India's Armor Gets a Boost: A Closer Look at the T-72 and T-90 Upgrades

India is taking significant strides in modernizing its armored forces, and at the center of this effort is a substantial upgrade program for its mainstay battle tanks – the T-72 and T-90.

The Indian Army is not simply looking to buy more powerful machines; it's investing in transforming its existing assets into more capable platforms, demonstrating a strategic focus on self-reliance and indigenous technological development.

The T-72: A Workhorse Transformed​

The backbone of India's tank fleet, the T-72, is set to receive a heart transplant. A ₹2300 crore project will see nearly 1000 of these tanks fitted with new, indigenously developed 1000-hp engines.

This represents a significant power increase over the current 780-hp models, giving the T-72s enhanced battlefield mobility and agility.

Importantly, the upgrade approach prioritizes cost-effectiveness and leverages existing knowledge. Engineers have redesigned peripheral systems like cooling and intake while retaining core engine components.

This ensures a reliable upgrade path with reduced development time. Rigorous testing guarantees the engines' combat readiness.

'Make in India' in Action​

The T-72 upgrade program embodies India's "Make in India" initiative. Approximately 800 of the new engines will be manufactured domestically.

This is not just about upgrading tanks; it's fueling India's defence industry, creating jobs, and reducing reliance on foreign suppliers.

The upgrades extend beyond just horsepower. The T-72s will receive crucial enhancements like:

• Thermal sights: Providing superior night-fighting capabilities.
• Fire detection and suppression systems: Boosting battlefield survivability.
• Other targeted improvements: Potentially including communication and battlefield management systems upgrades

The T-90S: Sharpening the Edge​

India's more advanced T-90S main battle tanks are also receiving a technological boost. This includes:

• Automatic target trackers: Enhancing target acquisition and engagement.
• Digital ballistic computers: Improving firing accuracy.
• Commander thermal imagers: Providing enhanced situational awareness.

Beyond the Hardware: India's Strategic Vision​

The T-72 and T-90 modernization programs signal India's commitment to maintaining a technologically superior armored force capable of facing contemporary threats.

The combination of indigenous development and carefully selected imports demonstrates a savvy approach to defence procurement, maximizing combat potential while building a self-sufficient defence industry.

This move underscores India's growing ambition as a regional power and its determination to independently safeguard its security interests.

The upgraded T-72s and T-90s will form a formidable armored fist, ready to deter aggression and ensure India's continued rise as a self-reliant military power.

 

[Apocalypse gupta]

For a new tank, 2.77 million USD would be a good deal. For a tank as obsolete as the T-72, it's a damned rip-off. The T-72 has shown itself to be utterly incapable of standing a decent chance in modern combat. Russia has lost atleast 1,372 T-72s (49.15% of their overall tank losses), while Ukraine has lost atleast 219 T-72s (29.04% of their overall losses).

the reason why tanks did poorly in Ukraine is because of flawed tactics. If you look at modern tanks supplied to ukraine by the west, they are getting destroyed at pretty much the same rate as soviet tanks.

It is true that T-72 will be slightly slower, have weaker armor, than T-90, but that is it. Main difference lies in other factors such as the kind of ammunition that can be used, the optics used, targeting system, electronics, night vision, commander's sights etc. These things can be installed upto same level as a modern tank. With these upgrades an old T-72 can take out a modern leopard 2. Of course there are other factors like training of the crew, terrain etc, But modernising tanks is a great option if alternative is scrapping them. If you have t-72 from the 70s and you send them to battle as is with just basic maintenance such that it can run and shoot, it will have 0 chance vs a modern tank because it lacks the stuff that makes the modern tank "modern', namely- targeting systemm, optics etc.

You talked about Mig-21, Aircrafts are totally different ball game. First of all fighter aircraft have much lower shelf life, and they need huge amount of maintenance and even then they have limited airframe. There are other factors such as how agile they are, how big they look on radar, how much does the design impact the performance of radar fixed to them. These things are independent of the modern systems that you can put on them while upgrading them.

In conlusion even if you put the most modern radar, missiles, softwarer etc on a Mig-21, it will still stand 0 chance vs a rafale or F-35.

Comparing Fighter aircrafts and tanks is apples and oranges situation.

When it comes to air fights, technology plays a huge role, because whoever finds enemy first, fires missile and wins fight. There is no cover in the air, radar picks up everything. On the ground, during tank battles it is different. Even a guy with a RPG can blow up a tank. Good luck trying to take down a fighter using a stinger.

 

[Apocalypse gupta]

Actually we paid less than 4 million for the T90s, excluding the ToT. And they were made in India.

that was long time ago, try buying it for that price now.

 

[Anonymous]

Apart from Muscle Power it needs Aerial Protection (Drones & Loitering MMunition).

In today's battlefields, tanks and attack helicopters are so vulnerable. Drones & LM have changed the scenario completely.

 

[Apocalypse gupta]

Not quite. We scrapped most of the Vijayanta tanks because they were hopelessly obsolete by 1990s and 2000s standards. The T-72, which was decent by the standards of that time, is getting absolutely massacred today in Ukraine.

comparing ww1 tanks to modern tanks is a joke. Totally different design.
WW2 era tanks closer to modern tanks in terms of design, but still outdated. 70s and 80s tanks have weaker armor, engine, but have smilar firepower to modern tanks. If you put better armor, engine, ammunition on these tanks with better optics, targeting, and a trained crew, they can fight any modern tank. modern tanks will have advantage in terms of mobility (engine, suspension, transmission), armor and crew survivability. But it is still vulnerable. Just look at how many leopards ukraine has lost since last year.

 

[Amit Ray]

Making a tincan even more expensive will end badly for India...

Here comes a soothsayer!!

 

[Amit Ray]

Not quite. We scrapped most of the Vijayanta tanks because they were hopelessly obsolete by 1990s and 2000s standards. The T-72, which was decent by the standards of that time, is getting absolutely massacred today in Ukraine.

Stop your useless, nonsense comments

 

[Amit Ray]

For a new tank, 2.77 million USD would be a good deal. For a tank as obsolete as the T-72, it's a damned rip-off. The T-72 has shown itself to be utterly incapable of standing a decent chance in modern combat. Russia has lost atleast 1,372 T-72s (49.15% of their overall tank losses), while Ukraine has lost atleast 219 T-72s (29.04% of their overall losses).

Bla, bla, bla, utter nonsense. Terrains are completely different. Comparing apples with oranges.

 

[Avada kedavra]

And what is the solution to stop ATGMS from piercing the top?
Put cages? 🤣
A solution even a school kid will come up with?
And how to stop the turret tossing?

It's pretty obvious at this point, Arjun tank is the only life saver.

 

[NSR]

It is just an old story going around for a long time.
Regurgitated again and again in different headlines and content.
India is looking for a foreign engine manufacturer willing to transfer 1,000 HP engine TOT to make in India.

There is nothing new in it for us to be excited at all.

 

[charminar_waale_ismail_bhai]

After sabotaging Arjun project a decade ago, now is the time to do some jugaad and buy some more time for army's favorite tin cans.

 

[Tanishq Bafila]

For a new tank, 2.77 million USD would be a good deal. For a tank as obsolete as the T-72, it's a damned rip-off. The T-72 has shown itself to be utterly incapable of standing a decent chance in modern combat. Russia has lost atleast 1,372 T-72s (49.15% of their overall tank losses), while Ukraine has lost atleast 219 T-72s (29.04% of their overall losses).

2.5 million for upgrading a tank as old as T-72 is a good deal , A brand new tank cost 8-12 million...

Regarding your numbers for the destruction of tanks in the battle field all are exaggerated numbers from the West & Russia...

Yes , T-72 isn't one of the best platform and upgrading these 1000+ tanks is the most sensible and cost-effective measure as the next tank project is at least 10 years from induction ( FMBT ) , without these upgrades to the T-72 it is a sitting fuck if a war breaks out even today.

And where the Ukraine terrain is mostly plain , India has 3 different types of terrain .

 

[Sandeep]

Currently most of the T72 were already upgraded with a new indigenous 1000hp engine, APU, automatic tracking, thermal imagery, fire detection and suppression etc so this upgrade isn't exactly new. They might of decided to upgrade more of these tanks than they originally planned to but there's no new technology that's going to be installed but they should consider it. They could buy and operate a few surveillance and kamikaze drones and it doesn't need to be installed on every tank but a few in a squadron would suffice. The T72 tanks are ideal to be used on the LAC because of its lighter weight and our T90 or Arjun tanks are too heavy and they don't even have a 1500+hp engine so far. The heavier tanks are ideal for a flat terrain or used for defending key bases. What we need to do with all tanks is to install slat/cage armour on the top and sides so we can protect our manhole from any drone dropping any bombs, grenades or a kamikaze drone attack. Also the T90 tanks have been upgraded a long time ago with indigenously designed and developed technology.

 

[RG]

For 2300 crore, it would be good deal, the $ figure is wrong, that much money should go to new tanks

 

[RG]

Local engine use is great news. worth the effort just for this.

 

[Anant]

For a new tank, 2.77 million USD would be a good deal. For a tank as obsolete as the T-72, it's a damned rip-off. The T-72 has shown itself to be utterly incapable of standing a decent chance in modern combat. Russia has lost atleast 1,372 T-72s (49.15% of their overall tank losses), while Ukraine has lost atleast 219 T-72s (29.04% of their overall losses).

1. The T-72 was built to be cheap. Back in 2012, Ethiopia purchased 200 T-72s from Ukraine. These tanks were of the T-72UA1 standard, which included basic upgrades to sighting equipment, and most importantly, a 1050 ho engine. You know how much Ethiopia paid for these tanks? About 5,50,000 USD per tank. Y
Not 2.7 million. They paid about 20% of that. Still feel 2.7 million USD per tank for a new engine is reasonable?

2. The numbers I used are effective tank losses (Destroyed + Damaged + Captured + Abandoned) where photographic evidence is available, using Oryx as a source. The true number for both sides is almost certainly higher. Of those, the only tanks that cam ostensibly be brought back into service are the ones damaged and the ones captured from your enemy (albeit not all of those). Regardless, there can be absolutely no denying that thanks to a combination of bad field command, improper doctrine, and the T-72's design flaws, the tank has suffered very badly in Ukraine.

3. You feel the Gulf War numbers are inflated? Okay, let's just assume the Coalition suffered 3 times as many defeats and Iraq suffered one-fifth of those losses. The numbers mentioned were mostly backed by photographs, but anyways. Even with that assumption, Coalition losses come to 33-36 armoured vehicles lost and 9 damaged to Iraq's loss of 396 vehicles lost or captured and the Coalition seeing 171 men killed and 468 wounded to Iraq losing 120-200 men killed and some 2,300 men captured. That is still very much in the Coalition's favour, and I have already taken an exceptional case for moderating losses here (a factor of 3 and 5 for the Coalition and Iraq respectively, so even these numbers are 15 times skewed than the actuals).

3. See, if the engine upgrade (and this is more of an engine rebuild anyways) is costing us even 4,00,000 USD per tank, we can take it as a stop-gap. However, 2.7 million USD per tank is a very large amount, and for the work being proposed, is unreasonably high.

 

[Anant]

that was long time ago, try buying it for that price now.

Ethiopia purchased 200 semi-modernised T-72UA1s from Ukraine in 2012-13 for around 5,50,000 USD each. These tanks included a 1,050 hp engine and upgraded sights as well as basic ERA, and had seen little use. A decade has passed, so let's double that price for today. 11,00,000 USD is still less than 40% of the reasonable figure you are claiming.

 

[Anant]

the reason why tanks did poorly in Ukraine is because of flawed tactics. If you look at modern tanks supplied to ukraine by the west, they are getting destroyed at pretty much the same rate as soviet tanks.

1. Yes, a lot of Russian losses can be attributed to doctrine. However, saying that almost all tanks Russia lost is due to doctrine is also a flawed assessment. Tanks like the T-72 and the Vijananta (since you mentioned it elsewhere) were not designed to guard against top-attacking ATGMs, since top-attacking ATGMs wasn't exactly a thing at the time. Moreover, the T-72's ring of ammunition in the turret has been seen to be a point of weakness time and again.

2. Now, sure, you could theoretically put up enough support vehicles and other systems close to a T-72 column that no one can attack the T-72. However, that also makes your entire column very packed and sitting in one large formation. You'd just need a few long range missiles to inflict heavy losses. Space stuff out, and you can't handle cheap ATGMs taking out your tanks.

3. Ukraine has shown that advancing tanks, unless supported by significant forces, are particularly vulnerable to air and ATGM strikes. Even if we assume you can stop any drones or loitering munitions, handling all ATGMs will still be a threat, and outside of EW jamming, good luck.

4. Your point about airframes is right. However, there is such a thing as obsolescence as well. The MiG-21 is old, but the reason we don't build new ones to replace older airframes today is because it is obsolete. As WCdr. Abhinandan showed, a MiG-21 in capable hands today can still deal with a F-16, but does mean we should always count on it, or should be instead have a more modern aircraft like the Tejas or the Rafale or the Su-30MKI?

5. Now, sure, you can upgrade a T-72 enough to make it perfectly relevant for modern combat. However, that simply won't be worth the effort or the cost. Just like the MiG-21 or Germany's Tiger I tank, the T-72 is a weapon of the past. Sure, with the right upgrades, in teh right conditions, against the right opponent, and in the right hands, it is a formidable machine even today, but you can't count on all that for combat. As exceptional as the T-72 may have been, the time is coming for it to retire.

 

[Anant]

Bla, bla, bla, utter nonsense. Terrains are completely different. Comparing apples with oranges.

You can call it utter nonsense and claim the loss disparities were solely due to terrain, buy as you can see in my response to Mr. Bafila, even if I moderate the Gulf War losses by a factor of 15, the Iraqis still come out worse, and the losses in Ukraine are the ones based on photographic evidence (hence, the actual numbers are higher).

As for terrain, sure. The T-72 can engage reasonably well in hot climates and the desert, but the desert also gives you relatively little protection against static lines wielding ATGMs.

 

[Anant]

Stop your useless, nonsense comments

Do you actually have a sensible counter? If not, then go do something else.

 

[Anant]

comparing ww1 tanks to modern tanks is a joke. Totally different design.
WW2 era tanks closer to modern tanks in terms of design, but still outdated. 70s and 80s tanks have weaker armor, engine, but have smilar firepower to modern tanks. If you put better armor, engine, ammunition on these tanks with better optics, targeting, and a trained crew, they can fight any modern tank. modern tanks will have advantage in terms of mobility (engine, suspension, transmission), armor and crew survivability. But it is still vulnerable. Just look at how many leopards ukraine has lost since last year.

The Vijayanta is essentially a Vickers Mk. 1, which was a combination of parts from the Centurion and the Chieftain tanks, both of which were developed based on learnings and observations from WW2.

Tanks from the 1970s and the 1980s have similar firepower as modern tanks, sure. However, as you yourself pointed, they have weaker armour. They also have weaker protection. A comparable gun is not going to help you if you can't actually damage the other side, or can get destroyed before you bring your gun to bear.

That said, it is of course possible to upgrade a T-72 with modern armour, modern sights, modern EW systems, modern engines, modern ammunition, modern ammunition loading systems, etc. to a point where this tank can be a formidable competitor to a more modern rank. However, at that point, you have thrown in enough time, effort, and resources into this thing that you have a final product that either still has some weaknesses from the original design (or compromises on performance), since a conversion job is rarely as efficienct as a thing purpose-built for something), or you have, in essence, a new tank that bears little resemblance to the old one (which still retains some of the original flaws). If the latter is what you end up with, you may as well go for a new design. Essentially, this latter tank becomes a Ship of Theseus.

As for how many Leopards Ukraine has lost, photographic evidence puts them at 13 Leopard 2s lost, 1 Leopard 1 and 9 Leopard 2s damaged and recovered for repairs, and 8 Leopard 2s damaged and abandoned (with Ukraine claiming 3 of the latter 8 were also recovered for repairs later on). How many T-72s gave both sides lost in the same period in the same region? The number is significantly higher.