How good is the TR 85-M1 tank?

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?

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.

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.

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. 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.

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 Ministry of Defence 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.

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/heavyg...ygear/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?

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.

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?

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.

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.p...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:

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.

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

Iama, thats a T-59...

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

Iama, thats a T-59...

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

Fragments from:

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

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

Iama