was it the 80 with the selfloader that kept wanting to load the gunners arm too??? also in that pic... is that the Shota(sp) jamming system on either side of the tube?
Posted on 10/08/2006 6:19:14 AM PDT by Cannoneer No. 4
The Russian T-72 tank is the most widely used tank ever. Over 50,000 have been built. More than any model in World War II. Ironically, the T-72 was a stopgap design, intended to provide a replacement for the more advanced T-64, which was not successful. Production began in 1972, and the T-72 entered service in 1976. Compared to the earlier T-62 and T-64, the T-72 was successful. It was reliable, or so it was thought. But in 1982, Syrian T-72s went up against Israeli Merkavas. The Syrians lost badly. In 1991, Iraqi T-72s were helpless against American M-1 tanks, and M-2 Infantry Fighting Vehicles. But the T-72 remained popular. Partly because it was so cheap. Cold War surplus vehicles, in good shape, could be had for as little as $100,000. The vehicle was still popular because of its reliability. Most nations never expected to use their T-72s in combat, but it was more useful for them to be in running condition in peacetime, when they could control unruly civilians.
Another reason for the popularity of the T-72 is the large number of upgrades available. While the basic T72 was pretty unimpressive, a few upgrades could turn it into a much more formidable (and expensive) tank. For example, modern, computerized, fire control systems, with laser range finders and night-vision sights, and quality ammunition, transforms a T-72 into a very lethal system. While such a tank would still get blasted by an M-1, if the T-72 spotted the M-1 first, and got a flank shot, it could win. The T-72 is also a very mobile vehicle, about on a par with the famously nimble M-1. But protection is always going to be a problem. The stock T-72 is a 41 ton vehicle that is 23 feet long, 11 feet wide and 7.5 feet high. An M-1 is 62 tons, 32 feet long, 12 feet wide and eight feet high. The extra weight is mostly armor, and from the front, the M-1 is still very difficult to kill. To survive, a T-72 not only needs to accessorize, but requires a well trained crew. Most nations using T-72s, don't like to invest in crew training. But that's what makes the most difference in combat.
The T-72 is surviving into the 21st century because Russia's new T-90 was, again, a fall-back design. The T-80 was supposed to be the successor to the T-72. But like the T-62 and T-64 before it, the T-80 didn't quite work out as planned. So the T-72, with a much improved turret and all manner of gadgets, was trotted out as the T-90. At 47 tons, but it's still 23 feet long, 11 feet wide and 7.5 feet high. Same package, better contents. And with well trained crews, it could be deadly.
Thanks for the link. The upgrades are great and much needed but I notice there is no engine upgrade. The A-10 always was underpowered. I remember an A-10 driver telling me he could make about three passes before he had to leave the fight and get back up to speed. He called it accelerating to "wart" speed.
Thanks for the pix. Don't cha just love the "hog". I can't believe they wanted to "replace" or phase this wonderful machine out of service.
I think we're going to need them for a long, long time.
If, if, if. OK. So the T-72 takes out one M1 for every 20 T-72's the M1 destroys. Not such great odds, IHMO.
Our M1 Abrams Tanks own these things.
I've heard that. Used to work with a guy who is a former M1 commander. He said they they were trained to aim for the T-72 turrets, that if you hit them right, they just pop off.
M1's facing a formidable opponent with high tech anti-tech weapons would be as useless as the T-72 versus US forces.
We like to brag but plenty of our M1's are getting wasted or damaged by the monkeys in Arabia.....I'd hate to be in one of those coffins facing a revitalized Chinese military.
Very true. I wonder if the Abrams is resistant to EMP.
1 question: there aren't any new A10 airframes being manufactured, are there?
Then there is the one about the A-10 is the only jet to take a bird strike.....
From the rear end.
Some T-72 observations (since I got to TC one for a while with an English speaking crew): Our variant had Czech and Austrian fire control systems as add-on's that worked pretty well.
The turret is very cramped for anyone over 5'10 (I am 5'9 and was wedged it the TC seat). It is fast as hell, and the silhouette makes it very difficult to detect if the crew uses terrain properly. The Hungarian crews were pretty good at maneuver and use of terrain...often I couldn't spot the other tanks in my "company" unless I saw the antenna.
The auto loader sucks. A trained M1 crew would dispatch 5 or 6 of them before they could get 2 or 2 shots off, which goes to the crew training piece of the article.
The T-72 fuel lines run around the turret ring, as does ammo storage. This is why the turrets pop off like soda bottle tops when hit. The Hungarian crews knew this. BTW, they treated me like a rock star when they found out I was trained on the M1...it's reputation is worldwide.
Bottom line: decent tank if it is used for certain purposes like scouting and patrolling against insurgents with light weapons, lethal against most targets with a trained crew. Easy to train and maintain. Will die in a heartbeat against the M1, and they know it. Regards,
Ah yes, I remember the days when the Rooskies were 10 feet tall and coming to get us tomorrow.
Trained as a DAT but got put in the Scout platoon (You can drive a track? Good, now you're a 19D!). I was in the 3/33 AR, 1st Bde, 3rd AD and we went through a similiar upgrade process from '80-'82.
From A2s that had to be dragged to the range and fired by all NCO/officer crews (one company had 15 of 17 A2s deadlined) the BN went to A1s and then A3s the next year and by '84 or '85 (after I left) had been reflagged as a Cav sqdn and issued M1s.
Then they won the Canadian Army Tank Gunnery competition!
Thank God for Reagan. I saw the Army go from ragbag troopers going through the motions of training, maintaining and soldiering in those years to a serious fighting force.
Warthog had to be good to follow in Skyraider's wake. (talking about upgrading the A-10; they literally brought every A-1 in inventory out of the wrecking yard for Vietnam)
I think the A10 tooling went away back when AF was on its 'dump the ugly stuff' campaign. (AF always leans to the fighter jock side - also, Fairchild is history)
I also think that the M-1 is out of production and can't be restarted. Not part of the 'get there quicker [cheaper] on wheels' faction.
Same thing nearly happened to C-17 and could still come about in five years or so. (up to 202 - 210 now?)
Compared to the earlier T-62 and T-64, the T-72 was successful. It was reliable, or so it was thought. But in 1982, Syrian T-72s went up against Israeli Merkavas. The Syrians lost badly. In 1991
Wonder if the writer ever considered that it might be the crews as much as the tank.
You mean that DoiD actually can learn something? The jetjockies in the Air Force have been trying to bury the A-10 since whenever. Glad to hear this news. With a fighter canopy above, A-10s below and M1s on the ground, the T-72 might as well be pickups.
was it the 80 with the selfloader that kept wanting to load the gunners arm too??? also in that pic... is that the Shota(sp) jamming system on either side of the tube?
You were in Weisbaden weren't you?
Sure does blow [pardon my language] when so many of the REAL Rugged, Battle-tested/worthy equipment gets axed instead of getting it's life/money's worth out of them.
Sort of like Windows. It is always busted, so it always needs upgrades.
Geez.
Good to see you buddy. We're back to dial up at our new place so we're not on much. Thanks for the ping.
1/11 ACR, Graf, Hoensfeld, Fulda, OP Alpha bumps.
In war, you win by not being the side that runs away first. And Russian tactics necessitated having the front lines have guard troops behind them to prevent them from running away
Hi, Treadhead:
Didn't the Iraqis find out during Desert Storm that even though their numbers are many, one well placed round between the turret and chassis usually resulted in a "Catastrophic Demolition"?
Due to the T-72 having its main fuel line to its engine travel around inside the turret's rotation travel ring.
Until the Russians fix that little problem, the T-72s will be nothing more than a Target Rich Enviornment for Abrams, A-10 and Arty. US "TripleA".
Jack.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.