Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
WorldWar2.ro Forum > The post-WW2 and recent military > How good is the TR 85-M1 tank?


Posted by: Radu August 10, 2004 12:54 am
I'm not an expert myself however I have read some interesting critiques to the tank.

The TR85M1 is a modernized TR85 which in turn is a modified T55. It has 50t and a 860hp engine which gives it only 17hp/t which in comparison with other tanks is really weak (T80U-27,5CP/t,M1A1Abbrams 22Cp/t)
)

Yeah it was advertised as the best tank with a 100mm cannon however an efficient tank cannon has 120-5mm, something all competitive tanks have these days ( the new T-95 Russian tank has 156mm)

It has no active or passive anti-missile defense system except for the old smoke grenades, nor does it have a laser detection system.

The best part of the tank is the targeting system which is just decent.

A better idea would have been to upgrade the TR-125's, which the Romanian version of the T-72 and a bit better actually (armor wise).

The only good thing about it is the price, about a million to upgrade (T80U1 costs 3 mil.), however the export value is virtually 0 since no country has TR85's.

I know that Romania exported some TR85's to Iraq during the Iran/Iraq war. Do any of you guys know how the tank performed in combat? Were any lessons learned? Does the TR85M1 tank have redeeming qualities or does it belong in the trash pile?

Posted by: mabadesc August 10, 2004 05:53 pm
Good topic, Radu.

I would be interested to know how Romanian tanks compare to other tanks in the world today.

Also, if anyone knows what tanks Hungary and Bulgaria use (since they're neighbors of Romania), please reply.

Thanks,

Mihai.

Posted by: dragos03 August 10, 2004 06:59 pm
Romanian tanks are obsolete and cannot be compared with the tanks of the powerful nations. However, Hungary and Bulgaria have almost the same tanks but Romania has superior numbers.
As far as i know, Hungary has more advanced tanks (T72) than us.

Posted by: Victor August 10, 2004 07:22 pm
QUOTE
Yeah it was advertised as the best tank with a 100mm cannon however an efficient tank cannon has 120-5mm, something all competitive tanks have these days ( the new T-95 Russian tank has 156mm)


Size doesn't matter that much. biggrin.gif What matters more IMO is the ammo used. An arrow shell can penetrate over 450 mm of equivalent armor at over 4000 m.

QUOTE
It has no active or passive anti-missile defense system except for the old smoke grenades, nor does it have a laser detection system.


It does have a laser illumination detection system and flares.


QUOTE

A better idea would have been to upgrade the TR-125's, which the Romanian version of the T-72 and a bit better actually (armor wise).


There are too few of those to upgrade.


QUOTE

The only good thing about it is the price, about a million to upgrade (T80U1 costs 3 mil.), however the export value is virtually 0 since no country has TR85's.


No other country except Egypt.

IMO the tank is an improvement over our old tank force and, more importantly, an improvement we could afford.

Posted by: Carol I August 10, 2004 07:23 pm
QUOTE
Also, if anyone knows what tanks Hungary and Bulgaria use (since they're neighbors of Romania), please reply.

From the web site of the http://www.md.government.bg/_en_/index.html of the Republic of Bulgaria:
QUOTE
As a result of the implementation of the CFE Treaty, the Land Forces have T-55 and T-72 from all their various models, armored combat vehicles, multipurpose light APC and APC.

Posted by: Radu August 11, 2004 01:22 am
QUOTE
Size doesn't matter that much.  What matters more IMO is the ammo used. An arrow shell can penetrate over 450 mm of equivalent armor at over 4000 m.


Yes but there are different kinds of armor for example a M1A2 has "Armor Thickness: Up to the equivalent to 1000mm of armor grade steel" that is reinforced with depleted uranium.

http://www.geocities.com/banzaidyne/heavygear/M1A2.html



True Story.

The following story happened to an M1 Abrams main battle tank in General Barry McCaffrey's 24th Mechanized Infantry Division during the Gulf War.

It was raining heavily, and one M1 managed to get stuck in a mud hole and could not be extracted. With the rest of their unit moving on, the crew of the stuck tank waited for a recovery vehicle to pull them out.

Suddenly, as they were waiting, three Iraqi T-72 tanks came over a hill and charged the mud-bogged tank. One T-72 fired a high-explosive anti-tank (HEAT) round that hit the frontal turret armor of the M1, but did no damage. At this point, the crew of the M1, though still stuck, fired a 120mm armor-piercing round at the attacking tank. The round penetrated the T-72s turret, blowing it off into the air. By this time, the second T-72 also fired a HEAT round at the M1. That also hit the front of the turret, and did no damage. The M1 immediately dispatched this T-72 with another 120mm round. After that the third and now last T-72 fired a 125mm armor-piercing round at the M1 from a range of 400 meters. This only grooved the front armor plate. Seeing that continued action did not have much of a future, the crew of the last T-72 decided to run for cover. Spying a nearby sand berm, the Iraqis darted behind it, thinking they would be safe their. Back in the M1, the crew saw through their Thermal Imaging Sight the hot plume of the T-72's engine exhaust spewing up from behind the berm. Aiming carefully the M1's crew fired a third 120mm round through the berm, into the tank, destroying it.

http://www.softwhale.com/history/hist-abrams.htm

The M1A2 is a very good tank and it is under 2 mil ($1,868,228). Perhaps it would have been a better idea to purchase those rather than settle for an inferior product. To the best of my knowledge only 150 TR85's have been upgraded to the M1 version so I'd pick 75 M1's over 150 TR's any day. However, I guess the production of a domestic tank altough inferior has it's advantages.

Do you know how many TR125's did Romania produce? If all the upgrades are situated in the new turret (are they?) wouldn't it have been easy enough to just mount the turret on both models not to mention the T-72 is much more widely used abroad.

I have one more question. How come countries with smaller military budgets , such as Ukraine are able to produce better armaments than us?

Posted by: Victor August 11, 2004 12:03 pm
QUOTE
The M1A2 is a very good tank and it is under 2 mil ($1,868,228). Perhaps it would have been a better idea to purchase those rather than settle for an inferior product. To the best of my knowledge only 150 TR85's have been upgraded to the M1 version so I'd pick 75 M1's over 150 TR's any day. However, I guess the production of a domestic tank altough inferior has it's advantages.


You are mistaking the modernization cost of a M1A2 with its actual price, which is much higher. A M1 (the first variant) was over 4 million USD. I suspect the M1A2 is more. A T-90S for example costs 3.75 million USD and Russia barely affords new ones.

QUOTE
Do you know how many TR125's did Romania produce?


Except for several prototypes I do not think any were produced.

QUOTE
If all the upgrades are situated in the new turret (are they?) wouldn't it have been easy enough to just mount the turret on both models not to mention the T-72 is much more widely used abroad.


We only have 30 T-72s and over 300 TR-85s. Which one you think is more cost effective to upgrade?

QUOTE
I have one more question. How come countries with smaller military budgets , such as Ukraine are able to produce better armaments than us?


I do not think that the Ukraine actually produced something new in the last decade, but you must understand that in order to enter NATO Romania had to spend a lot of money on something more important than weapons: communication systems, C4I systems, radars and air traffic management etc. that could be plugged into the NATO network and this costs. This is something the Ukraine does not have.

Besides it is much cheaper to upgrade what you have than to develop new weapons.

Posted by: Florin August 12, 2004 02:13 am
QUOTE

The M1A2 is a very good tank and it is under 2 mil ($1,868,228). Perhaps it would have been a better idea to purchase those rather than settle  for an inferior product.


Romania is a member of NATO know.
Egypt, which is not a NATO member, is manufacturing M1A2. They got the license and manufacturing know-how from the US.
Why Romania should not ask for the know how and the license to assembly the M1A2 in Romania?

Or why the Romanians do not try a deal with Germany, another NATO member, to learn to produce the famous "Leopard" under license?

Posted by: Victor August 12, 2004 07:35 pm
QUOTE
Or why the Romanians do not try a deal with Germany, another NATO member, to learn to produce the famous \"Leopard\" under license?


There was an idea some while ago to produce a new tank similar to the Leopard 2 in cooperation with German firms, but don't know if something came out of it.

Posted by: Radu August 13, 2004 01:24 am
QUOTE
I do not think that the Ukraine actually produced something new in the last decade..


t-72-120 MBT
http://www.morozov.com.ua/eng/body/t72-120.php?menu=m1.php
http://www.mainbattletanks.czweb.org/Tanky/t72-120.htm

T-84-120
http://www.morozov.com.ua/eng/body/oplot.php?menu=m1.php
http://www.mainbattletanks.czweb.org/Tanky/t84120.htm

Well these are a couple, there may be more. They're upgrades but comparatively better that the TR85M1, for example both tanks have automatic loaders and better hp/t ratios. The t-72-120 is considered to be the best t72 version, comparable to western tanks. So this goes back to my question on why the Ukrainians have the resources to make these things, essentially for export since their army doesn't have them....yet and we do not.

QUOTE
Also, if anyone knows what tanks Hungary and Bulgaria use (since they're neighbors of Romania), please reply.


Well madabesc I have the feeling that the days of us fearing war with Bulgaria and Hungary are at an end. Our problems seem to lie with the eastern neighbors.

QUOTE
Egypt, which is not a NATO member, is manufacturing M1A2. They got the license and manufacturing know-how from the US.  
Why Romania should not ask for the know how and the license to assembly the M1A2 in Romania?


My understanding is that licences cost money... alot of money. Romania wanted to buy the licence for AH-1W Super Cobra helicopters in the early 90's and it would have costed us over 1.2 billion however, like you said we're in NATO and we should get it much cheaper and if we redeem our ass kissing points with the Americans heck, they should just give it up for free. :wink:

Posted by: Victor August 13, 2004 08:05 pm
QUOTE

Well these are a couple, there may be more. They're upgrades but comparatively better that the TR85M1, for example both tanks have automatic loaders and better hp/t ratios. The t-72-120 is considered to be the best t72 version, comparable to western tanks. So this goes back to my question on why the Ukrainians have the resources to make these things, essentially for export since their army doesn't have them....yet and we do not.


THat is not new technology. They inherited the designs from the former SU. Upgrading them is not that difficult. Romania simply did not have the technology the Ukraine got from the Soviet Union.

QUOTE

My understanding is that licences cost money... alot of money. Romania wanted to buy the licence for AH-1W Super Cobra helicopters in the early 90's and it would have costed us over 1.2 billion however, like you said we're in NATO and we should get it much cheaper and if we redeem our ass kissing points with the Americans heck, they should just give it up for free. :wink:


The deal costed 1.2 billion dollars because it inclued the aquiring by the Romanian Army of 96 Cobras, not because the license was exensive.

Posted by: Iamandi April 21, 2005 09:56 am
Pakistan want to up grade his T-55.

"Prototype - 3

730 HP Engine and Improved Transmission

125 mm Smooth Bore Gun

Semi - Automatic Loading System

Image Stabilized Fire Control and Improved Gun Control System

Improved Suspension

Enhanced Armour protection with Explosive Reactive Armour"

http://www.depo.org.pk/products/hit/alzarrar.htm

125 mm gun is impressive! So, it is possible on T-55! Cheap good old T-55... If they have hi-tech devices to give to the crew capability to make first shot, it means something.

Iama

Posted by: Imperialist April 21, 2005 07:00 pm
QUOTE (Iamandi @ Apr 21 2005, 09:56 AM)
Pakistan want to up grade his T-55.


Iama, thats a T-59...

Posted by: Stephen Dabapuscu April 22, 2005 05:13 am
The TR-85M1 could be further improved by adding a 125-mm or 120-mm gun. This would give the TR-85M1 the same fire-power, as the current generation of MBT's. And along with good computerised fire-control system, make the TR-85M1 a far more potent MBT.


Thank You

Posted by: Iamandi April 22, 2005 05:46 am
QUOTE (Imperialist @ Apr 21 2005, 07:00 PM)
QUOTE (Iamandi @ Apr 21 2005, 09:56 AM)
Pakistan want to up grade his T-55.


Iama, thats a T-59...



Imperialist, T-59 is a T-54A produced in China, with some modification.

QUOTE
"The Type 59 main battle tank (MBT) is the Chinese copy of the Soviet T-54A. Its manufacturer designation is WZ-120. A total of 10,000 examples of various versions have been built by the First Inner Mongolia Machinery Factory (PLA codename: 617 Factory) located at Baotou, Inner Mongolia. The PLA is currently deploying around 5,500 Type 59 MBTs, most of which are the improved variant Type 59-I/II upgraded with Western technologies. The Type 59 family will continue to serve as the backbone of the PLA armoured troops in the next decade"


QUOTE
The Type 59 main battle tank is a Chinese licensed production version of the Soviet T-54A. The Soviet Union and Chinese governments agreed on the transfer of T-54A technology in 1956. At the same time, the first tank manufacturing facility (617 Factory) was built up in Baotou, Inner Mongolia under the help of Soviet engineers. In 1958, the first Chinese-made T-54A using Soviet components rolled out from the assembly line.

In 1959, 617 Factory began to build T-54As using indigenously made components. During the military parade in Beijing on 1st October 1959 to celebrate the 10th anniversary of the People's Republic of China, 32 Chinese-made T-54A tanks were revealed to the public for the first time. In later 1959, the tank was officially designated as Type 59.


Fragments from:

http://www.sinodefence.com/army/tank/type59.asp

Anyway we have more powerful engine in our TR-85 than pakistani prototypes.

Iama

Posted by: Imperialist April 22, 2005 09:28 am
QUOTE (Iamandi @ Apr 22 2005, 05:46 AM)




Imperialist, T-59 is a T-54A produced in China, with some modification.


T-59 is not T-55.
T-59 is in fact a chinese built T-54A.
But T-54A is not T-55 either. (is it?)

tongue.gif

Ahh, dont worry about it...

Posted by: Iamandi April 22, 2005 09:47 am
Eh! tongue.gif It's not so big difference between "54" and "55"! Give me a break! biggrin.gif

Iama

Posted by: Imperialist September 18, 2005 12:41 pm
Speaking of tanks:

http://www.lookatentertainment.com/v/v-1703.htm

And that tank had no ammo on board -- what the hell happened, there was hardly anything left of it. Was that a T72?

Posted by: carlos23air2004 September 18, 2005 02:39 pm
. An arrow shell can penetrate over 450 mm of equivalent armor at over 4000 m. "

Well a t-80 can resist frontal blows from 120 mm ammo ,not to mention it can also be fitted with kontakt 5 era and shtora protection system against atgm.But Romania is sorounded by only 300 t-80s (t-84 s),the rets are just old t-55,t-62/64 s and t-72 s against whom an 100 mm apfs-ds has devastating effect.Infact in the gulf war t-72 s have been knocked out by bradleys with theyr autocannon.

Posted by: Victor September 18, 2005 05:37 pm
Here is an article on an exercise made by the 284th Tank Battalion in the firing range at Malina last year after they received the TR-84M1. There is also a comparison done with the TR-580 within the same unit.

http://www.presamil.ro/OM/2004/30/pag%2022.htm

Posted by: carlos23air2004 September 18, 2005 05:57 pm
G

Posted by: carlos23air2004 September 18, 2005 06:03 pm
Now the translation please.

Posted by: tomcat1974 September 19, 2005 06:23 am
QUOTE (Imperialist @ Sep 18 2005, 12:41 PM)
Speaking of tanks:

http://www.lookatentertainment.com/v/v-1703.htm

  And that tank had no ammo on board -- what the hell happened, there was hardly anything left of it. Was that a T72?

That is a classical..it didn't had ammo, but it had a shit load of TNT inside it... US Army test of the javelin. It look spectacular but the ammo in live tank doen't go of that way. Most of the T-72 get their turrets blown away due to the carusel autoloader that actually propulsate the turret up.
As you can see in that explosion ...there is nothing left from a tank.

Posted by: C-2 September 19, 2005 08:39 am
Ha ,
I talked afew days ago with an Israeli army oficer.
I asked him about the Merkava tank.
He said that the IDF are selling old Merkava models and keeping only the new models.
Momentaly they are not going to produce more tanks,since the eve of major armour battels is long over.
The Helicopter and missles are making the tanks to vulnerable and to expensive.
If a single soldier can anable a tank ,and a helic.can finish quite a few,who needs them any more?
P.S
Those who doesn't know,in 73,the Israelis won the second biggest battle tank (after Kursk).
Since 73,they found out that he (the tank) became more and more useless.

Posted by: Iamandi September 19, 2005 09:33 am
QUOTE (carlos23air2004 @ Sep 18 2005, 02:39 PM)
Infact in the gulf war t-72 s have been knocked out by bradleys with theyr autocannon.

Give a source for that.

Anyway, all i read about this subject contained something like "T-72 were sprayed with 25 m.m. projectiles". From years, i did'nt find something like "were KO with 25 m.m."

"Well a t-80 can resist frontal blows from 120 mm ammo" ... acording to what source? huh.gif Ukraineans shot at a T-80 from a Leopard 2, Challenger 2, or a M1? Or they used an 120 m.m. howitzer from first world war? laugh.gif

If ukrainean ammo didn't penetrate frontal armor of a T-80, what chances have they in a fight with advanced armour of western MBTs? Oh, yes... for that type of fights they will shoot with guided missiles, because T-72 gun was incapable to penetrate chobam type armor...

Iama

Posted by: tomcat1974 September 19, 2005 11:28 am
QUOTE (C-2 @ Sep 19 2005, 08:39 AM)
The Helicopter and missles are making the tanks to vulnerable and to expensive.

QUOTE
The Helicopter and missles are making the tanks to vulnerable and to expensive.


Relly?? I never thought that way... Did US stop producing the Sherman because the german had better Antitank weapons? ... I don't think so

But the age of the tank will never sunset... The tank is evolving... is changing ... The infantery will alway need the big beast to support them or to kill enemy tanks.. Perhaps we will see different classes of tanks...more specialised ..but the tank will remain here..

There are defences agains helicopters ...and also against missiles...

Posted by: Imperialist September 19, 2005 11:37 am
QUOTE (tomcat1974 @ Sep 19 2005, 06:23 AM)

That is a classical..it didn't had ammo, but it had a shit load of TNT inside it... US Army test of the javelin. It look spectacular but the ammo in live tank doen't go of that way. Most of the T-72 get their turrets blown away due to the carusel autoloader that actually propulsate the turret up.
As you can see in that explosion ...there is nothing left from a tank.

That was what I wanted to know -- if the "test" was faked, because obviously the tank had no ammo in it, but almost nothing was left of it. And I doubt that effect was achievable by that launcher. So you think they packed it with TNT?
laugh.gif No wonder some americans think their weapons are awesome, if thats the case. The tests are forged... laugh.gif

take care

Posted by: Iamandi September 19, 2005 11:45 am
I will add something to what tomcat1974 write about tanks: in all battles, the culminant momment is when you launch the charge of tanks. In a proper momment, you will achieve the victory with tanks.

Iama

Posted by: carlos23air2004 September 19, 2005 11:53 am
If ukrainean ammo didn't penetrate frontal armor of a T-80, what chances have they in a fight with advanced armour of western MBTs" youre making no sence,ukraine has t-80s why would they need to fire at their own when tests are being done in test grounds and only the armor is tested not the whole tank.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/t80tank.htm doesnt say what type of round i dont think its vs arrow,maybe vs heat or he.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/05/sprj.irq.lyle/ the bradley vs t 72
http://www.angelfire.com/art/enchanter/IFVarm.html smae thing .

Posted by: Zayets September 19, 2005 12:02 pm
I'll bite.What C-2 meant is that the tank as it existed until today it will most probably cease to exist.The concept, however ,not.Assault with the heavy tank will probably last for a while but don't forget that what they were against to were 20 years older technology and design. And US Army is very well aware of this fact.It was fun,but it wouldn't last forever.But this is the tip of the iceberg only. Huge deployment cost,huge manufacturing cost are one of the many reasons the tank as we know it will dissapear soon.The new air-land USA doctrine does not fit with the heavy tank anymore. Armor will play a minor role in the future. At this stage there's no armor which can be considered bullet proof. And what is more important is the fact that the platforms carying these weapons are twenty times less costly than a heavy tank.Then what's the reason?Of course,a modern amy will keep a big array of weapons and is for that there will be few heavy tanks brigades but apart from that there's no doubt they will be replaced.Tanks battalions can't win war on the ground by themselves.Everytime they are stucked in a certain point guess what they do? Call in the artillery and aviation so they can advance. This is not speed and a heavy tank can't have the speed and flexibility a small armored vehicle have. Apart from the occasional shrapnels there is no immediate threat.How would you target accurately a very fast moving,low profile vehicle?I tell you how , very difficult.Most chances of success will be from air. And even if you will disable one , it will be replaced imediately by a similar vehicle.Knocking out a tank will not only waste 5 millions or more but it will create that gap any ground force need to advance on.Marines have a say : killing tanks is fun and easy.If they think like that ...
My conclusion is that heavy tank will survive for a while,now that USA doesn't have enemies with similar devices fighting them. Given the fact that the quickest tank deployment can't be done from air,but ships, will probably make them quite unusefull. How will you deploy them for example in Yugoslavia or Croatia? Yes, veeeery difficult.Think about terrain.
My conclusion is that they will stick for a while (heavy tanks) but they will be replaced with another tech/concept and so on. Stay around and we'll find out what that will be wink.gif

Posted by: tomcat1974 September 19, 2005 12:29 pm
Well US has that problem since the M1 is a heavy beast almost 70 tonnes
by the normal definition the Russian T-80's are quite light 45t.

Anyway US has pioneered something weird Prepositioned Sealift ships.. a damn smart thing... Basically they don't redeploy their major tank division... they already have the needed tanks on storage on board big ass ships... the ships a prepositioned in close vicinity of possible conflict zone.. they only need to airlift the Crews ....

http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/factfile/ships/ship-takr.html
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/sealift.htm I neve thought I'll cite from FAS ...

Posted by: Zayets September 19, 2005 12:51 pm
Yes,that is a solution until the shore.Great achievement in transporting a whole tank division in say, 1 day (given the fact that they were at sea) . What next? Because is highly improbable that the conflict zone is in the desant area.And what is the reason in keeping at sea such vessels because they cost quite some money.While a carrier can patrol the seas to fast intervene they justify the cost.A conflict broke out and you can quickly respond.Paratroops,SpecOps etc. Tanks will still have to wait their crew and then start the long road to the conflict zone. But can you imagine the maintenance cost on such vessels?And that only for regional conflicts.I guess they works best when it has to transport from home to the conflict zone.Is pretty hard to leave them at sea.As I read in the links they are not designed to stay at sea but to transport from point to point.Maintenace is impossible because this is just a warehouse basically.It is not like a carrier.And then again my question : why keep such a vessel loaded with 100 tanks when you can have there 200 HMMVS and 20 Kiowas plus couple of Apaches wink.gif
Speed is crucial.Well,that's my idea anyway.

Posted by: tomcat1974 September 19, 2005 01:20 pm
Well man the Ah-64 ain't that cheap either...they require a lots of maintenace smile.gif
and the Hummer came with the LPD /LHA smile.gif the first wave smile.gif

Posted by: Zayets September 19, 2005 01:31 pm
QUOTE (tomcat1974 @ Sep 19 2005, 01:20 PM)
Well man the Ah-64 ain't that cheap either...they require a lots of maintenace smile.gif
and the Hummer came with the LPD /LHA smile.gif the first wave smile.gif

See my post, I said couple Apaches. Anyway,the first wave are the flying chaps.Shock and awe,baby! wink.gif Usually Hummers come last to leave first.

Posted by: tomcat1974 September 19, 2005 02:00 pm
well only when the enemy is armed with Ak's smile.gif

Posted by: Jeff_S September 19, 2005 02:01 pm
QUOTE (Zayets @ Sep 19 2005, 12:51 PM)
Yes,that is a solution until the shore.. What next? Because is highly improbable that the conflict zone is in the desant area.And what is the reason in keeping at sea such vessels because they cost quite some money.

<snip>

I guess they works best when it has to transport from home to the conflict zone.Is pretty hard to leave them at sea.As I read in the links they are not designed to stay at sea but to transport from point to point.

A few words about the U.S. maritime prepositioning ships:

1. They don't stay at sea. They are located at a few strategic locations around the world (Diego Garcia for the Middle East, Guam for the Pacific). They leave when they are needed. They are highly dependent on having appropriate ports and airfields. These are cargo ships not not amphibious ships... they can't just drop a battalion of tanks on a beach, parachute in the crews, jump in and drive off.

QUOTE
Great achievement in transporting a whole tank division in say, 1 day (given the fact that they were at sea)


2. They don't carry whole divisions worth of equipment. I believe it is in battalion sets, with the whole set at one location equalling a heavy brigade.

QUOTE
But can you imagine the maintenance cost on such vessels?


3. It's not cheap, but the US feels it is worth paying. Heavy land power can do things air and sea power cannot.

QUOTE
Maintenace is impossible because this is just a warehouse basically.


4. There is a team of contractors at each site whose only job is to maintain the equipment and the ships. When the equipment is reloaded on the ships it is supposed to be as close to ready as possible. The ships also are rotated back to the US occasionally for overhauls. I've seen them in port in Baltimore, and a friend lived on Diego Garcia for a year and worked with them.

QUOTE
And then again my question : why keep such a vessel loaded with 100 tanks when you can have there 200 HMMVS and 20 Kiowas plus couple of Apaches wink.gif


5. The US does it because there are times M-1s and Bradleys are very useful. Look at the helicopter and HMMWV losses in the 2003 attack on Iraq, for example, where the defense was weak. Or the attack into Baghdad... HMMWVs just would not have had the same psychological effect. The action in Mogadishu Somalia shown in "Black Hawk Down" is another example... the HMMWVs were very vulnerable, but even 1 or 2 Bradleys would have changed the equation completely.

US thinking is that it's best to have both: strategic mobility plus combat power when you arrive.

QUOTE
Speed is crucial.Well,that's my idea anyway.


It is, but look at the US deployment for the 1991 Gulf War. When the light forces arrived (82d Airborne, Marines and friends), that meant the US was serious about defending Saudi Arabia. When the heavy forces arrived later (1st Armored, 1st Cavalry, 1st UK Armoured) that meant we were serious about retaking Kuwait. Each capability has its place.

Posted by: Zayets September 19, 2005 03:51 pm
Hi Jeff,
Thank you for the answers.It looks like these floating warehouses are not the perfect thing either.They highly depend on installations for load but most important unload the equipment. Well,maybe I was too optimist in saying one division but a battalion would be also enough smile.gif
Tanks love the space.In Irak they had plenty of them charging to Baghdad. But if the terrain won't allow they still have to be transported from the beach head to the conflict zone or at least close.
Nothing comes cheap,sure,but I believe flexible solutions/tactics will dominate the battlefield.And heavy tank is anything but a flexible vehicle.Sure is fast,but give it space.Stuck,a tank is dead.We will see.

Posted by: Imperialist September 19, 2005 04:45 pm
Tanks will not go away. The only time when a tank is useless is when its out of gas, Zayets. Otherwise it has plenty ofuses, 90 years from its invention.

Posted by: Zayets September 19, 2005 04:57 pm
QUOTE (Imperialist @ Sep 19 2005, 04:45 PM)
Tanks will not go away. The only time when a tank is useless is when its out of gas, Zayets. Otherwise it has plenty ofuses, 90 years from its invention.

I did not imply that Imperialist. I just said that tanks as we know today will most probably disapear.The concept of main battle tank will remain but most probably we will not believe our eyes what that will be capable soon.
The tank can be made useless also when the crew is disabled or not properly trained.There are many ways of disabling a tank wink.gif

Posted by: Imperialist September 19, 2005 06:43 pm
QUOTE (Zayets @ Sep 19 2005, 04:57 PM)
QUOTE (Imperialist @ Sep 19 2005, 04:45 PM)
Tanks will not go away. The only time when a tank is useless is when its out of gas, Zayets. Otherwise it has plenty ofuses, 90 years from its invention.


The tank can be made useless also when the crew is disabled or not properly trained.There are many ways of disabling a tank wink.gif

I was referring at the strategic level, not at the individual tactical one where a tank can be made useless in other ways in combat.
As a weapon tanks become useless when you have no fuel for them, and are nothing else but huge and expensive static and vulnerable AT platforms.
But on second thoughts, even at the tactical level, depriving a tank of fuel supplies is one of the most effective way of making it useless, given that it generally means many more are affected, not just one.

Posted by: C-2 September 19, 2005 06:44 pm
Guys I wonder,what tanks battles do you think will take place in the next 20 years?
Between who?
Tanks today are a waste of money.
5 man crew,a lot of fuel a lot of maintain.Need transportation from point A to B.
Yes the Apache has also mainten costs.But he can get from one place to another much easy.
Lets look back:
After ww2 what tank battles took place?
Some in the Korean war.
And the Arab -Israeli conflict (56,67,73).
And later in the Lebanon war,Israel and Syria fought very little with tanks.
They prefered sending Cobras and Mi-26 agains enemy tanks.
An armured vehicle and a self propeled gun are more then enought today.
And maximum a light tank.

Posted by: Imperialist September 19, 2005 07:22 pm
QUOTE (C-2 @ Sep 19 2005, 06:44 PM)
Guys I wonder,what tanks battles do you think will take place in the next 20 years?
Between who?
Tanks today are a waste of money.
5 man crew,a lot of fuel a lot of maintain.Need transportation from point A to B.
Yes the Apache has also mainten costs.But he can get from one place to another much easy.
Lets look back:
After ww2 what tank battles took place?
Some in the Korean war.
And the Arab -Israeli conflict (56,67,73).
And later in the Lebanon war,Israel and Syria fought very little with tanks.
They prefered sending Cobras and Mi-26 agains enemy tanks.
An armured vehicle and a self propeled gun are more then enought today.
And maximum a light tank.

QUOTE
Tanks today are a waste of money.
5 man crew,a lot of fuel a lot of maintain.Need transportation from point A to B.


OK, scrap the tank and send that 5 man crew as infantry men to assault a city. Guess what the result would be. And about the fuel... those 5 dismounted men could very well "sa se spele pe cap cu el" laugh.gif .

QUOTE
Yes the Apache has also mainten costs.But he can get from one place to another much easy.


I personally dont understand this discussion. An Apache will never replace a tank and a tank will never replace an Apache.

QUOTE
After ww2 what tank battles took place?


The main purpose of the tank was not to take part in tank battles.

QUOTE

And later in the Lebanon war,Israel and Syria fought very little with tanks.
They prefered sending Cobras and Mi-26 agains enemy tanks.


Thats only natural, given the Golan Heights advantage.

QUOTE
An armured vehicle and a self propeled gun are more then enought today.
And maximum a light tank.


More than enough for what?
And here we come back to the purpose of the tank. Its purpose was not to be heavy, because it was intended to confront infantry. As the enemy got tanks and AT guns, the tank had to go heavy. So if you propose light tanks, one has to ask -- for what? Going further, why tanks at all? And this will end up another pointless arm vs. arm debate, when all arms have to work together to make an Army complete.

take care

Posted by: Jeff_S September 19, 2005 07:55 pm
QUOTE (Zayets @ Sep 19 2005, 03:51 PM)
Hi Jeff,
Thank you for the answers.It looks like these floating warehouses are not the perfect thing either.

Exactly. They're a useful tool, but not the solution to all problems.

QUOTE
They highly depend on installations for load but most important unload the equipment.


Yes. Depending on the attacker's capabilities, he could capture the ports...sink ships in the harbor to make them unusable...bombard them with chemical warheads on missiles... and the list goes on. And not everywhere is within easy driving distance from the ports... the prepositioning ships were not much use in Afghanistan, for example. As far as I know the ship's equipment does not include a fleet of Heavy Equipment Transporters to carry the M-1s to the battle.

QUOTE
Well,maybe I was too optimist in saying one division but a battalion would be also enough smile.gif


They even flew a platoon of M-1s into Northern Iraq after the Turks did not allow the 4th Mechanized Infantry Division to attack from Turkey. Just having a handful of tanks can expand a commander's options.

Posted by: dragos September 20, 2005 07:38 am
A series of off-topic posts has been deleted. Try to stick with the topic.

Posted by: Imperialist November 17, 2005 11:31 am
QUOTE (dragos03 @ Aug 10 2004, 06:59 PM)
As far as i know, Hungary has more advanced tanks (T72) than us.

It appears it also has some to spare:

QUOTE

The final convoy of tractor-trailers hauling the equipment delivered its load Nov. 11, completing the long journey of 77 T-72s, 36 armored vehicles (BMPs), four recovery vehicles and several containers of parts and weaponry from Hungary to the 9th Iraqi Army Division (Mechanized).


http://www.defendamerica.mil/articles/nov2005/a111405tj1.html

Posted by: Agarici November 17, 2005 01:31 pm
QUOTE (Victor @ Aug 10 2004, 07:22 PM)
QUOTE

The only good thing about it is the price, about a million to upgrade (T80U1 costs 3 mil.), however the export value is virtually 0 since no country has TR85's.


No other country except Egypt.


Does Egypt own TR-85's? I didn't know that... How many of them, and when were they purchased?

Posted by: Dani November 17, 2005 08:29 pm
QUOTE (Agarici @ Nov 17 2005, 04:31 PM)
QUOTE (Victor @ Aug 10 2004, 07:22 PM)
QUOTE

The only good thing about it is the price, about a million to upgrade (T80U1 costs 3 mil.), however the export value is virtually 0 since no country has TR85's.


No other country except Egypt.


Does Egypt own TR-85's? I didn't know that... How many of them, and when were they purchased?

I suppose not so many, if so.

Anyway Egyptians have already 800 M1A1 tanks http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/egypt/m1a1.htm

Off-topic: according to http://www.mmc.gov.eg/ in their Air Force co-exist F16 A, B, C, D and E with Mirage 2000 and Mig-21. They have also Apache helicopters.

Posted by: deadmanwalking November 21, 2005 04:00 pm
QUOTE (Radu @ Aug 10 2004, 12:54 AM)
It has no active or passive anti-missile defense system except for the old smoke grenades, nor does it have a laser detection system.

In the game Steel Panthers: Modern Battle Tank, the TR-85M2 has the ARENA missile defense system (normally found on Russian tanks), but I can't tell you if in reality it's true. ARENA proved to be more than decent. One TR-85M2 came under attack by 3 US Javelin teams. The first two missiles were destroyed by the protective grenades, but since ARENA comes only with 2 salvos, the 3rd Javelin ATGM destroyed my TR-85.

http://armor.kiev.ua/fofanov/Tanks/EQP/arena.html

Posted by: Imperialist May 11, 2006 04:40 pm
Heard from a friend of mine in the military that TR85s participated recently in a shooting test with real ammo and the results were not that good.

Posted by: 120mm May 27, 2006 04:58 pm
Hi! I don't want to bring up a "dead" topic, but I am a US Army officer and am working on a Ph.D. in this very subject. Here are some thoughts:

The T-55 is a much better tank than the T-72 or derivatives when it comes to "fightability". The T-72 turret is too small to fight from. The 125mm gun uses projectiles that are too large, making it so you carry too few to fight sustained battles. The 125mm gun uses dual piece munitions, which take forever to load, using the highly cumbersome autoloader, and when you are struck with an enemy round, the presence of some much propellent in the turret guarantees noone will survive the round impact.

Current experiences have shown that modern armor piercing rounds, down to 25mm are sufficient to fully penetrate modern armor. It's all about velocity and the sectional density of the penetrator. Not only is the 100mm gun big enough, a 76mm gun would be much better.

I think a T-55 chassis with a high-velocity, smoothbore 76mm would be the ideal solution, provided it is fully stabilized with all the normal computer stuff would make a terrific Romanian tank. Especially if it could share rounds with the Regele Ferdinand.

Posted by: deadmanwalking May 28, 2006 02:37 pm
Does anybody know why TR-85M1/M2 weighs 50 tonnes? ohmy.gif

T-55: 36.6 tonnes
T-64: 42.4 tonnes
T-72: 41 tonnes
T-80: 46 tonnes
T-84: 48 tonnes
T-90: 46.5 tonnes

You can see that it weighs more than the whole russian T chain
How do you explain it is so heavy even though it's ridiculously undergunned and underarmored?

Posted by: tomcat1974 May 29, 2006 10:15 am
TR-85M is not yout usual T-55. Is basically a redesigned T-55, different hull and different turret. And it has more armour than the usual T-55.

Posted by: 120mm May 29, 2006 07:45 pm
I do not accept that assumption that the TR85M1 is "ridiculously undergunned and underarmored."

The 100mm rifled gun is not a bad sized gun for modern warfare. Provided that the metallurgy is ok, you should be able to get some decent velocities out of APDS, with the main problem being long-range accuracy due to the limitations of any rifled gun.

In fact, if you look at Denmark, they have retained and improved the 76mm gun on the M41 light tank, to make it quite lethal.

Bottom line, Romania needs an armored force that they can afford, more than anything else. Hopefully, their modernization programme will result in more NATO Euros and US dollars becoming available for more training and modernization.

Posted by: deadmanwalking May 29, 2006 08:45 pm
tomcat1974,

The turret is not different. It's the same old dome-shaped turret of an T-55 with a bustle and "bra armour" around the turret. These minor additions and a slightly longer hull don't explain the extra weight.

120mm,

When I wrote undergunned I was referring to the penetrating power and not the size of the gun. Sorry for the confusion. But the TR-85M1/M2 does lack adequate protection. Apart from the added bra armour, I don't see anything else different from a T-55.

So does anybody have a theory as to why this tank weighs a monster 50 tonnes? Maybe my sources are wrong, but it's written everywhere on the net.

Posted by: Hadrian May 29, 2006 10:22 pm
The hull is lenghtened (it has one more wheel than the T-55), the armor is increased. Bustle added at the turret. "Bra armour". Did I mentioned that the armour is increased biggrin.gif ? I heard something about 600 HRA armor resistance.

Posted by: Hadrian May 29, 2006 10:31 pm
It`s bigger because they were thinking at the whole T chain... wink.gif

Posted by: tomcat1974 May 30, 2006 07:08 am
well if 50 t is monstrous then 70 t M1A1 is absolutelly obeze tank then.

Posted by: Agarici May 30, 2006 12:09 pm
QUOTE (deadmanwalking @ May 28 2006, 02:37 PM)
Does anybody know why TR-85M1/M2 weighs 50 tonnes?  ohmy.gif

You can see that it weighs more than the whole russian T chain
How do you explain it is so heavy even though it's ridiculously undergunned and underarmored?


Is there such a thing like TR 85 M2? Does anybody know its specifications?

Also, for all the recent posters from this section: if you’ve seen the post of our new member 120 mm, do you think that, given the expertise he has, it’s a wise thing to ignore his opinions? And I’m referring precisely to that stating the effectiveness of the smaller caliber guns…

Posted by: deadmanwalking May 30, 2006 02:47 pm
QUOTE
well if 50 t is monstrous then 70 t M1A1 is absolutelly obeze tank then.


Make that 54 tonnes for the TR-85M1/M2 (according to Wikipedia) and the M1A1 weighs 63 tonnes. If you meant M1A2 (69.54 tonnes) then you have to understand that the latter offers 3 or 4 times the armor protection of the TR-85M1/M2 and supports a heavier gun.

For comparison, the Iraqi T-55 Enigma weighs 39.6 tons. It has a turret bustle just like the TR-85M1/M2 and more armor modules.

user posted image
Source: http://www.smallafv.nn.ru

Now suppose for a second that all this extra armour compensates (in weight) for the TR-85M1/M2's slightly longer hull. Where do the 16.4 extra tons from the romanian tank come from??

QUOTE
Also, for all the recent posters from this section: if you’ve seen the post of our new member 120 mm, do you think that, given the expertise he has, it’s a wise thing to ignore his opinions? And I’m referring precisely to that stating the effectiveness of the smaller caliber guns…


Well, he gave the example of Denmark's M41 who uses an improved 76mm.

According to Bob Mackenzie's site : 76mm M464 APFSDS (Demark 1986, Taiwan) – 25cm@0deg@1km (150mm@60deg@1km*) 7

Maybe it can destroy a T-55 if it hits the side hull...

[edited by admin]

Posted by: 120mm May 30, 2006 05:25 pm
I don't want to be misinterpreted here, my Ph.D. studies are in history of technology, not in a technical field, but... I am an Armor Officer, and I've served in Iraq, where I saw 25mm APDS or APFDS penetrate T-55s and T-72s from nearly every angle, from 2000 m to point blank. Performance of the 120mm APFDS is just ridiculously excessive. As an armored crewman, I would like more rounds, or perhaps room for a couple of infantry dismounts, rather than the larger rounds. It would be instructive to shoot some non-Iraqi tanks to get a better baseline for actual penetration, but for technical security and national pride reasons, I don't see that happening.

I'm curious as to what ammunition the Romanians are using in their 100mm guns. The ministry of national defense site just mentions "improved APDS."

As far as weight is concerned, the Israelis didn't have any problem bringing the weight of the chassis alone to 44t in their Achzarit APC.

To be honest, I had only a peripheral interest in the TR85M1 until I saw this post. Now I am intrigued. If anyone has additional info on this vehicle, send me a link or post on this forum.

http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/vehicles/armored_personnel_carriers/achzarit/Achzarit.html

http://www.enemyforces.com/apc/btrt.htm

If I had a bunch of T-55 type vehicles laying around, here is what I would do with them, except that I would arm them with a mixture of infantry support and anti-armor weapons. I think a 75mm or 76mm high velocity gun in an OWS-style turret would free up space for a couple dismounts in a type of mini-merkava.

Bottom line, though, Romania needs to find an economically and politically acceptable warfighting platform in order to secure their own country as well as to be available to pursue alliance warfare if necessary.

Posted by: tomcat1974 May 30, 2006 06:32 pm
QUOTE (120mm @ May 30 2006, 05:25 PM)


I'm curious as to what ammunition the Romanians are using in their 100mm guns.  The ministry of national defense site just mentions "improved APDS." 


Penetrator was derived from the old Israeli M111. BM-412 sg (M309). It might be a result of a coproduction. These are designations that popped up at TankNet.

Penetration >450mm (presumed)
Here is the topic.
http://63.99.108.76/forums/index.php?showtopic=12284&hl=tr-85&st=0

Here armyRecognition web site. It has some good pictures of the various vehicles in our army. You can see clearlly the Hull and the Turret of the TR-85. It is not a simple T-55 clone. It was redesigned from that. Take alook at one T-55 so you can compare it.

http://www.armyrecognition.com/europe/Roumanie/Roumanie_index_materiel.htm

Posted by: Imperialist May 30, 2006 06:47 pm
QUOTE (120mm @ May 30 2006, 05:25 PM)
I am an Armor Officer, and I've served in Iraq, where I saw 25mm APDS or APFDS penetrate T-55s and T-72s from nearly every angle, from 2000 m to point blank. Performance of the 120mm APFDS is just ridiculously excessive.

I'm curious as to what ammunition the Romanians are using in their 100mm guns. The ministry of national defense site just mentions "improved APDS."

Those 25mm rounds must have had depleted uranium in their composition.
I dont think we use depleted uranium, so maybe that would explain the difference in caliber.

take care

Posted by: 120mm May 30, 2006 10:28 pm
BTW, good link to Tanknet. That was a very informative thread. I think that going forward that it is a very good tank for Romania. Only thing is, Romanian soldiers must have abundant training on it. In fact, with excellent training and confidence in their weapon system, I would say that any technical deficiency it has could go unnoticed in that region of the world.

I think it is counterproductive to compare the TR85M1 to the US M1A1 or A2. It's the tank you have, and soldiers with an inferiority complex will not fight as well. I think, though, that the TR85M1 should acquit itself well against T72s and the like, and against the current asymmetrical threat.

Posted by: Iamandi May 31, 2006 06:18 am
QUOTE
I think, though, that the TR85M1 should acquit itself well against T72s and the like, and against the current asymmetrical threat.


"asymmetrical threat" meaning RPG-7, or superior... And if Abrams is bad affected sometimes form those RPG's how good will perform our TR confronted with the same problems in an asymmetrcial conflict?

About what you said upper for 76 m.m. ... some years ago, i saw in an issue of one of the Army magazine one poster with a mobile AAA system by Otto Melara - maybe a prototype - armed with an automatic high rpm 76 m.m. radar guided. The system looked like a tank! And i asked myself how good will perform one of this mobile triple "A" in tank missions. I imagine 76 m.m. explosive shells and sub-calibre armour piercing ammonitions fired with high rate in a battle. Maybe, with his radar and fire control systems he can provide himself more chances against anti tank guided missiles. What do you think about that?

Iama

Posted by: tomcat1974 May 31, 2006 07:20 am
QUOTE (Imperialist @ May 30 2006, 06:47 PM)
QUOTE (120mm @ May 30 2006, 05:25 PM)
I am an Armor Officer, and I've served in Iraq, where I saw 25mm APDS or APFDS penetrate T-55s and T-72s from nearly every angle, from 2000 m to point blank.  Performance of the 120mm APFDS is just ridiculously excessive. 

I'm curious as to what ammunition the Romanians are using in their 100mm guns.  The ministry of national defense site just mentions "improved APDS."

Those 25mm rounds must have had depleted uranium in their composition.
I dont think we use depleted uranium, so maybe that would explain the difference in caliber.

take care

DU has almost as same density as tungsten APFDS. Only thing is DU is a lot cheaper being a byproduct of Atomic Industry.

25mm 1 round might not pentrate a tank , but for sure it is a chain gun so a salvo (80-100 round) will ruin any tanker day smile.gif

Posted by: 120mm May 31, 2006 11:27 am
First of all, the M1 is "not" bad against RPG-7s. In fact, it is extremely good. There have been a few widely publicized penetrations of less-armored portions of the M1 by RPG7s, but only one instance of a serious injury/fatality and all of the M1s affected remained mission capable.

The key word here is survivability, not invincibility. As far as tanks in assymetrical warfare are concerned, they play two roles. One of which is show of force/intimidation. The second is in providing extremely responsive and mobile direct fire. I think the TR85M1 would do well in either one.

As for the 25mm not being able to penetrate a tank, you're wrong. I've seen 25mm APFDS penetrate a T72, both hull and turret. Either something is wrong with the stated penetration values of the ammo, or the effectiveness of the armor.

I have a theory on why ammo producers/governments would understate the effectiveness of their ammunition, but I have not collected enough data to support my thesis, so I'll wait on talking about that.

Posted by: Iamandi May 31, 2006 11:45 am
I sayed "sometimes" about RPG & Abrams. Anyway, i'm curious about the effect of the curent RPG types against this and other modern tanks. Anyway, is not the proper topic for that.

Anyway, if Abrams had problems in his patrols for sure TR will have bigger ones stepping on a hole were is two 155 m.m. projectiles in one antitank improvised mine. Our forces ar far from the momment where they will developed at far distances with MBTs. We don't have the possibility to transport them at distance, and a tank unit will eat more spendings then one motorised-infantry one.

Iama

Posted by: 120mm May 31, 2006 12:19 pm
Very good point. However, I think we are not in agreement on the purpose and shortcomings of armored vehicles. The problem is, armored vehicles are even more a collection of trade-offs than any other kind of vehicle and attempts to correct for one deficieny creates many more.

According to the Romanian Minister of Defence, Romanian military forces want to "specialize" in multinational conflicts, anyway, in the fields of mountain warfare and intelligence gathering. So a program to create an air-mobile tank may be counterproductive anyway. A small, stealthy scout platform may be more realistic.

Thanks for all the good information.

Posted by: Victor June 01, 2006 12:50 pm
QUOTE (deadmanwalking @ May 29 2006, 10:45 PM)
So does anybody have a theory as to why this tank weighs a monster 50 tonnes? Maybe my sources are wrong, but it's written everywhere on the net.

The sources are not wrong. The following was extracted from an old issue of TOP GUN magazine.

TR-85 M1

Crew: 4
Weight: 50 tons
Length: 9.96 m
Width: 3.435 m
Height: 3.1 m
Engine: 8 VS-A2T2 M 860 HP, Diesel turbo-supercharged.
Top Speed: 60 km/h
Range: 400 km
Overcomes vertical obstacles of 0.9 m
Crosses ditches of 2.8 m
Climbs slopes of max. 32 degrees.
Main gun: 100mm with reserve of 41 shells.
MGs: one 12.7 mm AA MG on top of the turret with a reserve of 750 bullets
one 7.62 mm MG in the turret with a reserve of 4500 bullets
Radio: Panther 2000, connect 4+1 radio stations.

In 1994 a modernization program began for the TR-85 and was finalized in 1999, when the TR-85M1 was first presented to the public in a Romanian military show.

Extra armor was added on the turret. The inside of the turret was also redesigned for better placement of the crew and new electronic equipment. The fire extinguisher system was replaced with a new non-toxic one which could put out the fire in maximum 80 milliseconds. A laser illumination warning system and auto flare disposer were also added. The brakes and suspensions were replaced and the engine was up-powered. The transmission was redesigned and a new metal-rubber track was installed.

A modern (CICLOP M) targeting system was installed. The gun can also fire APFSDS-T shells. The gun is electrically controlled and the turret's ball bearings were also changed thus obtaining a faster movement of the gun from target to target.

The radio system was replaced with modern Panther 2000 radio-stations produced in co-operation with Racal (AFAIK they use FS and are thus impossible to intercept).

The testing started in January and February 2000 on the first batch of 13 tanks and as I understand were quite successful. It was estimated that by 2005 all 315 tanks would be modernized. The plan wass to reduce the Romanian tank strength to 480 modern/modernized tanks, since the majority of the over 1,000 tanks in the Peoples Army were old T-55s.

The TR-85 is/was in service also in Egypt and Iraq. It was also tested in combat during the Iraq-Iran war.

Further details on the armament:
The main gun is an improved Chinese version of the Soviet D-10T
The 7.62 mm MG is PKT type and the 12.7 mm is a DShK

Posted by: Hadrian June 05, 2006 10:27 pm
And the name of the tank is "Bizonul".

Posted by: NASH June 09, 2006 09:45 am
I believe TR 85 M 1 "medium" battle tank or main battle tank was projected in 1996 when Romanian's relations with NATO were not so good..., 100 mm CD 10 T2S riffled gun was the main gun in romanian tank forces.. so that could be the reason for mentaining it ..it's easier to use the same ammo for T 55 A AK K AM , TR 580 ( TR 77 ) and basic TR 85 ( P 800), it's easier to supply this type of ammo.. But the general modernisation is not so good.., the turret is bad designed and the space in the turret is not enough for the crue..., is very hard to adapt a new more pottent gun ..like 120 mm gun , simply there is no space for it ...
if the hull is very hard to adapt..the turret could be changed with a new one...like the south african did with their Oliphant MK 2 mbt .., there is no ERA .., no active jamming devices..., and the number of TR85M1 is very small...around of 50 in 2005...my believe is that the program must be reconsidered...

Posted by: NASH June 09, 2006 10:05 am
the project could be linked by TR 2000 planned mbt , TR 85 M 1 could use the same turret or a very similar one.., the shape of the turret is the same in front like old TR 85 turret.., very hard to protect by add on armour or ERA.., and the lack of ERA is very dangerous in close combat..against infantry with RPG's..look at the Cechen experience..., TR 85 M 1 is no tested in combat and nobody knows how it works..., but T 72 is well tested and T 80 and ukrainian T 84 are far more potent...and well adapted for eastern Europe terrain.., slow silouette , very mobile on soft ground.., well armed and protected..., TR 85 M 1 is no match for them....is no use to attack targets at 4000m if you can not destroy them at first round.., BM 412 sg APFSDS could destroy a target with maximum 445-450 mm of armour(cast steel) at 1000 m. T 80 has aroun 500 mm equivalent cast steel armour.., the last versions of T 72 is quite the same in strenght...

Posted by: NASH June 09, 2006 10:20 am
"Egypt, which is not a NATO member, is manufacturing M1A2. They got the license and manufacturing know-how from the US. "

...but egyptian made Abrams had no laminated armor...wich is essential,...and in these conditions it is no match for Merkava mk 3....smile.gif

Posted by: NASH June 09, 2006 10:36 am
Bulgaria has around 400 T 72 and Hungary around 138 T 72...as their main battle tanks , but they have also Mil MI 24 support helicopters..., and what is a tank without a combat support helicopter ? Our IAR 330 SOCAT is only a medium lift helicopter good for transport only...and very vulnerable at a ground fire..., small arms included..., and it is big ...a big target...
and there is another question...why we didn't transform our T 55 , TR 77 and TR 85 in Achazarits instead of cutting them..?!

Posted by: NASH June 09, 2006 10:52 am
We've had 30 T 72 , around 600 TR 85(P 800) , around 400 TR 77(TR 580) and around 800 T 55(K,A,AK,AM) ...plus 1000 T 34/85 II...and 3 prototypes TR 125, in this moment there are 315 TR 85 ...( some 50 of them were upgraded to M1 standard)...the rest of them were "reduced"...so , we have 315 TR 85 , aprox 220 TR 77, aprox 700 T 55..., all of them with 100 mm CD 10 T 2S riffled gun...

Posted by: NASH June 09, 2006 11:09 am
TR 85 M 1 is only for our use , it is no longer in production and market expectation is 0..., only good thig is a possible T 55 upgrade starting by TR 85 M 1 experience.., but Slovenian M 55 ( T 55 upgrade ) is better I think..., made by israelis , no speaking about russian upgrade for T 55...
In my opinion TR 85 M 1 is comparable with M 60 A 3, Leopard I A 3, AMX 30 B 2.., but is no match for T 80 , T 84 , T 90 or other modern mbt..., but TR 85 was worst than T 55..., it was not so ..." ready for combat"...like T 55 was...

Posted by: 120mm June 09, 2006 11:34 am
Thank you, Nash. That was very interesting info. I agree with you fully on the BTR-T/Achazarit conversion of the T-55.

The new turret on the T-64/72/80/90 series has increased potential for armor protection over the T-55, but I still do not like the autoloader/lack of internal space for crew on the T-64/72/80/90. The two piece round/autoloader is NOT a good fightability/survivability feature imo. A human loader is still much more reliable/quicker than autoloaders.

Do you have any information about the MLI-84 OWS upgrade?

Posted by: NASH June 09, 2006 12:20 pm
..yes 120 mm, I agree with human loader..., is faster, safer...and "smarter"...than autoloader..., but human loader is limited for 120mm and less..., the weight of a much more caliber is too much for human loader...
about MLI 84 M 1 " Jder"...only public infos.., OWS is a good weapon , dual purposes...tested in combat..., but again ..no ERA..., and you know 1982 Lebanon...M 113 was death meat without ERA coverage..., why romanians do not made their ond ERA...like polish..ERAWA ?!

Posted by: tomcat1974 June 09, 2006 01:28 pm
Russians tank had ERA in Cecenia... Didn't help them much at all. ERA is efficient at best agains HEAT warheades of AT missile.

regarding at battle testing of T-72, ask Coallition tankers ... T-72 where meat in the grinder since their inception.

Posted by: NASH June 09, 2006 01:52 pm
sergent...you are not realistic..., TR 85 M 1 is not an Abrams..., and first russian tanks in Cechnia had no ERA...

Posted by: NASH June 09, 2006 02:07 pm
....and RPG 7 is A HEAT warhead ...

Posted by: tomcat1974 June 09, 2006 02:24 pm
They had ERA and it didn't help, because of the stupid ways the tanks where used.

RPG warhead has a version of HEAT warhead but is not in the same class as the TOW, MILAN missiles warheads.

Anyway TR-85M1 is the best thing we could do given the situations. And still remain valid solution for the moment, in absences of a new different Tank.

Posted by: NASH June 09, 2006 06:21 pm
..ok, as you wish about russian tanks with or without ERA in Cechnia.., does not matter..., the problem is that I agree with modernization of an indigenious mbt instead buying a foreighn one..., but I say that this upgrade could be better and more suitable for present danger in combat field..., I would like that romanian satff could do the same job like south afrikans did with their Oliphants ( Centurion )..., a little more "inspiration" would be better..., if you have the chance for doing something good , you don't have to screw it up....it's about people's life...., you simply can not sent them to a certain death..., you have to give them a chance..afther all...., we , romanians we have a real problem speaking about ourselves...we are not very objectives..., we always say our ...you name it ..is the best that we can afford..., is that really so ?!
I say TR 85 M 1 could be better..., think..with 120 mm gun, with another turret , with a field management system.., with a periscopic sight..., with the posibility for commander to open fire....and so on..., am I right ?! We have to trust that we can do better....( si sa renuntam sa ne imbatam cu apa rece !!)....

Posted by: NASH June 09, 2006 06:58 pm
...why do you say that is the best we could do?!.., are you sure ?! becouse some politicians say that ?!..., for me is something very... " pro domo".., think with your own mind..., a main battle tank developped ( upgraded ) 10 years ago...and made in around 50 units.... (after 10 years)...is a success ?! I don't think so..., we are poor enough for not affording cheap things..., and a life of a mbt is around 25 years...., don't forget that ,...imagine TR 85 M 1 with 100 mm gun in 2025...is a joke !!! The same thing was in WW I ....and WW II...and soviet T 34/76 crushed our second and third army...., it was not a joke !!!! Look at israelis , they began their Merkava project in the same time with our TR 77...where are they now ?! Look at serbs and croats..their mbt are better , look at PT 91..., and so on...
I'm not specialist.., for me is a hobby..., but others are and they have to do their job good... ,sorry if I disturbed you...

Posted by: NASH June 09, 2006 07:37 pm
..and don't forget, russians and ukrainians are not iraki...,their experience is far better and their T 72 are better ...and they have DU APFSDS..., they were trained for combat against NATO not against iranian army..., I believe M1A1 would not be as "killer" against russian T 72...as it was against iraki poor trained T 72 crues..., of course history is made by the winners...but surprises are still possible...
T 72 was a good tank ...better than M 60..., what about T 80U, T 84 and T 90..., they learned the lessons of Gulf War..., russians were always superior in mbt..., look at Black Eagle...is estimated twice better than M1A2..., I'm not a russian fan..., I try to be realistic.... Tr 85 M1 would be something if 300 units would be ready for combat..untill now..., and the modernization proces would continue..., but in that moment is obsolete ...even against T 72 AG... 50 TR 85 M1 could no change the events...T 55 is still our main battle tank..., if they want to upgrade it , why they cut off 300 TR 85 ?! Thanks God we don't face a war...

Posted by: tomcat1974 June 09, 2006 09:07 pm
can you stop doing this ..3 different reply on same ideea..
Anyway UK has almost same amount of tank.
50 tanks because we can afford that money.. that much..
You do realize that in terms of conception of tanks the T-72 /T- 80 proved them self a death trap due to baddly designed and possition autoloader. Any internal fire will cause catastrophic explosion. At least TR-85 has a bustle loader.
Russian didn't learned nothing after the Gulf war ... nothing at all.. T-80/T90 are just tanks inherited from Sov Union designe. Only maybe Black eagle should show some new designs.

Any way I don' see any point in continuiong this.

Posted by: Imperialist June 09, 2006 09:43 pm
QUOTE (NASH @ Jun 9 2006, 07:37 PM)
T 55 is still our main battle tank..., if they want to upgrade it , why they cut off 300 TR 85 ?! Thanks God we don't face a war...

Because we lost the cold war and signed disarmament treaties.

http://www.defenselink.mil/acq/acic/treaties/cfe/decisions/destruction_tanks.htm

Posted by: 120mm June 10, 2006 01:22 pm
I appreciate your passion, Nash. To be sure, the Russians/Ukrainians et al have made some great improvement since 1991 in armor technology. The old Soviet military community always had some terrific innovative engineers (Though some of their innovation was designed because of flaws in their economic/political system).

I have two fundamental problems with the Russian/Ukrainian improvements in tank design. First, it is in BOTH the US and Russian military's best interest for the Russians to SAY they have a tank "twice as effective" as the M1A2. For the Russians, that means they get to make more money selling tanks. For the Americans, that means congress doesn't cut R&D money for newer, better, more expensive tanks. Therefore, while the stated improvements of Russian tanks may be true, I look at claims with some skepticism.

Second, the Russian "T-series" of tanks are still a cast-iron b*tch to fight, from the users perspective. They are too small, internally, to put electronics under armor protection. They have an auto-loader, which are slow, unreliable, and are susceptible to combat damage. You cannot depress the gun enough to fight the tank in offensive or mobile defensive battles. This means the tank must be fully exposed to fire a round, while in offensive, or mobile defensive battles. Most western tanks can assume a hasty hulldown position to fire at enemy vehicles due to their ability to depress the main gun. Also, I've seen the "evidence" and remain unconvinced the ERA is effective against KE rounds, as the Russians/Ukrainians are now claiming.

Though, lots of folks are starting to head toward better combat information systems, lighter tanks and smaller guns in order to identify enemy weaknesses and maneuver to less defended parts of formations and engage the heavy tank forces from the flanks and rear.

Posted by: NASH June 11, 2006 11:30 am
..but we could cut off 300 T 55 instead 300 TR 85..., T 80 was never involved in classic combat situations..., only in guerilla combat ..., and also US Army had lost some of their M1 Abrams in urban guerilla in Irak..., the tank is not made for urban guerilla warfare..., there are other weapon systems for that...,CFE don't tell what type of tank we should retire from service...only the number that we had to reduce...
some sources claimed that TR 85 M 1 frontal blindage is around 580 mm cast steel equivalent in strong...I doubt about.., Tr 85 M 1 turret frontal arc is made of cast steel..., and nobody knows from wich material is made the add on modular armour package mounted on his turret.., and his frontal plate is made from steel in layers..., the turret sides are too flat ..., the tank height is too big...around 3100 mm ..., the turret side is virtually unprotected..., I don't want to make you nervous I would like an opinion confrontation ...with no sentimental involed...
the tank is made for war not for showing it at expos..., instead 50 Tr 85 M 1 I would preffer 10 TR 2000...
You say T 72 is bad..., maybee..., but it performed well in Lebanon in 1982..., in Iran-Irak war ..., nobody knows how a russian 125 mm DU APFSDS can affect an Abrams...
The future is not for heavy tanks...is for light combat platform system..., very mobile , smart and very powerfull...look at US FCS...., look at russian T 95 wich is an intermediary step for that....
Ok , you maybee like TR 85 M 1 ...I like it too because it is ours
, but I propose to compare TR 85 M 1 with Oliphant MK2.. there are both upgrades..., wich is better ?

Posted by: NASH June 11, 2006 11:37 am
.... our question is " How good is the TR 85 M1 tank ? ".., I would say....not good enough !!...,sorry..., we could afford better...

Posted by: Imperialist June 11, 2006 12:09 pm
NASH, the fact is that Romania is not even a medium power. We are insignificant.

Posted by: NASH June 11, 2006 12:27 pm
You are right ...., but we are NATO and very soon UE member..., we had to change our mentality..., I've been in many countries as tourist...and believe me neither Greece is..., or Austria..., but they have a better management and a way better mentality...., we will never be a medium power but our voice can count...it depend on us....

Posted by: Imperialist June 11, 2006 12:46 pm
QUOTE (NASH @ Jun 11 2006, 12:27 PM)
You are right ...., but we are NATO and very soon UE member..., we had to change our mentality..., I've been in many countries as tourist...and believe me neither Greece is..., or Austria..., but they have a better management and a way better mentality...., we will never be a medium power but our voice can count...it depend on us....

Greece has a GDP roughly 3 times bigger than ours, and Austria one 4 times bigger. I think they can afford a better mentality.

Posted by: NASH June 11, 2006 07:59 pm
....management and mentality made GDP..., in 1930 Greece had a half of Romanian GDP...!!

Posted by: NASH June 11, 2006 08:03 pm
If we continue to think like that...soon we can afford...nothing...smile.gif

Posted by: NASH June 11, 2006 08:19 pm
Imperialist .., I've seen that you are younger than me...and I expected a little more from you..., simply we can not think like that...,we have to trust in us...,you are 4 years younger and your generation must change mine..., we have to change our mentality , we have to work harder..., we have to think clearly...and our GDP will grow.....

Posted by: Zayets June 11, 2006 08:33 pm
Imperialist is an optimist smile.gif
Actually it even rhymes smile.gif

Posted by: Imperialist June 11, 2006 10:01 pm
QUOTE (NASH @ Jun 11 2006, 08:19 PM)
Imperialist .., I've seen that you are younger than me...and I expected a little more from you..., simply we can not think like that...,we have to trust in us...,you are 4 years younger and your generation must change mine..., we have to change our mentality , we have to work harder..., we have to think clearly...and our GDP will grow.....

"f**k You Romania" was pretty much appreciated among the people of my age, at least among the ones I know and talked with. And they dont seem so interested in hard work. Going through school was a joy ride, nothing hard, eventually even the stiffest teacher gave them the 5. Usually they got the 8 with a good copy and paste job. Only the idiots worked hard, and the joke was very sour on them when they got the 6 or 7, anyway lower than the copy and paste guys. laugh.gif But go ahead and expect a lot from the coming generations. laugh.gif The system in this state is a f*ing joke. It certainly doesnt prepare anyone for hard work, it even discourages it.

Anyway, to get back on topic -- can Romania build a tank by itself?

Posted by: 120mm June 11, 2006 10:21 pm
I think that with a clear vision and persistence in whatever niche Romania wants to fill, it can be a fairly prosperous country. I think the relatively small size of the country can be a strength.

Romania doesn't have to develop any weapon systems from scratch; You can pick and choose those "off-the-shelf" technologies that can benefit your system the most. And to a certain extent, your ministry of defense is already doing that.

I have picked up a certain "inferiority complex" from some of the Romanians I've corresponded with. I think that needs to be addressed, as well as the physical improvements to the infrastructure.

Historically, many elite military forces have been born in similar situations. People with a "chip on their shoulders" tend to make incredible elite forces. All that is needed is a leadership that understands what resonates with your country.

To get back on topic, I believe the TR85-M1 tank is fine, considering the current threat. I would say the most probable threat to Romania is economic, not military.

I would think Romania may be able to build something like the CV90120, which would be deployable and "smart" and use the TR85-M1 as a home/built-up defense tank.

Posted by: Victor June 12, 2006 06:46 am
NASH, you can edit your posts if you think you have to add something to it (just push the Edit button in the top right corner of the post). You don't have to post three times in a row.

Also, please get back to the original subject and leave the discussion on Romania for another topic.

Posted by: Iamandi June 12, 2006 07:03 am
QUOTE
I would think Romania may be able to build something like the CV90120, which would be deployable and "smart" and use the TR85-M1 as a home/built-up defense tank.


CV 90 familly is a nice dream, unfortunatelly. You are right, we can use the TR85 - M1 in reduced roles, and with an army equiped with CV 90 vechicles... we will be a different power and a nation more capable to act in the new battlefields, with much capable armoured vechicles deployable with the C-130.
Dream: with some money, we can obtain a vechicle based on CV 90, but armed with more powerfull 57 m.m. Bofors...

Iama

Posted by: NASH June 12, 2006 07:27 am
K , I 'll do it so... No ,I don't think Romania can built a new mbt completly by itself....,not know..., but we could cooperate with other nations, like Poland ...and make a new one based on common projects..., we also could take a license ... The TR 2000 project was a good ideea..., based on Leopard II MK 5.., we don't need 1200 TR 2000, only 300 would be enough...
We need to use our resources wisely....not to spend them on non valid projects.., TR 2000 could be something we could export..., new technologies.., large industrial cooperation..., know how...Pols ,they have a similar project named Gorilla..., could be a good start for a cooperation..

Posted by: deadmanwalking July 19, 2006 07:31 pm
why doesn't Romania develop HESH munitions for TR-85 instead? this would be especially advantageous to the TR-85 because it doesn't have a powerful main gun and this type of munition doesn't have to penetrate the armour to cause damage. on impact the warhead flatens over the armour causing a shockwave that travels through the armour and sending little fragments off the inside armour against the crew and equipment.

Posted by: Imperialist August 12, 2006 02:17 pm
So if I understood well from this thread our upgraded TR-85s cannot fire ATGMs through their gun? Why didnt they have that in mind when upgrading them? Can they place ATGMs on top/sides of the tank then?

thanku

Posted by: deadmanwalking August 13, 2006 03:39 pm
I think because Romania will have to buy new ATGM's from Russia. The only missile fit to be fired from 100mm gun is Basnya and since HEAt rounds depend a lot on their diameter to penetrate armour 100mm makes a pretty weak missile. but it's possible to have our improved AT-3 fired from a pod like slovenian t-55s1. at least that's what I think the pod (side turret) is for...

user posted image

Posted by: AlexC August 13, 2006 03:50 pm
How useful is this tank because they are easy targets for ATGM teams especially if they have modern missiles like the Javelin, Spike, TOW-2B, Bill-2, Kornet and others.

Posted by: D13-th_Toppy August 13, 2006 03:59 pm
QUOTE (deadmanwalking @ August 13, 2006 03:39 pm)
at least that's what I think the pod (side turret) is for...

those look more like smoke grenade launchers

Posted by: deadmanwalking August 13, 2006 04:31 pm
you are probably right toppy

Alexc,

maybe. but you can't win a war with atgm's against modern tanks. you heard lebanese prime minister Siniora choking on tears and saying to reporters that Israel's army set back Lebanon several decades back from the recent invasion. lebanese infrastructure is gone, hundreds thousands displaced civilians and maybe a thousand dead. hezbollah won't be able to pull something like they just did until the next 25 years. I guess we have different theories on what and army should be. if prolonged guerrila style war with huge civilian casualties is what you want it's fine by me. this is for countries who can't afford to buy shit. but romania is not THAT poor.

I'm not going to discuss the effectiveness of ATGM's again. if you care to read what I wrote in the other thread maybe I will respond to you.

ps: sorry Victor

Posted by: AlexC August 13, 2006 04:34 pm
No deadmanwalking you got me wrong we should follow the Canadian model.

Posted by: deadmanwalking August 13, 2006 04:37 pm
QUOTE (AlexC @ August 13, 2006 04:34 pm)
No deadmanwalking you got me wrong we should follow the Canadian model.

what's that?

Posted by: AlexC August 13, 2006 04:48 pm
Aren't they scrapping the Leopard C2 (Leo 1A5) and replace them with the Striker Mobile Gun System?

Posted by: Imperialist August 13, 2006 04:52 pm
QUOTE (deadmanwalking @ August 13, 2006 03:39 pm)
but it's possible to have our improved AT-3 fired from a pod like slovenian t-55s1.

Rather like the Peruvian T55M1 Leon:

http://miarroba.com/foros/ver.php?foroid=320662&temaid=4452908&pag=3

Posted by: deadmanwalking August 13, 2006 04:53 pm
I live in Montreal and I had no idea. laugh.gif

yeah, that's an excellent idea.

can you tell me more about the gun?

Posted by: AlexC August 13, 2006 05:00 pm
Here's a link

http://www.deagel.com/pandora/m1128-stryker-mgs_pm00095003.aspx

Or something better a CV-90 with a 120mm gun

http://www.deagel.com/pandora/cv90120_pm00019008.aspx

Posted by: deadmanwalking August 13, 2006 05:00 pm
QUOTE (Imperialist @ August 13, 2006 04:52 pm)
QUOTE (deadmanwalking @ August 13, 2006 03:39 pm)
but it's possible to have our improved AT-3 fired from a pod like slovenian t-55s1.

Rather like the Peruvian T55M1 Leon:

http://miarroba.com/foros/ver.php?foroid=320662&temaid=4452908&pag=3

not bad...
considering the tr-85m1's main gun has an optimal penetration of 450mm in terms of KE..... we might as well have it fire only HE rounds and ATGM from main gun, like BMP-3. like someone else said in this thread, what's the point of having excellent fire control system that enables the bizon to hit targets at 4000m if it has serious problems defeating modern tanks at point blank biggrin.gif

Posted by: Imperialist August 13, 2006 05:40 pm
QUOTE (deadmanwalking @ August 13, 2006 04:31 pm)
if prolonged guerrila style war with huge civilian casualties is what you want it's fine by me. this is for countries who can't afford to buy shit. but romania is not THAT poor.

Romania needs modern ATGMs. Whether they'll use them with guerilla forces or with conventional forces, that's a second and mostly "to-be-seen" issue.

Posted by: tomcat1974 August 14, 2006 10:43 am
Romania has good ATGM missiles. Unless it eluded you guys...
Spike ER and SpikeLR are in Romanian usage. Also Maliutka 2T has also a good penetration >900 mm RHA (is the improved version with a the Tandem warhead from Milan 2 I think)

Posted by: 120mm August 14, 2006 11:13 am
The Stryker MGS would be a disaster for Romania. It has truly awful maneuverability and off-road capabilities. My understanding is that the TR85 was adapted to local (Romanian) terrain? I would guess that with challenging terrain to begin with, any wheeled MGS would be a failure.

One thing about the antitank systems mentioned: Antitank gunners, whether tube or rocket, are generally dead the moment they fire. Of course, it may take a few seconds to actually kill them, but their lack of armor protection and mobility is a death sentence, unless you are fighting from a built-up area and the other guys' armor is unsupported by infantry.

Lots of folks are reacting to a few pictures on the news of smoking tanks. Most of these folks are completely ignorant of tanks, other than said pictures or book knowledge. Used correctly, the tank is alive and well.

And 4000 meters is a good range for the 100mm gun on a TR85M1 to obliterate an ATGM team, or an infantry fighting vehicle or wheeled AFV.

Posted by: Imperialist August 14, 2006 04:12 pm
QUOTE (tomcat1974 @ August 14, 2006 10:43 am)
Spike ER and SpikeLR are in Romanian usage.

We have? I only knew about AT-3s and AT-4s.

Posted by: tomcat1974 August 14, 2006 04:18 pm
one more thing .. Soviets got gun fired ATGM because of the lack of precision of their FCS. So they compensated by firing gided missiles for targets abobe 2000 m.

BTW Israel manufacture the LAHAT gun fired ATGM smile.gif we might get them wink.gif

Posted by: tomcat1974 August 14, 2006 04:22 pm
QUOTE (Imperialist @ August 14, 2006 04:12 pm)
QUOTE (tomcat1974 @ August 14, 2006 10:43 am)
Spike ER and SpikeLR are in Romanian usage.

We have? I only knew about AT-3s and AT-4s.

yes ..see the rafael turret for MLI-84M ... is modular with spike LT module or with Maliutka 2T

the Spike ER is in the usage of the IAR-330 SOCAT's

Posted by: AlexC August 14, 2006 04:26 pm
QUOTE
BTW Israel manufacture the LAHAT gun fired ATGM smile.gif we might get them wink.gif


You need 105 or 120mm guns for the LAHAT.

Posted by: deadmanwalking August 14, 2006 04:38 pm
Spike ER? Only vehicles/gunships in romanian service that fire ATGM are TABC, MLI-84 and IAR-330 SOCAT. From what I read and seen in pictures they are armed with Sagger and X-5 for iar 330. and only man portable ATGM we have is AT-4 and probably AT-5

" In addition to the ‘Sagger’-armed BRDM-2s, which operate with the support company, the 812th’s other anti-armour assets comprise the 9K113 (AT-5 ‘Spandrel’) anti-tank missile and the Romanian version of the SPG-9 73mm recoilless rifle."
http://www.janes.com/defence/land_forces/gallery/kfor/kfor_intro.shtml

what are you sources for Spike?

though I found this:

"SPIKE goes operational


All of the system components, as well as the different missile variants, are already in full-scale production. For its European customers (currently Finland, Poland and the Netherlands, to be followed in future by Romania and Italy)"
http://www.rheinmetall.de/index.php?lang=3&fid=1515

articles dates back to february 2005

Posted by: deadmanwalking August 14, 2006 04:59 pm
but I still think to rely on ATGM is a bad idea.
can only carry very few MLI-84 is armed with 4 of them. same goes for man portable ones.
the first couple might never hit the target anyway. first MLI-84 has no thermal imaging.
so it can't see through smoke. in this case the premitive laser warning receivers + smoke grenades works
like a charm gainst the MLI's missiles and pretty much any MBT has smoke launchers and LWR. then there are the
active protection systems like VIRSS (on western tanks) and arena, shtora and drozd (on eastern tanks) can
easily destroy or deviate incoming missiles. and if by chance a missile does hit the target, chances are it won't
make the tank inoperative. like 120mm said, as soon as media sees smoke and fire on a tank they think it's destroyed and goes to
scrap yard. I'd like to see the pictures of the merkavas destroyed by hezbollah..

Posted by: deadmanwalking August 14, 2006 05:47 pm
here's a video of merkava hit by missile on the right side and again by several RPG rounds. i don't know what happened to the crew but the tank seems to have survived the attacks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltCxHIWj658

Posted by: tomcat1974 August 14, 2006 08:51 pm
QUOTE (deadmanwalking @ August 14, 2006 04:38 pm)
Spike ER? Only vehicles/gunships in romanian service that fire ATGM are TABC, MLI-84 and IAR-330 SOCAT. From what I read and seen in pictures they are armed with Sagger and X-5 for iar 330. and only man portable ATGM we have is AT-4 and probably AT-5

For Spike on MLI
http://www.mfaromania.ro/ows.htm
http://www.mfaromania.ro/mlitech.htm
from the MLI-84M producer.(they must know something don't they?smile.gif

Would export licence list do? wink.gif http://www.sipri.org/contents/armstrad/REG_EXP_ISR_95-05.pdf

one more link
http://rafael.co.il/web/rafnew/news/news/Romania%20-%20SPIKE-LR0703.pdf
Copyright Rafael


Is a long standard procedure of the Army to use in training the oldes projectile which aproach their shelf limit, those consuming them in a usefull way.

Posted by: Achtung Panzer!!!!!!!!! February 16, 2009 03:40 pm
Question: Do you know how many TR125's did Romania produce?
Answer: Five TR-125 were produced when the 1989 revolution begun.

Posted by: Achtung Panzer!!!!!!!!! February 16, 2009 04:39 pm
From the very beginnig I would like to say that you have been posting here a lot of good information and I must say that few of you had really good ideas.
So regarding the question "How good is the TR-85 M1 Bison?" I must say that is the mbt we can afford at this time. Some of you are intrigued by the 50t of the product. Well you said about the enrichment in the armor area but I think you have left out the tracks, which are changed and they are not like the ones in the original product TR-800(TR-85), the motric wheel(sorry if it is wrong spelled) is different and it is much bigger, the equipment inside is quite a lot and ads more weight to the product. All in all (in my opinion), the weight of the product is not around 50t, is more like 48t-49t. Okay, fully equipped is exceeding 50t, because the main gun has 41 rounds, the 7,62mm coaxial machine gun has 5000 rounds, the anti-aircraft gun 12,7mm DSKM has 750 rounds, the smoke grenades are 16 in number and the flare grenades only 4. To fill it up with fuel you need 960l of diesel fuel and with aditional barrels 400l of diesel. So you go fully equipped from 48t to 52,5t. You add 2,5t to the general weight of the product. The TR-800 was 46t and fully eqiupped reached 48,5t. And you must not forget that the groud base for TR-85M1 are actually the T-55 and Leopard 1. The turret is from the T-55 and the chassis, engine and transmission are from Leopard1.
In the '80s the Romanian secret services had in their hangars 2 tanks - Leopard 1 and Merkava. And someone made a choice. And you see now the results.
The contract with the power plant which is upgrading theese mbt's is for 56 TR-85M1's and one evacuation vehicle build on the same chassis and one or two assault bridges, also build on the same chassis. Plus the power pland built the new mine clearence vehicle for the Mbt's battalions called DMT 85 M1, search the web and you will find it. And in the ROU ARMY at this moment there aren't more than 35 TR-85M1 because they are very slow in upgrading products.
So my armored friends enthusiasts we fight with what we have. If the MOD is not willing to pay more money for the Land Armed Forces the ROU ARMY is forced to buy cheap materiels to upgrade the arsenal. The guys from the power plant told that they had engines up to 1200 bhp but they did what they had to do. Adapt to the budget, military budget.
And there are products with thermal view camera, which is quite good I must say, but 'cause it's very expensive, products are coming in the unit only with 2nd generation night passive light intensifier which allows you to fire up to 1200m, if they work properly.
If the politicians decide to take money from the MOD they do it without any questions and the ROU ARMY is to suffer the consequencies. So in my opinion, and others, of course, is the best we can have right now. Maybe in the near future we will have some LEOPARD 2 A5, I have heard some rumours. Meanwhile people are working with TR-85M1 product.

Posted by: Stephen Dabapuscu February 18, 2009 12:08 am
If Romania can get any Leopard 2-A5 then it should! Romania has so missed the opportunity to buy cheap Leopards 2-A4's like Poland, Finland, and Chile have done. sad.gif

Posted by: Victor April 15, 2010 09:33 am
A one hour BBC3 show with the TR-85M1:
http://www.peteava.ro/id-488713

Posted by: Mayola Wider August 04, 2011 07:52 am
How many gallons of petrol or gasoline did most tanks in WWII carry inside them?
how this was? how about other military vehicles? and how much fuel would be burned per mile/ km or how many miles or km could one go with on 1 gallon of petrol or gasoline?

also, was this gasoline "Diesal" or which grade it was? HOW THEY WERE ABLE TO KEEP SO MANY TANKS FUELED ALL THE TIME? AND WHY THE ROMANIANS WERE GIVING THE GERMANS THEIR OIL? WHY THE ALLIES COULDNT TAKE THIS FROM THEM?

please explain what you can.

thanks for your answers!

Posted by: Radub August 04, 2011 08:46 am
QUOTE (Mayola Wider @ August 04, 2011 07:52 am)
How many gallons of petrol or gasoline did most tanks in WWII carry inside them?
how this was? how about other military vehicles? and how much fuel would be burned per mile/ km or how many miles or km could one go with on 1 gallon of petrol or gasoline?

also, was this gasoline "Diesal" or which grade it was? HOW THEY WERE ABLE TO KEEP SO MANY TANKS FUELED ALL THE TIME? AND WHY THE ROMANIANS WERE GIVING THE GERMANS THEIR OIL? WHY THE ALLIES COULDNT TAKE THIS FROM THEM?

please explain what you can.

thanks for your answers!

Your question has nothing to do with the TR 85.

How much fuel did tanks use? That is impossible to say. It is like asking "how much fuel do cars use today?". You will need to narrow it down to weight and type. No two tanks were the same, even when they were the same weight and powered by the same engine. There are thousands of variable at play. You will need to research individual types by yourself.

How much did they travel? Tanks are not "long distance travellers". Most of them are transported to the battle scene on trains or trailers. Same happens today. Once they were on the battlefield, they travelled as much as they needed to win the battle or get destroyed. That may mean 10, 20 maybe 30 Km. Tanks did not have long lives.

How were they able to fuel them? Fuel was transported by tanker trains, then the fuel was transferred to fuel tankers, then to oil drums, then transferred by hand pumps or pure gravity into the fuel tanks of the tank itself. You must remember that war did not happen everywhere all the time. "War" happened only at the frontline. Behind the front line, life went on, crops were harvested, trains ran on some kind of schedule, people worked in factories, movies were filmed and orchestras recorded music. Each side controlled a certain area of land, which allowed them to move and bring supplies. Encircled forces (meaning those forces that lost the lines of supplies) were supplied by air such as it happened with the Germans in Stalingrad or by water (and later by ice) such as it happened with the Russians in Leningrad.

Gasoline or Diesel? Germans preferred Diesel (they even tinkered with Diesel-electric), Americans preferred gasoline. Shermans were nicknamed "Zippos" (as in the cigarette lighters) because they caught fire very easily. Unlike gasoline, Diesel does not light up as easily - Diesel has the advantage, when it comes to military hardware. Grade? Same any truck of today, nothing fancy.

Romanians were not "giving" oil to the Germans. They sold it to them. With that money they purchased equipment and kept the country going. The "Allies" tried and largely succeeded in "taking it" from them. Does the date of 1 August 1943 mean anything to you? wink.gif A few other significant and similar events followed after that date and all the way through the first half of 1944. 23 August 1944 put an end to supplies of oil to the Germans.

HTH
Radu


Posted by: dead-cat August 05, 2011 04:13 pm
a Tiger for example would use about 210 gallons of fuel on a road and about 300 cross country for 100 miles travelled.
the fuel tank capacity was 229 gallons.
from there you can do the math.

Posted by: Fulcrum89 August 14, 2011 04:08 am
The TR-85M1 is huge improvement over the basic TR-85. However the 100mm main gun is far too weak against current generation MBT's! At least a 120mm or 125mm gun would be much better. smile.gif

Posted by: ANDREAS October 20, 2011 09:53 pm
QUOTE
...And you must not forget that the groud base for TR-85M1 are actually the T-55 and Leopard 1. The turret is from the T-55 and the chassis, engine and transmission are from Leopard1.
In the '80s the Romanian secret services had in their hangars 2 tanks - Leopard 1 and Merkava. And someone made a choice. And you see now the results...

Achtung Panzer!!!!!!!!!,
Although the subject of the origin of TR-77/-85 tanks is totally unknown to the general public, and even military experts have not really talked about it, they were the result of collaboration with the Chinese military industry. The chinese specialists obviously haven't revealed all their Type 80 tank best components (with Western technologies) but the basic components are alike! I personally heard a tank specialist telling about working together with the Chinese in the romanian tank project.
http://www.sinodefence.com/army/tank/type88.asp -this is certainly a more developed and modern design then ours TR-series but see the general design!
About the Merkava story, it was widely chronicled by Pacepa and later by other less compromised intelligence officers... no Merkava for sure, just a modernized Centurion (Sho't Kal) captured, and indeed studied by our specialists... surely I heard also about the Leopard tank but don't know for sure...

Posted by: Mircea87 October 21, 2011 09:12 am
QUOTE (ANDREAS @ October 20, 2011 09:53 pm)
Achtung Panzer!!!!!!!!!,
Although the subject of the origin of TR-77/-85 tanks is totally unknown to the general public, and even military experts have not really talked about it, they were the result of collaboration with the Chinese military industry. The chinese specialists obviously haven't revealed all their Type 80 tank best components (with Western technologies) but the basic components are alike! I personally heard a tank specialist telling about working together with the Chinese in the romanian tank project.
http://www.sinodefence.com/army/tank/type88.asp -this is certainly a more developed and modern design then ours TR-series but see the general design!
About the Merkava story, it was widely chronicled by Pacepa and later by other less compromised intelligence officers... no Merkava for sure, just a modernized Centurion (Sho't Kal) captured, and indeed studied by our specialists... surely I heard also about the Leopard tank but don't know for sure...

There is no credible source that mentions this theory with the Type 80 as the origin of the TR-85. The tank has a number of parts with Chinese origins, but overall it is certainly not a collaboration with China.

Posted by: ANDREAS October 21, 2011 06:59 pm
Mircea87, you also can be right in terms of Romanian-Chinese cooperation in the production of the TR-580 and TR-800 tanks. As I said the source cited by me is questionable (he says that he was a military engineer and worked in the 23 August factories in Bucharest) in in the sense that the Romanian-Chinese cooperation could materialize only on some components of the tank f.i. (making his statement to be true) and maybe even after the production started. I believe his claim because I saw many similarities between our TR-580 and the chinese Type-80. However I must admit that there are some temporal inconsistencies since our tank appeared in 1977 and the Chinese only after 1980... But still I do not exclude the idea of ​​a collaboration in the design of tanks between Romania and China, without this necessarily lead to a joint execution of TR-580 tank.

Posted by: Mircea87 October 21, 2011 09:13 pm
TR-580 is a licensed built T-55. The chassis was extended in order to accommodate a larger Leopard 1 engine. West Germany refused to give the license for the engine and, as such, the tank used the initial extended chassis and the V-2 engine of the T-55 (which, by some sources, was of Polish origin until we were able to produce it locally). The government decided to use the extended chassis anyway because it could later retrofit it.

Posted by: ANDREAS October 22, 2011 10:45 am
Ok Mircea87, I can believe that!
Once I don't have solid evidence (documents or testimonies) of the jointly construction or cooperation of our tank with China, it's very possible that you told the truth! Or why not that the chinese inspired themselves from our design?
But back to the subject "How good is the TR 85-M1 tank?", I think that is an acceptable tank who missed the chance to be even a good tank! I repeat what was already said in this topic, namely that an ERA add-on armor on the turret and on the front and side of the chassis and also a 125mm A555 smoothbore main gun planned for TR-125 could make him a strong competitive tank! It isn't fair to compare him with the newest ukrainean T-55AGM tank, as long as the ukrainian tank appeared only few years ago, but I am sure that this T-55AGM is better than ours. It's questionable if the Russian tank T-55M5 or the slovene T-55S1 (M-55S1) are better or not but the fact is our tank could be better. The good thing is however that the romanian BM-412M cartidge for the 100mm gun can penetrate 418mm of armor at 2000m and 380mm of armor at 3000m. That means that in theory the T-72, T-72M or T-64A (all of them without ERA) armor can be pierced by a frontal shot. My question is : what about T-64BV (transnistrian and ukraineans have it!) or the better T-64BM Bulat not to talk about the T-80BV/-80U or UD or the newer T-84/Oplot and Oplot-M? I agree that in the 1992 war in Transnistria some russian/transnistrean T-64BV were destroyed by the moldavian MT-12 "Rapira" AT guns (so our A407 100mm anti-tank gun M1977 can do the same) but what to do with the more advanced tanks...?

Posted by: Mircea87 October 22, 2011 07:38 pm
First of all, ERA armour is pretty expensive, it is sort of heavy for a tank which is already underpowered and is only useful against HEAT/HESH rounds and small anti-tank weapons. The penetrator rod of a sabot round could theoretically be deflected, but in practice it's rather hard to achieve such a result. For example, Kontakt 5 reduces APFSDS penetration only by about 20-35%. If you install a 125 mm gun in a tank with a prolonged hemispherical turret, you need to have an automatic loader or you'll have less than 20 rounds available. You also need to modify the recoil mechanism and you need to balance the heavy weight of the gun. These changes would result in a rather obscene price for the TR-85M1, which is already expensive for the age of the design and actual capabilities.

The Russian conducted a number of tests in the 1980s with an Israeli 105mm M111 APFSDS. They found out that it could penetrate the glacis armour of T-72s and early T-80s. That's why they installed 20mm add-on armour on the T-80B. After 1990, the US Army conducted a number of tests with T-80U and T-72B. Their 120 mm ammo had difficulty penetrating the armour of these tanks. The TR-85M1 is likely unable to penetrate the frontal armour of the late models T-80, while it its own frontal armour can easily be penetrated by using advanced 125 mm ammo. From the side, both tanks can destroy each other, no doubt about it.

TR-85M1 could probably penetrate the frontal armour of the T-64BV, especially in the hull glacis:

Israeli M111 Hetz AP stats: 310mm at 2km (150 mm for armour at 60°)
Romanian/Israeli M309 AP stats: 418mm at 2 km

The turret glacis is rather hard to penetrate for both T-64BV and Bulat. The question of how good is the TR-85M1 vs T-64s is irrelevant since there are over 2000 T-64 tanks in service in Ukraine while RoArmy only has 54 TR-85M1 tanks. It will be overrun in a matter of days, by enemy fire or attrition rates.

Posted by: ANDREAS October 23, 2011 04:40 pm
Thanks Mircea for some new informations I didn't know (the soviet tests with israeli ammo)!
I read about the German army (Bundeswehr) tests after 1990 on East German T-72M and M1 tanks, but also on T-64B and T-80B (the last two don't know where they would have had?) after which they said their Leopard 2 tanks are far superior to any of the soviet ones (in terms of protection and firepower)! So for those who plead for the purchase of Leopard 2 tanks by the Romanian army the answer is YES! Do it! (if we can?!)
About the T-64BV tanks, I was first thinking at Transnistrians tanks (only 18!), not the Ukraineans, since I am one of those who say that any (military) conflict with Ukraine would have for as the same consequences as for Georgia the war with Russia...
Indeed the small number of TR-85M1 is decisive, so that any discussion about his combat value of is slightly useless...

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)