T-72: On the Road to Obsolescence

Forecast International ^ | 12/16/2010 | D. Lockwood

[sukhoi-30mki]

Downfall: T-72M1 Destroyed during Operation Desert Storm

Source: Russian Army

[OKSooner]

I suppose one might call the T72 the AK-47 of tanks.

[drbuzzard]

I find the term “on the road to obsolescence” a bit of an understatement. The tanks have been obsolete for twenty years or so. Of course most places that buy the hunks of junk probably just expect to use them to run over unarmed protesters, so obsolescence isn’t much of an issue.

[GOP_Party_Animal]

After a mere 100 hours of ground combat, the reputation of the T-72 lay in ruins.

I wonder what the statistics would have looked like if the tanks were run by Soviet crews instead. Not to take anything away from our guys, but I have to believe the poor training of the Iraqi army was a big part of the failure of their tank corps.

[drbuzzard]

>I suppose one might call the T72 the AK-47 of tanks.

No, someone armed with an AK-47 isn’t going to automatically lose against someone with a more modern assault rifle. A poor fool in a T-72 vs. a modern western MBT is just waiting to push up daisies.

[wmileo]

I hope this is the tank the Russians are selling to Hugo Chavez in Venezuela!!!

[sukhoi-30mki]

The US could have swapped their M-1s for Iraqi T-55s and still cleaned their clocks. Overwhelming air power also played a more than vital role.

[Lysandru]

This was all predictable. As a cadet in the 1980's, I was taught that the M1A1 had about a 1000 meter "standoff" advantage over the T-72 in terms of effective main gun performance. This had to do with fire control systems as well as training.

Remember, NATO counted on quality to defeat quantity.

[Republic of Texas]

It’s probably a pretty good tank, as long as you are fighting other T-72’s.

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

My recollection is that laser rangefinders allowed US tanks to destroy dug-in Iraqi tanks from two miles away while out of range of accurate sight-aimed counterfire.

[Bruce Campbells Chin]

The wide-open tank country of Kuwait and in parts of Iraq maximized the standoff advantage of U.S. tanks. Where the lines of sight are that open, the T-72 is obsolete. It is still inferior in other environments, but not so bad as to be completely obsolete.

[stefanbatory]

So did the Reich...

[JRios1968]

The M1A1 Abrams Main Battle Tank: the world’s largest distributor of T-72 parts.

[null and void]

I hope this is the tank the Russians are selling to Hugo Chavez in Venezuela!!!

It's still a fine tool for suppressing an unarmed civilian population...

[PapaBear3625]

As a cadet in the 1980's, I was taught that the M1A1 had about a 1000 meter "standoff" advantage over the T-72 in terms of effective main gun performance. This had to do with fire control systems as well as training.

In the open desert with no place to hide, a 1000 meter range advantage means that T-72s are defenseless sitting ducks. Perhaps it would have been different in more rugged terrain, but even in surprise encounters at a few hundred meters the M1's speed of target acquisition would have provided a lethal advantage.

[EricT.]

Since 1990, a number of modern main battle tanks have faced the acid test of combat; many more have yet to fire a shot in anger. When we evaluate a tank's performance in combat, we often find a tank radically different from the peacetime assessments. Perhaps the starkest illustration of this phenomenon involves the T-72. Throughout the last two decades of the Cold War, Western analysts considered the T-72 to be the primary threat in Europe. Indeed, U.S. and NATO doctrine and programs focused considerable attention on countering the T-72 threat.

Finally, in January 1991, U.S. M1A1 Abrams and British FV4034 Challenger tanks faced the vaunted T-72 in live combat for the first time, during Operation Desert Storm. After a mere 100 hours of ground combat, the reputation of the T-72 lay in ruins. The world learned that the T-72 - the erstwhile scourge of Europe - simply was not in the same league as the Abrams and the Challenger on the modern battlefield. During the opening phase of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Telic (the British component of OIF), the T-72 again found itself clearly overmatched by the M1A1 and M1A2 Abrams and the Challenger 2.

Across the deserts of Iraq, countless rusting, burnt-out T-72 hulks bear silent witness to the harsh realities of modern combat.

I personally believe this was a major contributing factor to the fall of the Soviet Union. They completely lost the threat of rolling over Western Europe with thousands of tanks in less than a week's time.

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

I liked the dummy smart bombs used in 2003.
Essentially laser-guided concrete blocks,
they crushed Iraqi tanks hiding in alleyways with no collateral damage.

[drbuzzard]

The T-72 vs. the Challenger, Abrams, or Leopard is at a huge disadvantage due to differences in frontal armor. The western MBTs all use composite armor which is much, much more effective than the Russian straight up metal armor (possibly with reactive packages added). This doesn’t even get into the vastly superior weapon controls and stabilizers on the Western weapons. We could hit them at longer range and shrug off the return fire. It’s just nowhere close to a fair fight.

Of course our troops were also a hell of a lot better in training, but the equipment was not even vaguely comparable.

[wmileo]

"No, someone armed with an AK-47 isn’t going to automatically lose against someone with a more modern assault rifle."

That is correct as we found out in Vietnam. Although we were militarily successful during the Vietnam War, the enemy was able to inflict serious damage to U.S. and S.Vietnamese Forces using AK-47s.

Getting back to the T-72 tanks, they would have performed well over open ground against an enemy without their own armored artillery like Hungary in 1956 or Czechoslovakia in 1968.

[GOP_Party_Animal]

Yeah, I heard stories that our guys could see heat through dunes (or maybe rising over the dunes?) and shot through the sand to make hits.