A T-72 for the 21st Century

StrategyPage ^ | October 8, 2006

[Vinnie]

Thing looks like a DLP chip. :)

[Mike Powell]

Welcome to 2007 folks, and my country Malaysia has received the Polish made PT-91 Twardy MBT which base on the T-72M series.

The former Soviet designer has gained the experience from the World War 2 armour warfare and plus with the offensive doctrine of their strategy, the T-72 is designed to be too short to be hit, good protection, all-terrain mobility, brutal firepower and most of all, manufacturing simplicity.

Although T-72 might not as sturdy as Abram, Challenger or Merkava, but consider her combat weight and purchasing cost she’s the choice of most of the country. Forget their Gulf War’s performance, T-72 is designed to perform in different kind of mission and with right upgrades and modification, T-72 can really be a effective killing machine.

Why T-72 lost her creditibility? Below are my opinions base on my research on Gulf War’s tank battle -

Vehicle’s quality - Although Iraq’s outnumbered the Coalition Forces during the war. But without a good vehicle quality it still zero in every turn. And Iraqi’s T-72 and other IFV and APC are just monkey models. And all these third class models are completely outmuscled by the Abrams and Challengers.

Crew’s quality - There’s an old said, no matter how good is the weapon, it’s the soldier that makes the difference. Just ask the Korean War’s Air Force veterans, a well-trained soldier can defeat even the nastiest surprises that will occur. If only the Iraqi’s armour division crews are decently trained at least, they can inflict some serious damage on the Coalition.

Tactical execution - The Abrams and Challengers are the complete winner of the ground war against the Iraqi’s armour divisions. And what makes them a winner? It’s their tactic of mobility, firepower and accuracy combine in one. Just imagine if the Iraqi’s commanders do the same thing like the Coalition did assume they’re using the monkey models (instead of sticking to the Soviet-style static defence).

[archy]

I remember preparing to face hordes of T-72's in M-60A1's with 105mm guns that couldn't penetrate the T-72's front slope. We practiced retrograde from one terrain feature to the one behind it until we reached the DIP position.

DIP stood for Die In Place.

Likewise. But remember, we expected to not only be outnumbered 17 to one by the T-72s of the Eighth Guards Tank Army, but to be hit by followon units of called-up reservists and *fraternal socialist allies* in T-54s and T-62s. Our final battalion warplan included use of any US troops separated from their units, as well as pickup allies from any surviving NATO troops, most likely Bundeswehr or British Army of the Rhine forces in the areas we were likely to be operating in.

Last little surprises: the two engineer vehicle AVLB *scissors bridges* we had in the unit, once they'd dropped their bridges.

[archy]

I recall that Russian tankers couldn't be more than 5' 6'' because of the cramped conditions in the T-whatever. Know if that's true of the T-72 and later models?

That was so in the days of the T-55, and, to a lesser extent, in the T-62, last Soviet tank with a 4-man crew. And it was shorter than 5'6, more like 5'2-5'4: the T-55L is REALLY cramped in the driver's compartment, and nearly as bad in that squat little 3-man turret.

We generally figured the T-62 was the best piece of iron Ivan had. But I've crewed in a T-55L, [Polish built] and it is indeed a usable machine. I'd always thought it was the most numerous tank in the world, but it seems they never quit building T72s. That means that between the two types there are around 100,000 of the things on the prowl, a tenth of a million,

Nope, not time to retire the Warthawgs. Not yet....

[archy]

My guess for the reason the AF brass decided to keep the A-10 at all is the Army told them to honor their commitment to the CAS role or let the Army have fixed wing, and oh by the way, we'll take the A-10.

The A10 was originally funded in part by an Army move to have training for several dozen Army fixed-wing aviators in the Marine AV8-B Harrier. The Air Force got wind of the plan, and the Wartie production was approved with 716 built, The plans for the A10C upgrades involved around 350 of the remaining airframes, according to my fiancée, a former USAF A10 Avionics mechanic. Boy, if we ever have a family fight, it oughta be a dandy scrap....