How good is the TR 85-M1 tank?

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...

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?

..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 ?!

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.

sergent...you are not realistic..., TR 85 M 1 is not an Abrams..., and first russian tanks in Cechnia had no ERA...

....and RPG 7 is A HEAT warhead ...

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.

..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 !!)....

...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...

..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...

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.

Because we lost the cold war and signed disarmament treaties.

http://www.defenselink.mil/acq/acic/treati...ction_tanks.htm

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.

This post has been edited by 120mm on June 10, 2006 01:23 pm

..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 ?

.... our question is " How good is the TR 85 M1 tank ? ".., I would say....not good enough !!...,sorry..., we could afford better...