. It will likely include a better armor package (or interfaces require for mounting such) and a new Danish Army communication and battlefield management system. All tanks will be repaired and obsolete or worn components will be replaced. Denmark has chosen KMW as supplier due to the company having exclusive rights to several components used on the Leopard 2A5DK. A contract was made on the 21th December 2016, which had a value (excluding VAT) of €112.6 million.

Norwegian Leopard 2 upgrade plans

Norway is still waiting on a decision regarding the upgrade of the Leopard 2A4NO; the website of the Norwegian defence materiel agency (Forsvarsmateriell) claims that no contract has yet been made, although mentioning that a contract was planned for 2016. It appears that budget cuts have lead to a stalling of the Leopard 2 modernization. Norway also plans to acquire a number of bridge-laying vehicles based on an in-service Leopard 2 solution.

The upgrade is meant to improve the tank's protection while staying within the military loading (weight) class (MLC) 70, i.e. staying at a weight below 63.5 metric tons. This means the tank has to be lighter than the current Leopard 2A7 of  the German Army. The protection is increased using a modular approach and is planned to incorporate modules for enhanced ballistic protection at the frontal arc aswell as a thick applique belly plate for additional mine and IED protection. Foils from a Norwegian presentation include photographs of the Leopard 2A5/2A7 from Krauss-Maffei Wegmann, Rheinmetall's Advanced Technology Demonstrator (formerly known as Leopard 2 Revolution), aswell as the Leopard 2 Mid-Life Upgrade (MLU) from the Swiss company RUAG. These choices are similar to the upgrade options for the Chilean Leopard 2A4 tanks. While the former two Leopard 2 variants have been quite successful - e.g. Rheinmetall is currently delivering upgraded Leopard 2 tanks to Indonesia and Poland - the RUAG-made upgrade has yet to win any contracts. The Leopard 2 MLU makes use of RUAG's armor portfolio featuring the armor types SidePRO-ATR and SidePRO-RPG (the latter on the rear section only) for ballistic protection, while MinePRO and RoofPRO armor enhances the MBT's survivability against artillery submunitions and mine blasts.

Protector Super Lite on a Leopard 2A4 turret

The Norwegian Leopard 2 tanks are meant to retain the shorter barreled 120 mm L/44 smoothbore gun, but firepower will still be enhanced by the use of a digital fire control system (FCS) for ranges up to 5,000 metres, including third generation thermal imagers for improved DRI ranges. Electric turret drives improve the turret's rotational speed, while being less dangerous than a flammable, hydraulic system. A new computer system with data link added to the gun's breech for firing programmable air-burst ammunition (such as the 120 mm DM11 HE-ABM ammunition) is also part of the planned upgrade.

After being upgraded, the Leopard 2 tanks are prepared for the adoption of a remote weapon station (RWS). Most likely a solution from the local manufacturer Kongsberg will be chosen in a future upgrade; a Kongsberg-made Protector Super Lite RWS has been tested on a Leopard 2A4 some time ago in Norway.

The TAM 2IP prototype is fitted with Iron Wall armor from Israel

According to Jane's IHS, the Argentinian Army has finally decided to purchase a larger number of tank and other combat vehicle upgrades. The vehicles scheduled to be upgraded include 400 TAM (Tanque Argentino Mediano) tanks and derived variants (such as the VCTP infantry fighting vehicle and the VCA self-propelled howitzer) aswell as 400 US-made M113 armored personnel carriers (APCs). A further 100 M113 APCs might be purchased by the Argentine Army from the United States inventory; the US Army is replacing the M113 with the Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV), essentially a turret-less Bradley with enhanced IED protection. The TAM is by modern definition a light tank, although being de facto used as a main battle tank by the Argentine Army. It was developed in the 1970s by the German company Thyssen-Henschel and makes use of a modified Marder infantry fighting vehicle (IFV) hull fitted with a 105 mm gun turret.

The TAM 2C features advanced optics and electronics

Argentina has contracted the three Israeli companies Elbit Systems, Israel Military Industries (IMI) and Tadiran to develop an upgrade for the TAM tank beginning in 2008. Originally it was announced in 2015, that only 74 TAM tanks were to be upgraded to the new standard, costing $111 million USD. Under this program two different prototypes were developed, the TAM 2C focusing on upgraded firepower by adding Elbit System's COAPS sight for the commander, the Thermal Imaging Fire Control System (TIFCS) sight for the gunner and a laser warning receiver on a mast on the turret. An APU and new internal electronics are also part of the TAM 2C.

The other prototype has been designated TAM 2IP and features IMI's Iron Wall composite armor to improve protection against kinetic threats and IEDs. The TAM 2IP upgrade however doesn't include any changes to electronics and optics compared to the original TAM. The weight of the TAM with armor kit is increased to 31 metric tons.

The applique armor gives the TAM turret a wedge-shape

The exact content of the TAM modernization to be purchased by Argentina is not directly known. The most capable solution would be to adopt both the TAM 2C and TAM 2IP upgrades into each vehicle, although this could be too much weight for the existing running gear. Confirmed by Jane's IHS is an upgrade of the tank's ammo suite and electronics, which will enable the TAM to fire Israeli-designed gun-launched anti-tank guided missiles (GLATGM) through it's 105 mm rifled main gun. The LAHAT missile from IMI has a tandem shaped charge warhead against targets protected by ERA and has an effective range of above 5,000 metres; however Jane's mentions an effective range of 3.5 kilometres with the new guided munition made under licence in Argentina. The LAHAT missile has currently been withdrawn from Israeli service, but might be issued to frontline units in case of war.

An interesting fact is the number of 400 TAMs: this suggests that the previously mentioned 74 TAM tanks contracted in 2015 are included in the figures - otherwise it would be hard to explain the number of vehicles. It is known that the production number of TAM tanks and IFVs wasn't very large (and only 20 artillery systems were made), and a they are not in very good condition due to maintenance and repair issues; as Argentinian forum users have discovered on Google Earth image data, at least 19 TAMs have been scrapped or cannibalized for spare parts.

Russian T-72B3 receive armor upgrades

The Russian Army has decided to upgrade the current T-72B3 to a new configuration, which was first seen in the middle of last month. The exact number tanks upgraded has not been disclosed yet. The tank has been called "T-72B3M" or "T-72B4" by different websites, suggesting that the new designation may also not have been revealed yet. It might be known as "T-72B3 mod. 2016" rather than receiving a completely new designation. 

The upgrade is aimed to improve the survivability of the tank by installing explosive reactive armor (ERA) at the flanks of turret and hull. This armor is apparently identical to that used on the current version of T-90MS "premium" export tank. This reactive armor is not known to provide protection against kinetic energy ammunition such as APFSDS rounds nor against anti-tank guided missiles (ATGMs) or rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs) with tandem shaped charge warhead.

The upgraded T-72B3

Specifically on the turret sides the ERA boosts protection level considerably, because the T-72 and other Soviet-designed tanks rely mostly on turret geometry to obtain a high level of protection while staying at a relatively low weight. The turret flanks are covered by the heavily armored turret cheeks along the ±30° frontal arc, which allows having only very thin steel armor at the turret sides - about 70 to 120 milimetres thick (depending on location and variant).

In conventional warfare, the turret design of the T-72 is not considered to be a drawback, because the overwhelming majority of hits will occur within the frontal arc, as proven by the analysis of damaged and destroyed tanks. However it's turret design is a major reason why the T-72 is not suited for irregular or hybrid warfare. When the side armor is hit during an ambush, it can be penetrated by even the oldest and weakest RPGs. Meanwhile the turret side armor of the other tanks such as the Challenger 2, Leopard 2 and M1 Abrams is already much thicker - usually more than a feet (~300 mm) thick - this is believed to be enough to resist att least older types of RPGs. To deal with ATGMs and more modern RPGs, additional urban warfare packages have been developed and adopted on numerous modern main battle tanks, including the C1 Ariete, the Challenger 2, the Leclerc, the Leopard 2, the M1 Abrams, the PT-91/T-72 and the T-84M. The Russian Army is rather late with adopting the new armor package.

 

The rear of the upgraded tank is fitted with slat armor

Nine relatively large ERA modules are added to the turret sides of the tank: five are mounted on the right side of the turret, providing rather good armor coverage. Only four ERA modules are installed on the left side of the turret however, because there is a large gap caused by the smoke grenade dischargers. This area should be considered a weakspot that still is susceptible to penetration by even the oldest types of RPGs. The original T-72B upgrade with Kontakt-5 reactive was a rather "cheap and dirty" attempt to boost the protection of the tank, not trying to focus on perfect coverage, but rather being a low-cost option. This resulted in the old smoke grenade launchers being kept, rather than relocating them ontop of the ERA or on the turret roof, where they wouldn't cause a weakspot. Other tanks such as the T-80U and T-90 have a much better ERA layout.

The flanks of the T-72B3 are now protected by ERA

On each side of the hull there are twelve rather large, but thin, panels of reactive armor. Each panel might hold multiple reactive elements in order to maximize multi-hit capability - at least this design was used on the Kontakt-5 hull flank armor panels. Below the reactive armor modules is a rubber sheet with a zigzag pattern at the lower edge. In most cases it won't provide any armor protection, but can affect how much issues are caused when driving at high speeds through dirt and dust. At the rear sections of the turret and at the engine compartment in the hull, slat armor has been installed to provide a weight efficient protection solution against older types of RPGs. 

Frontal armor protection was enhanced only by the addition of a single ERA tile

With the original T-72B3, the Russian ministry of defence (MoD) settled for a rather poor upgrade of the T-72B tank; at least in terms of armor protection. The old Kontakt-5 armor is still utilized and it is covering only a relatively small part of the frontal aspect of the main battle tank: there are gaps inbetween the ERA tiles mounted to the turret, while the gun mantlet, aswell as the lower and upper portions of turret and hull are not even covered by it. The cast structure of the T-72B's turret is known for leading to inconsistent armor thickness - supposedly resulting in several weakspots according to articles in Russian language; the lackluster ERA coverage only increases this issue. Except of a single ERA tile located left to the main gun, the frontal protection hasn't been altered with the new upgraded variant. The Kontakt-5 ERA is outdated by modern standards - modern ammunition from NATO and other countries has been specifically optimized to defeat Kontakt-5 and similar types of explosive reactive armor.

T-72B2 Rogatka

UralVagonZavod (UVZ), the company responsible for manufacturing the T-72B, T-90 and upgrades thereof, has developed much more capable solutions to enhance the survivability of the T-72 main battle tank.

One of the better upgrade options is the T-72B2, which was first shown to the public in 2006. Like the T-72B3, this sub-version of the T-72B features a similiar fire control system (FCS) designed around the Sosna-U gunner's sight, which includes an optical day channel, a laser rangefinder and a French-developed Catherine-FC thermal imaging system. Unlike the current Russian T-72B3 variant however, the B2 upgrade features the latest generation Relikt ERA, which provides enhanced protection against ATGMs, APFSDS ammunition and RPGs. It is claimed to even have some anti-tandem-warhead capabilities. While the tank lacked the extensive ERA package at the turret and hull sides, slat armor was fitted to protect the sides against RPGs at least. The T-72B2 tank is also fitted with a Nakidka cover to reduce the thermal and radar signature of the tank.

T-72 with urban combat kit at KADEX 2016

At the KADEX exhibition in 2016 in Kazakhstan, UVZ presented an urban warfare kit for the T-72 tank, which also utilized the superior Relikt armor rather than the old Kontakt-5. Instead of using the same side armor as the T-90MS, this tank was fitted with a heavier ERA package at the hull sides, which appears to be similar to the one used on the more advanced T-14 Armata MBT. The urban warfare kit has worse ERA coverage at the turret sides (due to the different smoke grenade launcher configuration of the tank used to demonstrate the optional upgrade), but like the T-72B2 it includes the laser warning system from the Shtora-1 electronic countermeasure. A T-72B3 with such an armor kit should be considerable better than the T-72B3.

Supposedly UVZ offered to upgrade the Russians T-72B3 tank to an enhanced T-72B2 configuration, including an additional ERA package similiar to the T-72B3 mod. 2016 (aka T-72B3M or T-72B4 according to other websites) and a new independent commander's sight to enable hunter/killer operations at day and night. This upgrade was - like the previous T-72B2 upgrade - considered to be too expensive for the Russian MoD.

The T-90M features Relikt ERA, slat armor, a new RWS and an upgraded FCS

Some of the T-90 tanks will be upgraded to a new configuration developed as part of Proryv-3 (breakthrough 3) program. This enhanced version is understood to be largely based on the T-90MS, but introduces new slat armor covering the lower half of the turret front to further minimize weakspots - at least according to photo was leaked via a Russian calendar that was created in corporation with the corresponding institutions.

A model of the T-90M was first presented in 2011, but the tank still hasn't been adopted in Russian Army service. If and when Russia will adopt the upgraded MBT in a significant number is currently unknown, but there still is a relatively large time slot until the next-generation T-14 Armata tank will have entered service in reasonable numbers. With the upgrades the weight of the T-90 tank is supposed to reach 50 metric tons.

Production version of the Karrar MBT unveiled (updated)

The new main battle tank (MBT) of the Iranian armed forces has finally been revealed to the public in March 2017. The original tank revealed as the so-called "Karrar" was an upgraded version of the T-72S Shilden, the last Soviet export version of the T-72 main battle tank. 

T-72 being upgraded to Karrar

The Karrar is inspired by the latest Russian T-90MS tank, an enhanced version of the T-90. Unfortunately finding detailed information in English about Iranian tanks is rather problematic, so that the exact relationship between the T-90MS and the Karrar remains uncertain. According to Iranian news websites, the army tested the T-90S or T-90MS in or before 2015, but penultimately rejected buying the tank in favour for a local alternative. This lead to the development of the Karrar, but it is not entirely clear if it is meant to be a copy of the T-90MS or the similarities between the two tanks are result of the a cooperation with the Russian industry. Both versions have been mentioned in different forums and blogs.

The Karrar features a new welded turret

The Karrar tank is still an upgraded T-72S, but it is fitted with a completely new, welded turret as newly released video footages shows. It is also fitted with digital control panels and a battlefield management system. The base armor package of the Karrar's turret was improved, offering a higher level of protection compared to the older composite armor in the cast T-72S turret.

The Karrar provides digital control panels for the crew

Compared to the T-72S Shilden, the current MBT of the Iranian Army, the Karrar offers improvments to armor protection, firepower and electronics. There is no indication that the engine was altered, so the mobility appears to be equal to that of the original T-72S, maybe a bit worse as result of the weight increase. 

Not the extruding steel casing at the gun mount

The tank features a new polygonal metal sleeve at the base of the gun barrel. The purpose of this design has not been revealed yet, but it might be an attempt to reduce oscillations when firing on the move. On some combat vehicles, such as the German Puma infantry fighting vehicle (IFV) and the Ukranian BTR-4, the gun barrel is enclosed in a metal casing in order to provide better stabilization when firing multiple rounds on the move.

Karrar MBT prototype: new armor is colored black, while the vehicle is painted grey

The armor protection has been improved by fitting a more modern ERA package to the tank. Previoulsy the T-72S was fitted with the Soviet-made Kontakt-1 armor. The new explosive reactive armor (ERA) covers the frontal aspects of turret and hull, while also protection the hull sides along the crew compartment. At the engine compartment and turret rear section, slat armor is utilized for protection against rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs). The turret sides are fitted with spaced composite armor modules.

Note the odd shaped ERA the glacis, LED headlights, driver's optics and the new gunner's sight

While the explosive reactive armor at the turret front and hull sides appears to be very similar to the Relikt ERA solution used on the T-90MS, the ERA package mounted at the glacis uses oddly-shaped ERA tiles, that are very thick, but have a rather small overall size. It is about twice as thick as the normal Kontakt-1 ERA used on the T-72S Shilden. This type of armor is somewhat reminiscent to the ERA used on Iranian M60 tank.

Most likely the reactive armor of the Karrar provides protection against RPGs, anti-tank guided missiles (ATGMs) with single-stage shaped charge warhead, as well as some degree of reduction in the penetration capabilities of APFSDS ammunition. It might also provide some limited protection against tandem shaped charge warheads, but that is not confirmed.

The T-90MS features ERA also at the turret sides

It must be noted that the latest version of the T-90MS also features explosive reactive armor covering the spaced side armor modules of the turret. On the Karrar such armor is not found, suggesting that it might be reverse-engineered by the Iranian military industry based on older photographs of the tank instead of being a proper cooperation between Iran and Russia. Alternatively Russia might have only offered the older version of the tank, which lacked the enhanced side protection. Two banks of six smoke grenade launchers allow the tank to hide while retreating.

RWS and coommander's sight of the Karrar MBT

The Karrar is fitted with a remote weapon station (RWS), which is coupled to an independent optic for the commander. It includes a thermal imager, a day sight optic (probably a CCD camera with zoom functionality) and a laser rangefinder. The weapon station is armed with a 7.62 mm machine gun and also includes a secondary camera located left to the armament.

This RWS desgin is also used on the T-90MS and on some products of the German company Rheinmetall, where it is known as main sensor slaved armament (MSSA), consisting of a heavy machine gun and a SEOSS sight.

Prototype fitted with the older generation RWS

Older photographs show the Karrar being fitted with a different RWS, which usually is armed with a Soviet-designed PKT machine gun, but it seems to lack the same advanced optronics of the newer design. This remote weapon station is also a lot more bulky, because the ammunition container is located at the side of the gun.

The Karrar MBT features an upgraded fire control system

The fire control system (FCS) of the Karrar has been significantly enhanced. Aside of the new indepent sight for the tank's commander, the main optics for the gunner have been replaced. The gunner's sight now features not only a day sight, but also a thermal imager for enhanced target detection and acquistion at night and in situations with reduced visbility. The origin of the new FCS is unknown, but the local industry has utilized the EFCS-3 from the Solvenian company Fotona in the past to upgrade the dated M60A1 and T-54 tanks. The Defense Industries Organization (DIOMIL) of Iran also offered the KAT-72 FCS as upgrade for older generations of T-72 tanks. Both these systems however lack thermal imagers and independent sights for the tank commander, suggesting that the Karrar utilizes a newly developed system - probably incorporating imported technology. Iran has been supporting the Syrian government, which operates T-72 tanks fitted with the advanced Italian TURMS system. Iran also has good relations with North Korea, from which Syria imported components of thermal imagers for upgrading older T-55 tanks.

A small searchlight, which probably can be rotated, is located next the gunner's hatch. The driver is provided with a new camera system next to his vision block, which contains two optics - probably a daysight CCD camera and a night vision optic. The tank also features new LED headlights. 

Suprisingly the Karrar appears to be one of the most advanced modernizations of the T-72 tank, albeit the performance and specifications of most components are currently unknown. If the engine was replaced - but there currently is no sources suggesting that this happned - the tank could be even better. It might be able it compare favourable to tanks such as the Russian T-72B3 and the Polish PT-91 Twardy in many aspects (such armor protection and firepower) - but in the end the crew performances matters just as much as the equipment.

Karrar tank revealed to be upgraded T-72

Iran's new Karrar main battle tank (MBT) is apparently just an upgraded T-72S Shilden tank with a few add-ons. This has been speculated since the first days after the reveal  of the Karrar tank in official Iranian video footage. These speculations have been confirmed by different sources in the past weeks.

A user of the Armored Warfare forum, Reforger_OS,  already pointed out several similarities between the Karrar's rear hull and the corresponding areas of a T-72 hull a few days after the first footage of the Karrar was published. Apparently the Karrar uses the same quick release and mounting mechanism for the additional fuel barrels, which are a common feature of the Soviet era main battle tanks.

Comparison between Karrar and T-72 rear hull

In general this doesn't mean that the Karrar is not based on technology or components transfered from Russia or another country with the aim to create a new tank (or upgrade existing tanks to an improved configuration) that appears to be similar to the Russian T-90MS. In theory the fuel barrel mounting system or other parts of the T-72 tank could have been recycled for the development of the Karrar in an attempt to reduce infrastructure constraints, aswell for easier maintenance and training. However it is actually not possible to say much about the Karrar just based on this short analysis of the Karrar's hull rear alone. It just shows that it is not based on a T-90 or T-90MS hull, but instead uses a T-72-like fuel drum mounting mechanism.

In the past days however further evidence on the Karrar's true nature has found it's way on the internet. A photograph of a video, which is showing a partly disassembeld Karrar MBT, has been posted on several forums and blogs after originally being published via Twitter.

The Karrar is just an upgrade of the T-72S. It is fitted with new explosive reactive armor (ERA) at the hull front, the hull sides and supposedly at the turret. The rear is protected by slat armor, while side skirts made of rubber with a wave-shaped pattern are installed at the hull sides below the ERA. The tank is also fitted with a new remote weapon station (RWS). There are currently no indications that the fire control system (FCS), engine or the base armor composition have been upgraded or altered. 

Iranian M60 fitted with similarly sized ERA

Speaking for the Karrar being a local development instead of an upgrade using Chinese, Russian or Ukrainian technology are a number of obvious factors. The tank is still based on the old T-72S with cast turret, while Russia and the Ukraine have discontinued the production of tanks with cast turret. The shaped and size of the new ERA doesn't match with existing solutions for MBTs from Russia, the Ukraine or China. Why would for example Russia develop a new type of ERA just for export, when the Kontakt-5 and Relikt heavy ERA are proven and available? The lack of upgrades to engine and fire control system also speaks for this most likely being a local development based on the limited technology available to Iran.

Zulfiqar 3

Overall it seems reasonable to assume that the Karrar is purely a local upgrade and does not consists of technology based on the similar looking T-90MS from Russia. While the similarities in appearance between the Karrar and T-90MS are undeniable, this seems to be result of Iranian tank designers attempting to copy the designs from other countries for unknown reasons. Originally there seemed to be an easy explanation for the similarities between the Iranian Zulfiqar 3 main battle tank and the M1 Abrams: by making the Zulfiqar 3 look like an Abrams, the tank's survivability against Western weapon systems would be indirectly increased. In case of a war against Iran, US/NATO aircraft wouldn't target the Zulfiqar 3 in order to prevent accidental blue-on-blue attacks (friendly fire) against Abrams tanks. In the same manner, US/NATO ground forces most likely would check twice when seeing a Zulfiqar 3 tank instead of immediatly shooting or calling for artillery/air strike. Unless the Iran considers a war against Russia in the near future as remotely possible, there doesn't seem to be much tactical sense in making the Karrar tank look similar to the T-90MS. It could be a pure propaganda measure, but honestly this seems to be quite a bad choice. Maybe it is a new approach to the proverb "form follows function" based on trying to reverse-engineer other tanks using the few technologies available to the Iranian tank designers. An advantage of this behaviour could be, that one can be sure somebody with more experience in main battle tank development put some thought into designing the original tank earlier. Well, at least they didn't put a T-55 turret on a M47 hull this time.

First footage of the Karrar MBT

The Iran is working on a new main battle tank (MBT), which has been nick-named the Karrar MBT. While most details are unknown, first footage of the new MBT has been released on state-owned TV and found it's way onto the internet. According to the Iranian TV, the tank is supposed to be completely built and designed in Iran.

The tank appears to be very similar to the Russian T-90MS tank in terms of shape and layout; it features a welded hull and turret, which is protected by explosive reactive armor (ERA) and on the rear sections by slat armor. In fact the vehicles appear so similar, that the Karrar tank should be either a licence-made version of the T-90MS or an intentional attempt to copy it. Claims about the Karrar being a locally developed tank might be propaganda or be result of a planned licence-assembly (Iran already manufactured a number of T-72S tanks under licence.)

The tank has six roadwheels partially covered by the side skirts. These skirts have the same wave-pattern found on the T-90MS' side skirts, but currently found on no other Russian, Chinese or Ukrainian tank. Ontop of the side-skirts are two rows of flat ERA tiles, the engine compartment is protected by slat armor only.

The welded turret has a rhombus shape with a noticeable rear-extension, which in case of the T-90MS acts as external storage and is not accessable from the internal. The frontal arc of the tank is protected by very flush aligned ERA tiles, which in case of the T-90MS is the latest Relikt ERA and not the older Kontakt-5. The rear side section of the turret is protected by a flat layer of spaced composite armor, while the rear is only protected by slat armor.

There are a few differences between the Karrar and the T-90MS noticeable even in the low quality footage. The remote weapon stations (RWS) appears to be of a different type and is equipped with a larger machine gun (most likely a 12.7 mm or 14.5 mm HMG). It might not only replace the original RWS, but also the commander's independent sight, unless the placement of the latter was altered. There is also a new distinctive polygonial sleeve at the base of the gun barrel. This feature is not found on any T-90MS prototype.

Another apparent difference is the lack of additional fuel barrels at the rear of the hull. While this certainly could be a result of different doctrines (or the fuel barrels have been disconnected from the tank, after they were empty), this also could be another reason to assume that this tank is a copy of the T-90MS rather than the original.

Zulfiqar 3 tank

While using different technology, the Iranian Zulfiqar 3 tank (actully Zolfaqar would be a more correct name, but the tank has become known as Zulfiqar in the English-speaking internet) is known for intentionally resembling the US M1 Abrams tank.

This is supposed to be result of two different aspects: some sources claim that this way the Zulfiqar 3 tanks should be spared from US airstrikes (being mistaken for Abrams tanks by the pilots) or the US should suffer from higher amounts of friendly-fire incidents in case of attacking Iran. Other sources claim that the design similarities to the Abrams are the result of the Iran lacking knowledge in tank production and simply trying to copy the Abrams with the available technology, because it proved to be hugely successful against Iraqi tanks.

T-72 Khorramshahr

Regardless of being a copy or a licence-built variant, the main armament of the Karrar MBT is most likely a 125 mm smoothbore gun. The T-90MS is fitted with the improved 2A46M-5 tank gun; this is designed for enhanced barrel life and greater accuracy. Unlike the 2A46M, the gun has an internal chrome-plating, which increases the barrel life by the factor 1.7. The gun assembly includes two additional elements with rollers to take up some of the play. Together with other modficiations, this is claimed to reduce dispersion by 15% and thus increases the accuracy and range.

If the Karrar MBT is not a T-90MS, but an elaborate attempt to copy one, it most likely would be armed with the slightly worse 2A46M-2 gun, which has been used on the T-72S Shilden MBT. This gun is a bit less accurate and durable than the 2A46M-5. In terms of penetration power, both of these guns are build for an increased maximum chamber pressure of 650 MPa, compared to the 510 MPa of the earlier 2A46 and 2A46M tank guns used on the T-72M and T-72M1 (and encountered by the US military during Gulf War and Operation Iraq Freedom). Iran is known to produce the 3BM-42 "Mango" APFSDS, which is currently the most advanced APFSDS exported by Russia (despite being introduced in Soviet service in 1986). It uses a two-piece tungsten penetrator in a steel sheat to penetrate on average about 470-500 milimetres of steel armor at 2,000 metres distance. 

While the Mango APFSDS does fit into the T-72S and T-90MS - thus most likely also in the Karrar MBT - using longer APFSDS for increased armor penetration is only possible in the upgraded autoloader of the T-90MS.

T-72S Shilden

If the Karrar is in fact just a local designation for the T-90MS, it will result in a major upgrade to the capabilities of the Iranian Army and Revolutionary Guards. In some aspects the T-90MS tank is ahead of the current M1A2 SEP, in others at least on par and in some still worse. With modern ammunition and skilled crews, this tank could pose a serious threat even to current NATO MBTs.

If the Karrar is just a copy made to resemble the T-90MS however, the tank will probably be a failure. Not only is the Iranian industry still lacking behind in terms of capabilities compared to the current Russian, Chinese and NATO tanks, the production capacities are also too limited to produce a larger amount of tanks. Supposedly the amount of produced Zulfiqar tanks is highly limited, some sources claim that less than hundred Zulfiqars have been made. No version of the Zulfiqar is protected by ERA, while only the later versions have composite armor. In so far, the T-72S is probably the backbone of the tank force operated by the Iranian Army and Iranian Revolutionary Guards. Still large amounts of T-55/Type 59 tanks, Pattons and Chieftains have remained in service - some of them have been upgraded to Type-72Z Safirs, Mobarez tanks or to the Sabalan and Tiam configurations.

Until the Karrar MBT is ready, the most advanced tank in Iranian service might still be the T-72 Khorramshahr, a rare upgraded version of the T-72, featuring an Ukranian welded turret with Kontakt-5 ERA and a more modern fire control system than the T-72S. It is however a very rare tank, the numbers of T-72 tanks converted to T-72 Khorramshahr might be smaller than the production of the latest Zulfiqar 3 tank.

Belarusian armor upgrades

The Army of Belarus has presented upgraded versions of their main armored fighting vehicles such as the T-72B main battle tank (MBT), the BMP-2 infantry fighting vehicle (IFV) and the BTR-80 wheeled armored personnel carrier (APC) as reported by the Russian-language website "Journal of Mordovia". The vehicles are part of the 120^th Guards mechanized brigade which was visisted by the Belarusian president/dictator Alexander Lukashenko and a crew from the Belarusian TV channel/show "Arsenal".

The upgraded vehicles being presented for the first time to public

The turret of the BMP-2 shows a large central weakspot were no slat armor is installed

The BMP-2's lower front, turret and sides are fitted with slat armor.
It's unlikely that an RPG fuzes at the highly sloped upper front plate of the hull

The BTR-80's sides and turret are also protected by slat armor

Details of the slat armor installation

The upgrades consist of additional armor protection in form of slat armor, which is designed to crush the warheads of rocket propelled grenades (RPGs) and hence prevent the shaped charge to form a armor-piercing jet. On the T-72B, currently the main tank of the Belarusian army, the slat armor protects the sides and rear of the turret at the places where no Kontakt ERA is mounted.On the BMP-2 and the BTR-80, the slat armor protects the lower front, the turret, the sides and probably also the rear section of the vehicles.

The slat armor mounted at the front section of the BTR-80

The new slat armor upgrade was developed this year following the poor performance of such vehicles in asymmetric warfare in Syria and Ukraine.

Details of the slat armor mounted on the T-72B turret

Details of the slat armor mounted on the T-72B turret

It is not yet known if these armor upgrades will be purchased for the Belarusian army on any larger scale.

T-72B3 composite armor photo

During Tank Biathlon 2015, a T-72B3 has been damaged at the hull front. Photographs of this reveal a few nice details, because Russia does not seem to have any laws preventing the leakage of confidental military stuff (or wasn't the T-72B3's armor made confidental?)...

Damaged T-72B3 tank. The both side portions of the front were damaged.

A closer look reveals the composite armor construction of the glacis (photo was probably mirrored).

The glacis armor follows a different approach than the earlier T-72 and T-72A. Instead of using glass-reinforced plastic as interlayer material between two thick steel plates, the gap between the outermost and innermost steel plates ius filled with an array of thinner steel or composite plates in a spaced configuration.
There are two relatively thin plates followed by two plates which are more than twice as thick. I think it is reasonable to assume (given the construction of the turret armor of the T-72B) that this armor is actually a type of non-explosive reactive armor (NERA/NxRA) and that the inner plates are either composite panels (consisting for example of rubber and steel sandwiches) or that these steel plates are mounted flexible on rubber bolts or coil springs to increase armor protection.

T-72 monkey models

In various discussions about the performance of the T-72 in recent and past military conflicts or in fictive combat scenarios, there is always that one key word that will be thrown out by either side "monkey model".

 People arguing against the performance of the US military in Operation Desert Storm will say "the US fought only against monkey models, real Soviet tanks were much stronger!". In the same manner people, who try to argue about how "weak" the Soviet Union was, will say "most of the tanks were monkey models, we know that they are no problem".


Actually the export versions of T-72 sold to non-members of the Warsaw Pact were nearly equal to those used by East-Germany, the ČSSR, Hungary and Poland.
The armor was the same as used on the original Soviet tanks (with the exception of the T-72M), on which they were based.
The main difference between a 'monkey mode' T-72 and a Soviet one is the date of production/introduction:

E.g. the T-72M1 entered production in 1982 (Soviet Union) and 1986 (ČSSR and Poland), but was a monkey model of the T-72A from 1979!

There are a lot minor differences and some downgrades between the Soviet tanks and export versions, but there were a total of 9 export versions compared to only 5 Soviet production models (of which the last didn't even receive an export model because of the collapse of the Soviet Union).

The 9 export versions of the T-72 differed by tank model and by features.

E.g. the Object 172M-1-E5 is the export model of the T-72M1 that was used in the CSSR, East-Germany, Poland and Hungary, while the Object 172M-1-E6 was sold to India, Iraq, etc.

The only difference between the Object 172M-1-E5 and 172M-1-E6 is however the NBC protection suite; armor, fire control, gun, engine, etc. are all equal.

The same applies to the Object 172M-1-E3 (for members of the Warsaw Pact) and Object 172M-1-E4 versions of the T-72M: armor, fire control, gun, suspension, smoke grenade launchers, opctics, engine and transmission are identical, only the NBC protection is different - both the Object 172M-1-E-4 and Object 172M-1-E-6 were using the NBC protection of the Object 172M-E1, which is the original export version from 1975.

The only tank that really deserves the description "monkey model" is the T-72M, which was a mixture of features from the T-72 and T-72A.

Soviet tank	Export model	Sold to	Designation	Notes
T-72	Object 172-E	Warsaw Pact	T-72 "export"
"	Object 172-E1	Third world countries	T-72 "export"
T-72A	Object 172-E2		T-72M	T-72A with the old 2A46 gun and steel turret
"	Object 172M-1-E3	Warsaw Pact	T-72M
"	Object 172M-1-E4	Third world countries	T-72M
"	Object 172M-1-E5	Warsaw Pact	T-72M1	T-72M with T-72A turret armor and suspension
"	Object 172M-1-E6	Third world countries	T-72M1
T-72B	Object 172M-1-E7		T-72M1M	Supposedly a single tank was found in Iraq following OIF
"	Object 172M-1-E8	Third world countries	T-72M1M1, T-72S	Exported to Iran after collapse of Soviet Union

References

1. M1 Abrams vs T-72 Ural from Steven J. Zaloga
2. T-72 Main Battle Tank 1974 - 1993 from Steven J. Zaloga
3. Kampfpanzer Heute und Morgen from Rolf Hilmes

India to develop a new tank

India has send out a Request for Information (RfI)

State-of-art battle tanks to replace T-72
The Army is planning to replace its existing fleet of Soviet-origin main battle tanks, which have been in service since the mid-80s, with a family of modular armoured-fighting vehicles that would be developed in collaboration with the industry. “The Indian Army is planning to design and develop a new generation, state-of-the-art combat vehicle platform for populating its armoured fighting vehicle fleet in the coming decade. This vehicle, which will be called the future ready combat vehicle (FRCV), will form the base platform for the main battle tank which is planned to replace the existing T-72 tanks in the Armoured Corps,” a request for information (RFI) of the Army stated. The army envisions to begin inducting the new platforms by 2025-27. It is also planned to subsequently develop other need-based variants like bridge-layers, anti-mine trawlers, command posts, armoured ambulances, engineer vehicles, self-propelled gun platforms and recovery vehicles on this platform. The Army looking towards developing a new family of armoured vehicles also indicates that the main battle tank, Arjun, developed by the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) does not meet its future requirements, even though orders have been placed to equip some regiments it. The Army and the DRDO have been at loggerheads about the performance and capability of the Arjun. At present the T-72 and the T-90, both procured from Russia and assembled in India, are the mainstay of the Indian Armoured Corps. The T-72 has undergone several upgrades to enhance their capability. The T-90 began entering service in the last decades. The RFI also states that a ‘future’ combat platform design must cater to ‘future’ battlefield environment and technological possibilities. To address the future scenario and the envisaged force profile, the FRCV, which would be in the “medium tank” category, needs to be developed on a modular concept with a high degree of flexibility in a manner that, as a tank platform, it can address the varying requirements of different terrain and weather configurations. At the same time it can provide the base on which a ‘family of vehicles’, catering to the operational needs of various arms of the Army. The new tank’s firepower should be well matched to contemporary tanks in engagement ranges, all weather day/night fighting capability, depth of penetration and variety of ammunition. It should have very high all-round protection.

Source: Jane's IHS, The Tribune

---

Author's opinion: If the development of the new tank/multi-purpose vehicle will be another iteration of the flawed Arjun development, then I see bad times ahead.
Just recently news report mentioned that a staggering 75% of all Arjuns are grounded and honestly, even in the improved Arjunk Mk 2 configuration, the tank won't be competitive on the modern main battle tank market. The armor layout is limited, the ammunition storage questionable, the gun is under-performing and the engine is outdated.
Seeing India try again to develop a modern armored vehicle (not only a single one, but a multi-purpose plattform), while still habving troubles with their Arjun tank is not comprehensible.
 The Arjun's development started in 1974, first tanks entered service in 2007. So, I guess we will see how well the FRCV tank component performs in 2048.