>be Poland >have 500+ T-72 tanks Would you modernize,

>>34918729
Modernize with AESTHETICS in mind.

exchange them for 500 T-72 tanks' worth in hussars

>>34918729
use them against Russians simple
Poles are not gonna counter M1

>>34918729
Probably see what deal I could work out for first line Abrams or Leopards with the Americans or Germans.

500 T72s would be an overwhelming force in most of the third world, but Poland's main threat is Russia, and they're expected to keep on par with other NATO forces, operationally.

>>34918729
>sell or MELT

>>34918729
Those are early models, most with only steel armor, pretty hopeless. Those that have not been upgraded to PT-91 standard should be phased out, maybe sold to Africa.

>>34918729
Sell them. The amount of effort it takes to scrap tanks isn't worth it unless they have exotic components, and the T-72 is way, way past its prime especially when going against an army that knows its specifications inside an out and has already devised a thousand ways to counter them with their experience in the Ukraine. Use the money to fund the Stealth Tank program and/or replace them with a smaller amount of modernized western tanks.

>>34918729
The cost to modernize them properly would behalf the original cost at the minimum. If they could upgrade them to T-72B3 equivalent then they MIGHT be worth it. I think selling though, at the end of the day, would make more sense, put that money into their Leopard fleet.

>>34918729
Selling them and buying a couple of battalions' worth of M1A2s would be a huge upgrade in their armored forces' power.

>>34918833
They'd be better off with Leopard 2's, which is the way they're going anyway.

File: Mickey.jpg (31KB, 380x247px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 380x247px

Keep and invest in ATGM instead.

>>34918729
Well you could sell... But would you get your moneys worth and from whom?

>>34918851
Hollywood /
Peoples Republic of California

File: Err Mah Gerd 02.png (198KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

198KB, 640x360px

>>34918876
You may be onto something there...

>>34918729
Sell them to Ukraine.

>>34918729
Malysia for whatever reason buys modernized version of that aka pt91 twardy.
I'd just modernise rest of them and try to sell it to them.

File: PT91_Twardy_MSPO09.jpg (661KB, 2414x1283px) Image search: [Google]

661KB, 2414x1283px

>>34918813
>PT-91
The active armor on these doesn't look very comprehensive. Still better than nothing though.

>everyone here suggesting selling T-72s & buying new tanks when poles have a perfectly good upgrade waiting to be implemented

File: 1024px-Marksman_SPAAG.jpg (168KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

168KB, 1024x768px

Convert into AA i guess or something.

>>34918890
This is probably what's going to happen tbqh

Convert them into stationary gun installations

>>34918729
Sell to India.

Buy Chinese VT4.

>>34918729
modernize then sell

>>34918978
This may not be as shitty of an idea as it sounds. A lot of countries has done this near their coast. Maintanence costs is almost nonexistant and sure, they can be taken out rather easy, but its still 500 more targets you need to waste bombs on before you send in your landing crafts.

>>34918978
>>34919018
*or* you could just take the turrets to use as coastal artillery & put new turrets on your perfectly good T-72 hulls, maybe use composites to make the new turret lighter & then add applique armor to the hull if you think its protection is lacking.

>>34919039
Yeah, I implied that they only used the turrets for this.

Sell them to the Philippines. They desperately need cheap MBTs

>>34919018

They are more of an economic threat than anything else.

Too static to simply use in ambushes and too short for naval warfare, the enemy can just park beyond the range of the guns and use their bigger guns on them without even wasting missiles.

>>34919054
The thing is, you win time and get to know were the landings is to take place.

Sure, they are of little value against ships, but they will need to be taken out before the landing crafts come in.

>>34918925
Not really. PT-16 is bait and Polish T-72s that were of newer versions were upgraded to PT-91 (which is still not enough for modern battlefield).

File: 1200px-100_56_TK_Kuivasaari_2009-08-02.jpg (441KB, 1200x900px) Image search: [Google]

441KB, 1200x900px

>>34919054
tanks are also easy to disable: just snipe the optics from a mile away.

Seriously, hitting MBT turrets from beyond the horizon isn't nearly as easy as you seem to think.

File: Decoy_100_56_TK_Kuivasaari_3.jpg (4MB, 2400x1800px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 2400x1800px

>>34919097
plus if you fabricate two decoys for each real gun & be smart about how you use them you'll force the enemy to spend three times the resources for little more than the cost of the real guns

File: 1417001188487.jpg (81KB, 980x474px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 980x474px

>>34918729
Moderna-ize

>>34919054
Not with the 76 mm they won't.

>>34918729
sell/gib to ukraine

>>34919481
why would ukraine want shitty T-72s when all their current stocks are T-80UDs and T-84s? Only sub-Saharan Africans, Flips and private Western buyers want them.

convert them into drones.

>>34919579
Most Ukranian tanks are T-64s.

>>34919153
>coastal artillery in 2k17
>no mobility
>no range
>its a fucking rustbucket of a tank

Either scrap them, or use them to arm some sort of militia / reserve force with the intention of replacing them very soon. Nobody will buy them, so don't even bother.

>>34919614
T-64s > monkey model t-72s

File: 758931.jpg (254KB, 1600x923px) Image search: [Google]

254KB, 1600x923px

>>34919615
the pic related is a decoy from a network of coastal defenses that was declared obsolete in early 00s, we still have some domestic manufacture 130mm cannons in similar turrets that are in use as a supplement for mobile AShM launchers because the turrets are there, there's lots of ammo for them & completely replacing them with more missile launchers would be expensive.

>>34919644
*the pic related in the post you are referring to is a decoy, the gun in >>34919644 is the 130mm domestic cannon.

File: Landsort_ERSTA_2011a.jpg (1MB, 3075x2283px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3075x2283px

>>34919644
Obsolete by whoms standard? A tank gun doesn't even come close to an actual coastal artillery gun, and even those aren't relevant. A lot of countries built these systems during the 70s justifying it by saying that it's cheaper than developing a missile based defence with similar capacity for firepower. These were quickly deemed obsolete, as missile technology developed rapidly and mobility becoming a much bigger factor. But since the batteries were already built, they were kept "in service" only for the reason that they were already built.

This is a 12cm ERSTA turret in Landsort, Sweden. Probably the absolute pinnacle in coastal artillery turrets, both in terms of protection, firepower and operational capacity and was very technologically advanced in terms of radar and communications systems and NBC-protection; and im fairly sure that it still far outclasses anything in its category.

However, they're still static coastal artillery pieces, and was generally regarded as obsolete by mid-80s.

>>34919764
>Obsolete by whoms standard?
ok maybe "declared obsolete" wasn't the right term mr. Pedantic, obviously I meant that the coastal batteries consisting of those turrets were deactivated, by which I mean they are no longer manned & the defense planners don't have crews and supplies designated for them.

>>34919615
>>34919764

View them more like tank traps or barbed wire. Sure, it will not stop anyone but it will cost them time and resourses.

The T-72s are aldredy in inventory so why note use them.

>>34919764

The Swedish costal artillery wanted to keep them (with a few uppgrades and decent AA they were considered viable) but they were all removed when the coastal artillery was converted to the Amphibious corps.

Sure, buildning new ones wasnt considered effective at all but for the cost it took to remove them and restore the enviroment they could have been keept in reserve for 50 years...

>>34919764

I don't know why but having a fat fucking artillery gun on top of a little stone bunker in a nice little grassy area of Sweden sounds comfy. I wonder if there is enough room to make a cute little chill room.

>spend the day organizing 120mm shells, cleaning, and taking care of precious gun
>have a cup of joe and some pipe on glorious Scandinavian wood furniture next to gun
>renovating bunker for security, comfy factor, and living
>taking long walks in Swedish country side
>hunting game with glorious 6.5x55 Mauser
>inviting qt blonde Swede gf for doggy style on top of gun
>anger borking at Norwegian vessel that won't fuck off Swedish waters

I require big gun in my life. Not smol gun. Why is life empty?

>>34918890
Best idea

>>34919764
>25 rounds per minute

ayy

File: ERSTA.png (742KB, 584x770px) Image search: [Google]

742KB, 584x770px

>>34920050
There is well over enough space.

>>34920058
Pretty impressive huh?

>>34920089
Fixed cannons made in the 1970s aren't that impressive. Compared to costal missile batteries.

>>34918729
Given Russia's current aggressive actions in Eastern Europe, I'd think the Poles would like to hold on to them as a reserve force, or modernize and deploy.

>>34920149
>>Compared to costal missile batteries.
>be Åke
>Åke drives a Volvo truck with a missile launcher
>Åke parks the truck
>Kalle and Palle point the launcher towards sea
>Jonas pushes a button
>A missile is launched
>Crew has homosex because face it this is Sweden
>The missile was shot down my Boris, Boris' boss Ivan calls Mikhail to drop bombs of Åke and friends
>Åke and friends are obliterated mid-orgy because they aren't inside a multi-storey bunker

>>34920149
25 rounds a minute is impressive.

Compared to 12 M777, that turret stills spits out more fire.

>>34918918
>doesn't look very comprehensive.
The coverage is a damn sight better than any other T-72 kit, and based on what the Poles have published the ERAWA setup is pretty efficient. This may just be electroplating a turd, but it's better than nothing.

File: 10549890.jpg (111KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 1024x683px

>>34919039
>put new turrets on your perfectly good T-72 hulls
T-72 hulls aren't all that great for peer conflict, if you're removing the turret you might as well go full Israeli and make a HAPC/CEV/whatever out of it.

>>34919097
>Seriously, hitting MBT turrets from beyond the horizon isn't nearly as easy as you seem to think
The thing is that it forces the enemy to expend PGMs on it; and being armored, it needs a pretty direct hit. With good ECM and smoke support, the CEP of PGMs can be greatly expanded, so the enemy will have to waste several per gun. Add in decoys which will have to be similarly destroyed while under the same ESM umbrella, and you've forced the enemy to waste a not insignificant abount of firepower on a otherwise useless hulk.

>>34920629
uhh, I was replying to a guy claiming the turrets are easy peasy targets for naval vessels' guns, to which I said that no they are not, now you are telling me...what exactly?

>>34918729
Invade Lithuania.

>>34920721
Oh shit, I misread your comment as "not nearly as HARD as you seem to think".
Take it as me strongly agreeing with you.

>>34920730
>taking back Lithuania.
FTFY

>>34920300
I mean the AK-130 is from the same time period and has a rate of fire of 75.

>>34918729
Keep, it's better to have 500 kinda shitty tanks than one good tank for the price of the 500 shitty ones.

>>34918729
>Would you modernize, sell or scrap?

I'd reinvent how people use them and sell my amazing idea.

>T-72's flip their lids cos they are rammed full of ammo right?
>I know one simple trick that NATO planners hate
>I'd give each tank one HEAT round and one sabot round
>A tank never goes anywhere alone now due to low ammo
>All 500 tanks must go everywhere together
>At once
>Upon combat tanks have to fire in ye oldy tyme volleys
>Even if a T 72 is hit, it can still be effective because it's not chock full of ammo
>it now only has two rounds
>and 500 friends

And there you have it, Poland suddenly because the best over night.

>>34918851

Pakistan?

>>34921060
Soviets in AStan and Georgia only loaded the carousel and not the rest and suffered remrakably less flipped lids.

>>34921060
>remove all armor because a T-72 that gets hit by an anti tank weapon in 2017 is dead anyway
>tune engine and suspension
>sport tank

File: Type_BM.jpg (49KB, 500x350px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 500x350px

>>34921060
>500 tanks at once

inb4 horde bonus

File: 1460724711443.jpg (442KB, 2000x1333px) Image search: [Google]

442KB, 2000x1333px

>>34918729
Pretty sure Syria could use some cheap ATGM fodder

>>34921131
This is actually a decent idea.

I suppose it would be very expensive to use the existing t-72 chassis, but retrofitting the turret to a BMP or something for a budget light tank (infantry support vehicle) could be useful

>>34921060
Downloading ammunition to improve survivability is something T-72 crews have been doing for years now.

>>34918890
this

>>34921116
The soviets in afghanistan never brought any tanks other than the T-55 and T-62, no autoloaders.

File: images.jpg (4KB, 155x90px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 155x90px

Did you dont have this new future tank?