How good is the TR 85-M1 tank?

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?

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.

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

This post has been edited by deadmanwalking on November 21, 2005 04:16 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.

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.

This post has been edited by 120mm on May 29, 2006 07:34 pm

Does anybody know why TR-85M1/M2 weighs 50 tonnes?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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 ? I heard something about 600 HRA armor resistance.

It`s bigger because they were thinking at the whole T chain...

well if 50 t is monstrous then 70 t M1A1 is absolutelly obeze tank then.

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…

This post has been edited by Agarici on May 30, 2006 12:12 pm

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.


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??

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]

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/veh...t/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.