HOME | DD
RBL-M1A2Tanker — T72 - Side
#armor #military #soviet #t72 #tank #tanks #ussr
Published: 2004-10-13 00:46:00 +0000 UTC; Views: 2068; Favourites: 21; Downloads: 56
Redirect to original
Description
This is yet another vehicle from the 1st Cav Museum. This is a T72, one of the main battle tanks of not only Russia but also many other countries across the world.Not a very good tank though to be honest.
Related content
Comments: 16
It may not have been a very good tank in some situations but its still a bad ass tank.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Eh, it does the job for what it was sold for. Against someone with poor armor, it'll certainly do the job.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
True but that was the Russian way in tank building. In any case i think it would do well if it have that reactive armor.. well atleast against rockets and the like.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
The T-72 may be the inferiour tank compared to the abram or challanger in firepower, mobility and armour but it is superiour in it's ability to be produced cheaper and faster. This tank was intended to swamp nato defenses with its sheer numbers not to go 1 on 1 with far more advanced american and british tanks.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It was made to be an export vehicle, much like the T-62 was before it, outfitting many Warsaw Pact nation armies. It's not a terrible vehicle, but it's not the best out there either. You're certainly correct it was made to outnumber their opponents, but one has to keep in mind that when these vehicles were rolled out, their number one opponent at the time (tank wise) was the US M-60 Patton. And it worried the hell out of NATO at the time.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Tactics are supremely important--as well as logistical "smoothness". The T-72's reputation suffers (in large part) because of Iraq's deployment of them. And yet, those Iraqi T-72s, a decade earlier, decimated Iranian M60 and M48 Patton tanks.
Does that make the M60 and M48 tanks POS? Of course not--there were numerous factors to consider. Iran no longer had access to replacement parts and upgrades. Tank tactics were extremely rudimentary.
At the same time, I'm not claiming that an early-model T-72 (as pictured here) could face an M1A2 (which was deployed almost twenty years earlier), anymore than I'd say an M26 Pershing would have any chance against a T-72 (or, for that matter, a T-64). Technology does make a difference, but to what extent, it is difficult to say sometimes.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
You have to remember though, that although the T-72 isn't the greatest tank of all time, that doesn't mean it isn't effective. A German Tiger tank in WW2 managed to get over 30 (?) kills in a single engagement, their kill/death ratio was greater than 5:1, undoubtedly a better tank than the T-34 ...
... but tell me this, who won WW2?
I think DarkWizard made a good point, tactics would be very important.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Biggest problem with T-72s, and pretty much all modern Russian tanks, is that they all have that little dome-shaped turrent which is hard to effecitvely armor and is going to collapse big time when hit. I mean, the Russians had hit on a good concept that worked very well with sloped armor during WWII with the T-34 series, so why the hell they would switch from a proven concept to something so poor (in design and appearance) is anyone's guess. Probably that idiotic central planning at work....
Though to be fair to the Russians, a lot of their doctrine during the Cold War was to use mass tank attacks in tight coordination with tactical air forces, artillery support, and the intelligence associated with all those - which the Iraqis and Syrians lacked when their T-72s faced Western tanks. So the T-72 may have been an inferior tank, but in the hands of the people that built it there was the advantage of mass numbers.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Actually the deflection angle of those tanks wasn't that bad, domed or pear shaped or not. Plus they were lower to the ground, giving them a lower profile which in turn makes them harder targets. Have to remember too, at the time that the T72 was made we had little or no intel on the machines capabilities. It was very favorably compared to western designs, which was the M60 Patton of the time, and believed to be superior.
The T72 was made to be an export vehicle, while the T64 was to be the MBT of the USSR itself. Note: that tank was never exported. There's lots of confusion though as to what was going through the design bureau's mind during that time becuase they also designed the T80. Political wrangling probably played the biggest role.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Ah, I see. Yes I knew the T-72 was widely exported while the T-64 wasn't, but I'd always assumed that was because the T-64 was more expensive and had originally been built as an experimental stopgap between the T-62 and the T-72. But now that you brign that up along with the simultaneous development of the T-72 and the T-80, it could be one of those instances where the Russians build two apparently competing designs but export one while keeping the other, kind of like how it is with the Ka-50 and Mi-28 attack helicopters.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Reading up on the documentation, even the Russians aren't quite sure why they built two MBTs at once. Most likely it was a sign of the then building breakdown of the Soviet Union. A misappropriation of funds, political wrangling, breakdown in efficiency across the board, corruption, etc etc.
But they apparently were not very impressed with the T64.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Well T72's aren't bad for there intended purpose. They definitely out class the M60 which was meant to be there natural opponent and believe it or not they out range M1A2's. The reason why they are given such a bad reputation is thanks to the Iraqi tankers and the the Iraqi defence budget. The tankers didn't do the tanks they had justice and the defence budget meant that the tanks Iraq had weren't exactly updated. They were the stock Russia was trying to get rid of in the mid-80's (when they were doing there second major round of upgrades).
A modern T72 is a very different looking vehicle, not to mention that T90's are actually heavily upgraded T72's with the capability of 'hard killing' incoming projectiles and defeating opposing tanks and helicopters targetting equipment.
However the T72 chassis is a faulted design in a few serious ways ... the autoloaders carousel which goes through the turret means that fragments from shells penetrating the turret can set off a massive series of explosions that total the tank and kill the crew. This defeats the purpose of digging in to show only your turret. Then ... you have to consider that its armour is much thinner the the Abrams or M60 and wonder how this was overlooked. The reason it was overlooked is the tank was never designed to stand up to tank fire at the closer ranges.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Nah, the T72 is a POS. There was a huge fear at the time that the M60s were outclassed, which is what lead to the M1 series being created. And it's a good thing too. The M60 is still a good tank, but it's not quite as powerful to a T72.
The M1A2 can reach out to 5000+ meters...and hit the target. Provided the gunner is really really good (and some really are). The sights of a T72 isn't all that good, and as you mentioned it has some flaws. It was made to be exported though to begin with, as they developed both the T72 and the T80 at the exact same time.
Which was odd...even the Russians aren't quite sure why they did that. *shrugs*
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
lol
The T72's in service in Russia have had new sites installed, mostly. The new sites allow the 125mm ATGM launcher to hit targets at up to 10,000 metres with someone to laser sight for them. In fact I believe the new missile is capable of 15,000 metres.
Admittedly this is not a practical range for combat. The real range is more like 4,500 metres (the tank mounted laser sight range). But its capable of penetrating Abrams front armour at 3,500 metres even if the Abrams has reactive armour installed. Meanwhile the Abrams can destroy a T72 at 3,000 metres with a lot more reliability thanks to the T72's evenly thin armour.
However ... if you rate an Iraqi tanker with such a high chance ... you're about as honest as the Iraqi information minister. The 3,500 metre range is the claimed effectiveness of the new version AT-11 that has only just reached the Russian tanks in a small trickle.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Their missiles are crap though. Why they keep sticking to them is beyond me. Especially since we can load faster than they can while they have to switch between rounds and so on. As for penetration, so far I have yet to see any documentation that could support that claim...after all, the Russians don't have many M1A2 Abrams to test their weapons against. We don't have to say the same.
And the M1A2SEP takes advantage of the max range with a more powerful sight. BOOYAH!! ^_^
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
well, all claims on behalf of russians have to sadly be taken with a huge grain of salt, however latest generation of russian ATGM's, as well as american ones at that are designed as top attack weapons.
So far only israelis with their MK-3 Baz and MK-4 gave any serious consideration to top tank protection.
T-72 is really nothing more than a big gun platform. I believe its autoloader problems have already been discussed and its lack of effective armor as well.
The reason T-72 was built, just like T-62 and T-64, was as said, soviet political doctrine rather than competence of its engineers. Most high ranking positions in old soviet government were taken by people who were there since 1940s. As you can imagine, a 70 year old man's (who commanded through WW-2) mindset would be pretty inflexible.
Another thing influenced russian tank designers is the territory of soviet union. USA only borders canada and mexico, both friendly countries. On the other hand, look at the land border of old Warsaw Pact nations, to say its vast would be an under statement. Thus soviets needed a vehicle that can be quickly and easily manufactured in very large numbers.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0