T-72

[Wolfman]

I just have to say it: as far as the PE side of the house goes, in order for multiplayer to proliferate a modelled T-72M1 is needed. At the moment we're limited to either playing unrealistic scenarios, or having half the players frustrated out of their minds by the AI. The variety of NATO vehicles is all fine and dandy, but that covers only half of any real world relevant conflict.

No I am not asking for a date, or promises of any kind. I am simply stating whats on my mind, nothing more.

Alex

[3Star]

Has nobody released a Leo1 vs Abrams/Leo2 scenario yet? I remember playing one once during the beta test phase, and it was an extremely tense game. Good example of scenario design resulting in a balanced game with unbalanced equipment.

NTM

[Wolfman]

Has nobody released a Leo1 vs Abrams/Leo2 scenario yet? I remember playing one once during the beta test phase, and it was an extremely tense game. Good example of scenario design resulting in a balanced game with unbalanced equipment.

NTM

Yes, we did run a Leo1/BMP1 vs M1/Brad scenario, in the desert. Falls under the "unrealistic" category, don't you agree? :P

All Fulda Gap (and other WWIII in Europe) scenarios have to be played either against the AI, or with humans controlling AI vehicles.

[FlatTax]

The T-72 is definately the most needed addition.

[Vati]

8)

[OddBall]

in order for multiplayer to proliferate a modelled T-72M1 is needed.

Damn right!

[Lone*star49]

...

Ah yes, SB ghosts of-the-past have spoken..

Will their crys of unjustice be heard (in time)?


LS

[wklink]

I agree, although we never trained against T-72s when we went to the field.

Granted that was back in 1990. Most of the time we played M1s vs M1s with all that miles gear crud.

I would like to see a T-72 in the game. In fact, I would pay for the add on to play online with real Opfor.

[Stratos]

Me too

[oscar19681]

Well i would pay for an addon but i would like to see more then just a t-72

[Stratos]

Any official word?

[dejawolf]

the interior model of the T-72 is done.

[Stratos]

That's not what I expected! So If we get a model, we will have a 3d interior, that's cool!!

[dejawolf]

possibly, but not a full one in the first release for certain, with no fully working autoloader etc.

[Alan323]

Well hell, I'd take an SB1 interior as long as I can aim and shoot the sucker. :)

[Wolfman]

Like Alan said, as long as the tank works like its supposed to I could care less what the interior looks like.

[FlatTax]

Even if it's non-functional, a T-72 w/interior will be great!

Deja, can we get a teaser? Just one pic? :)

[Ssnake]

It would only tease you.

[Vati]

That's the point... remember yourself when you were satisfied w/ just a picture of nude woman :lol:

[Wolfman]

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g3/alexnenadic/cat.jpg

[Ssnake]

eSim won't give in to blackmail, even less so if it is emotional blackmail. YOU will be held responsible for the untimely death of a cute kitten, not us.

[dejawolf]

http://dejawolf.com/steelbeasts/T-72interior.jpg

its a very old model though, i think almost 3 years old now.

[Scorpius]

LMAO!

[FlatTax]

It's -beautiful-. Thank you, deja, you're my hero. :)

Lighting seems to be much more pronounced than other interiors. Can you elaborate?

[TankHunter]

Nice, any idea on when we will get it?

[koga]

hey i can't read anything on that T-72 pic O_O

[oscar19681]

Yeah its called russion

[panzerschreck]

I am probably a bit slow-witted but why do you all favor the T-72 over the T-80 as playable OPFOR tank? Would the T-80 not be a much more capable opponent for the M1/Leo2 ??

Of course I would gladly take a playable T-72 as well!

[tankenator]

probably due to its being widely exported, whilst the T80 is only in states of the former USSR

[Vati]

Dejawolf, great work!! If you are planning to make it more close to real, I would suggest scaling up ammo counter and turret azimuth indicator, and scaling down a bit the switchbox w/ connectors. These are the first things which pop into my eyes.

I cannot wait to see this puppy in the SB 8)

[Storm91]

Speaking of T72's wondering if you Officers could throw some scenarios together of the mideast syria,iran both favor T-72s heavily.Just for training purposes of course.Surprised at the shortage of American scenarios under the pro pe Dl section.

[bics]

Wow. fantastic! how difficult would it be to do some kind of Russian voice pack for single player purposes? or am I getting a bit carried away?

[Ssnake]

Nice, any idea on when we will get it?
No.

[Ssnake]

Wow. fantastic! how difficult would it be to do some kind of Russian voice pack for single player purposes? or am I getting a bit carried away?
Give me a dozen Russians with a talent for voice acting and we'll make it happen.

[Ssnake]

Surprised at the shortage of American scenarios under the pro pe Dl section.
Create some. :)

[Ghost]

Nice, any idea on when we will get it?

Lets put it like 3D Realms about Duke Nuke'm Forever "When It's Done!" :D

[Kingtiger]

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g3/alexnenadic/cat.jpg


ROFLMAO Wolfman! that really cracked me up hahahahahahaha :lol: :lol: :lol:

[FlatTax]

Ssnake, the cat's out of the bag (no pun intended, for our concerned hostage). The evil-doers are now expecting that T-72 with which to ruin the world. You'd best deliver. :)

[bics]

Wow. fantastic! how difficult would it be to do some kind of Russian voice pack for single player purposes? or am I getting a bit carried away?
Give me a dozen Russians with a talent for voice acting and we'll make it happen.

Yeah, I definately got carried away with that one :) I was hoping half a dozen Russian members? would come come up with a highly impressive mod. I have to say I'm now playing all the Leo missions with the German language option and I find it much more immersive although I'm still not sure of everything thats being said, worked the ammo out though! :D

[Wolfman]

Currently most (if not all) data required to model a T-72M1 is available, along with one or two crewmen who've served on it. This is not the case with the T-80, so there is no point of us to even discuss it. :wink:

I am probably a bit slow-witted but why do you all favor the T-72 over the T-80 as playable OPFOR tank? Would the T-80 not be a much more capable opponent for the M1/Leo2 ??

Of course I would gladly take a playable T-72 as well!

[dejawolf]

the reason lighting is more pronounced is because its not in-game. its rendered in 3ds max. thats also why theres actual shadows in there. and i have no idea at all when you might be getting it. as i already said, i've been waiting for 3 years myself to get it implemented.

[ShotMagnet]

...the T80 is only in states of the former USSRSouth Korea owns and operates a number of them, plus some BMP-2s as well.


Shot

[Vati]

ShotMagnet, so do some other few countries, however this only happened after the fall of soviet union. T80 was never planned to be exported.

[tankenator]

i stand corrected, i wasnt aware that they had exported them.....As to the south koreans adopting them ?????? I would think they would want something with a bit more quality......but they do fit in them rather well....

Me as a large american male cannot sit in a T72 driver position with the seat down without my chest literally halfway out of the hatch.....the gunner's spot is miserable as well---cant squish myself down to look into the sight!!!!!

[Stratos]

Wooooo Amazing interior, but why we cannot get it?? If is implemented??

[RecceDG]

As a wild-assed guess, probably because creating a completely new crewable tank in-game is not exactly trivial.

Leo1 is pretty close to Leo2 and was funded by armies. Same deal with the Aussie stuff. Abrams was there in SB1.

Getting the T72 crewable is probably a hell of a lot of work.

The best compromise is likely to be something like a Leo2 in T72 clothing - looks like a T72 from the outside, but acts like s Leo2 from the inside.

And even that isn't necessarily easy.

DG

[Vati]

Me as a large american male cannot sit in a T72 driver position with the seat down without my chest literally halfway out of the hatch.....the gunner's spot is miserable as well---cant squish myself down to look into the sight!!!!!
How 'large' are you? :shock:

[Wolfman]

The best compromise is likely to be something like a Leo2 in T72 clothing - looks like a T72 from the outside, but acts like s Leo2 from the inside.
DG

Boooooooo, terrible idea! :lol:

[Stratos]

I believe that Esim Games will not make something like that. If that's the idea, they can make playable all the vehicles. I believe Esim will create a REAL T-72, like the Leo-1 or the M1

[RecceDG]

Then be prepared to wait.

It's a nontrivial task to add a new tank type, with a different FCS, different optics, different procedures... if you want all that, then it takes time and you get it whenever it's done.

If you want it NOW, then you are going to have to live with approximations.

So which is it?

DG

[Ssnake]

Armies are standing in line, paying us to do certain work - which will ultimately flow back into SB Pro PE as new features (playable Bradley, FIST-V, Miclic, ASLAV-25, ASLAV-PC, Leo AS1 - all results of army customizations). None of those armies pay for the T-72. Since paid work gets priority and since we're booked out, there simply is no time left for Al to pick the 3D model and turn it into a playable tank. All the necessary preparatory steps have been taken. It's now completely up to a free slot in the development schedule to add the T-72. Therefore I cannot predict when we will see it. The good news is, it's almost inevitable that it will come at some point as we have put too much effort into the preparation that we'd simply drop it. That's not gonna happen.

[Storm91]

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g3/alexnenadic/cat.jpg


ROFLMAO Wolfman! that really cracked me up hahahahahahaha :lol: :lol: :lol:

Sister just finished 3 tours in Iraq and she loves cats dont need to tell you what will happen if you pull that trigger.. :twisted:

[Storm91]

Surprised at the shortage of American scenarios under the pro pe Dl section.
Create some. :)

rofl you know the army dont teach you how to create just destroy :oops:

<--grunt mentality

[Stratos]

What?? No T-72 this summer?? This is getting annoying!!

[Lone*star49]

...

Poor kitty, I'd have thought we'd have the T-72 by the beginning of this, the third page, by now.. lol


LS

[Ssnake]

Look, it's getting kinda repetitive. I've been explaining this T-72 situation numerous times now, and I don't think that I ever told that the basic situation has changed in a significant manner.
The T-72, like the M1A2SEP, is a must for SB2. It'd be nice if we could manage to add them earlier, but at least there is a guarantee (as good as I can give it) that SB2 won't be released until we have those two in it.

We're going to give you interesting other stuff. My recommendation is to focus on what you have and not to get fixated by what's missing. Makes life a happier experience.
:)

[12Alfa]

Is this thread going in the same direction as the "I'd like to see the road wheels going up and down'????
I'll post the same question many times to be sure.....

[RogueSnake79]

Do you not care for the cats life snake??? My god man, their going to kill it!

:)

Just say no snake, say SBpro PE is done, and their will be nothing more. Then when you add stuff, people will be like "WTH, OMFG, you rule!"

[[panzer]]

Would not a larger Dev team solve these time issues?

[ShotMagnet]

...i stand corrected, i wasnt aware that they had exported them.....As to the south koreans adopting them ?????? I would think they would want something with a bit more quality...My understanding is that they bought them at least partly in consideration of a debt the USSR had incurred with the ROK. The vehicles themselves were probably seen as something of a stop-gap, since the ROK were and are producing both MBTs and IFVs.

As to quality, so far as the ROK are concerned T-80s should do about as well against DPRK tanks, and at any rate are likely a cheap adjunct to their forces.


Shot

[Scorpius]

While we're on the subject....

Has the US Army purchased any T series tanks from Russia or other place? I ask because when I lived outside of Ft. Stewart GA, I saw 4 on being flatbeded on semis...Obviously going somewhere. They looked like green T-72's or T-80 variety.

[cobrabase]

BANG!

[TankHunter]

While we're on the subject....

Has the US Army purchased any T series tanks from Russia or other place? I ask because when I lived outside of Ft. Stewart GA, I saw 4 on being flatbeded on semis...Obviously going somewhere. They looked like green T-72's or T-80 variety.

They could be captured AFVs

[oscar19681]

Is this thread going in the same direction as the "I'd like to see the road wheels going up and down'????
I'll post the same question many times to be sure.....

rouge snake idd say give us up the freakin m1 skin your avator o the cat gets it

[oscar19681]

Is this thread going in the same direction as the "I'd like to see the road wheels going up and down'????
I'll post the same question many times to be sure.....

gouge snake idd say give us up the freakin m1 skin your avator o the cat gets it

Also Ssnake i would like to coment on you post .

Give us suspension (plus road wheels bobbing up and down)
And a playable t-72 .

Give it to us like a baby wants its candy and whe will stop your sleepless nights with all the baby cries .

[Ssnake]

Not without a serious fight.
;)

[oscar19681]

Ok if ya want it you van get it , How about we step out of the bar here just a couple of us 4 whiners and 4 e-sim tankers hop in a tank of choise and fight it out like tankers. And no this aint no joke! I think if i speak for all of us when i say that we want it on neutral ground so that guys can,t just finish us off in some well know battle positions.

[BloodOrk]

How about the TIS?

Damm! That must be a lot of work to get a realitic russian TIS image.

And is it right that the russian optics (IR?) only have a range of 2 KM ?
Must be quit hard to spot something in a T-72.

[dejawolf]

TIS? on a T-72M1? stop joking. no its false that russian opics only have a range of 2km. max range is 700m. beyond that, everything is such a wasteful blur, that you could be shooting just about anything.
since its in the infrared waveband just above thermal, its not a real thermal either.
and you can forget about using the optics at night with modern tanks roaming around, unless you want to stand out like a flashlight in a pitch black room.
T-72M1 uses IR lamps to illuminate targets in the infrared spectrum, those beams shoot out of the tank, making it easy to spot.
additionally, the russian IR optics are sensitive to daylight, so during daytime, the sight is bolted shut.

[tankenator]

While we're on the subject....

Has the US Army purchased any T series tanks from Russia or other place? I ask because when I lived outside of Ft. Stewart GA, I saw 4 on being flatbeded on semis...Obviously going somewhere. They looked like green T-72's or T-80 variety.

I was in benning in 92-94 and was part of the 24th which was HQ outta stewart (boy being under two different commands, Training for the grunts and 24th ID, was a bitch--Training command wanted us to paint rocks and pull down kudzu and cut grass and 24th wanted us to train so the result was double work when we got outta the field)

Anyway, we had several captured T72M1 on the hill which may have come from fort stewart....

Rumor had it that some kuwaiti sheik gave the 24th a bunch of camels and they had put them in a barn on post out there...not sure if it was true or not but was a persistant rumor....

And you gotta love those feral swine on post---huge nasty things, almost as nasty as the boar on Graf.....

[9erRed]

Greetings all,

Ref. the T-72's that are or were appearing at various military base's. After the wall came down (Russia) there were alot of "suddenly" avail. T-72's for the west to "secure" Most were shipped to foriegn base's for "Trial and Evaluation" testing. The Canadian Military had some running T-72's shipped to Gagetown and other Base"s for "testing", these vehicles were trained on and tested for there capibilities and some were taken to the ranges for balistics testing. (nice to really see a T-72 in the sights when your doing live firing!)

All for now ..... 9erRed

[Wildfire]

Hey tankenator, I was in 2-69 armor on kelly hill (aka kelly hell) at ft benning. 93-95. I do believe therte was a t72 and a bmp up there just down from the 2-69 motor pool. never found out though if they were captured or donated.

And yeah, talk about details up the ying yang. If we werent in the motor pool or the field we were doin alllll kinds of details. What a beach that was.

[Vati]

Tankenator, I am still waiting for your answer :)
I simply cannot imagine you could not fit into the driver position w/ half of your chest out. You either must be near 3m tall or horizontally challenged to not fit hole. ;) Of course there is always the option that the seat was NOT folded down :)

T72 is crampy inside, but human height is not really an issue until you start fitting in basketball team of +2m folks :D

[stuart666]

There was a plan to move all the captured Iraqi equipment to the British army training areas in Suffield, and use it for OPFOR work. I gather some spoilsport in the MOD stopped it, and now they have to use converted Scorpions instead. Probably have been cheaper to keep the T55s running...

Of course, the best story is when the 7th Armoured Brigade nicked a T72M1 off the Americans. :wink:

[tankenator]

Tankenator, I am still waiting for your answer :)
I simply cannot imagine you could not fit into the driver position w/ half of your chest out. You either must be near 3m tall or horizontally challenged to not fit hole. ;) Of course there is always the option that the seat was NOT folded down :)

T72 is crampy inside, but human height is not really an issue until you start fitting in basketball team of +2m folks :D

Not sure what answer you want.....but i am 6'3 inches and the seat was most definatly folded down, with it up (the lever worked, i remember diddling with it, but do not remember where exactly it was as this was almost 14 years ago.....) when the seat was down, i was prolly 1-2 inches above nipple level, with it up almost to my solar plexus....

The tank was the one which was on display on ft. Irwin, had most of the internals intact (except for the sights and fire control system) And i do believe it was driven into position by some poor unfortunate soul :D

[FlatTax]

I was struck by how small T-72s seem. I'd love to crawl over one, and see how a 6' frame fits.

[Vati]

Not sure what answer you want.....but i am 6'3 inches and the seat was most definatly folded down, with it up (the lever worked, i remember diddling with it, but do not remember where exactly it was as this was almost 14 years ago.....) when the seat was down, i was prolly 1-2 inches above nipple level, with it up almost to my solar plexus....

The tank was the one which was on display on ft. Irwin, had most of the internals intact (except for the sights and fire control system) And i do believe it was driven into position by some poor unfortunate soul :D

Thing is Tankenator, that I belive that the seat might not been in the right place. I am 1.8m which is around 10cm lower than you (if I converted correctly), and I fit w/o problem.

The best place to sleep in 72 is driver position as it's the most roomy and horizontal. Gunner position feels like wearing a condom, however almost everything is placed very well, and not uncomfortable at all once you squeeze in. Regarding room, TC is between the gunner and driver.
And as I said above.. height is not as much issue as would be if someone has 'heavy bones' to fit in the place. :D

However being smaller than taller is of course a bonus. But that goes for any tank, not just russian.

[dejawolf]

small? post it beside a regular car, and you get this:

from the top, a ford sierra(not my model) only half the length, width and height of a T-72
http://dejawolf.com/steelbeasts/scaleofthings/t72vsSierra.jpg
ford sierras roof barely reaching up to the exhaust port.
http://dejawolf.com/steelbeasts/scaleofthings/t72vsSierra2.jpg

[[panzer]]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! now we r getting teased with crew models as well. Talk about kicking us while were down :)
He looks great if they are to appear sometime down the track. Would make a great target 4 the .50 iron sights

[dejawolf]

not while hiding behind the 4cm thick hatch of the T-72, or hiding everything but their head underneath the umbrella hatch of the M1A1...
hehehe.

[oscar19681]

Yeah crew models would be cool when in unbuttenden position

[tankenator]

could be there, im not positive. But ill tell you, the thing reeked of poor quality, (and ive been on some rickety tanks namely m60a3s that i wouldnt want to have to crew) Im sure it could be effective at short range, but the cramped conditions (gunner and tc on top of the lazy susan ammo dosent give much room for head etc) as well as the ineffective optics would make for a deathtrap in my opinion. Maybe the T64 series (including the T80) is better, but somehow i doubt it

I think the long term russian (and subsequent soviet) principal of viewing peasant soldiers as throwaway cannon fodder is evident. Perhaps now they have changed some of their design criterion (the blackeagle et.al.)

The israeli's have the most intesive modern combat experience of the tank producing world and their tanks tend to be a bit larger with some odd (to the rest of the world) design choices but seem to be very survivable. While the leo2 series on paper is quite good, im not exactly sure of its survivablility in actual combat (have they ever been under fire in combat?) The open honeycomb of ammunition in the hull really makes me nervous, especially with the paper casings of the 120.....

never been in a leclerc so i cant comment on that

M1 suffers from poor firecontrol (as evidenced by the gunnery scores in international competition, which i wonder, has poland or the other former eastern bloc nations ever eneterd with a T series tank? if they had i would think they wouldnt do very well....) As well as fuel economy problems (although reliability is very very very good). Not sure but beleive theyve solved the problems of the firecontrol with the A2/A2SEP

Guess it boils down to individual preference, but some ARE better than others in a quality sense

[tankenator]

how big is a ford sierra????? looks rather short as the t72 is not all that tall, the m1s hull is almost 5 feet high (which would put it only 1 foot lower than the hight of the t72)

i am not fooled, T72 is a tank, and is much much larger than a passenger car but its not exactly a behemoth of an armored vehicle

now an M88, thats a monster :twisted:

[dejawolf]

ford sierra is the average size of a 1990's passenger car, 4,4m long, 1,4m tall, 1.6m wide.

actually, the M1 hull is 1.4 feet taller than the T-72M1 turret roof, and only at the engine deck. the actual turret ring position is only about 2 inches taller on the M1.

hmm.. well pictures will say more than a 1000 words:
http://dejawolf.com/steelbeasts/scaleofthings/T72hullcompare.jpg
http://dejawolf.com/steelbeasts/scaleofthings/t72size.jpg
afaik, it seems like russian designers went more strongly for less internal space to armour, and then closely molded that with smaller profile.
a smaller tank is more strategically desirable, less weight demands less engine to get it where it should be, which consumes less fuel, less internal space to armour, which again gives a ++ to weight/armouring equation. additionaly, less weight means less material used, which means cost savings during production, less strain on drivetrain, which again means less maintenance costs.

the T-72 undoubtably have one of the shittiest FCS ever if you compare it to the M1A1 abrams.
the T-72 is a 1974 tank though, and has gone through several FCS configurations,
from the TPD2-49 coincidence rangefinder/TPN-1-49-23 active IR , to TPD-K1/TPN-1-49 combination of the T-72M1, and the later B configuration with a 1K13 active IR with missile guidance capability.
besides, it was a horde tank, with more attention paid to armour capability than FCS.

the more expensive T-80 series has a lot more capable FCS, dubbed 1G42, capable of proper hunter-killer capability, better stabilization and dynamic lead, wind sensor, cant sensor, powder temperature and air pressure, similar to western tanks.
only drawbacks in the T-80 models is the lack of TIS.

compare this with the rudimentary functionality of the TPD-K1, LRF that forces the gunner to realign on target, LRF that does not align properly with the reticle crosshair, rudimentary sight stabilization, (slaved to gun) and well, thats about it. the tank does have vertical and horizontal stabilization of the gun and turret, though the gun stabilization is said to be ineffective when driving at around 25-30kph over pretty rough terrain.

[Wolfman]

Excellent comparison Dejawolf, as you said a picture is worth a thousand words.

[Vati]

Dejawolf, while it is true, that original export version of FCS was not something to be proud of, not all users had to use it and also not all users had the same quality. So while Polish FCS might be totally FUBAR, doesnt mean that Czech was as well, etc.

M84 digital FCS is probably the best (especially the latest version) on any T72 of its time and probably still holds the place for operational use. There were already trials to include Hughes TIS or Fotona TIS, however fall of Yugoslavia stoped it.
When there were trials in Kuwait in late 80s, Abrams could not match M84 accuracy.

Slovenian M84 had opportunity in late 90s to provide TC to be capable of firing and TIS for gunner, however stupid MOD chose rather to waste money upgrading T55s just that this year they all went into the conservation and M84 is now the only tank in operational use. Our M84 also has laser warning system capable of identifying the laser type.

The biggest weakness of the non-Russian T72 is APFSDS which is badly outdated.
T72 is indeed not on pair with the latest tanks, but at its time period it was a real threat for the western tanks. I really do not think it would be as milk run for west as it is so commonly accepted.

[RecceDG]

I don't think anyone in the West was expecting a milk run - quantity has a quality all its own.

DG

[tankenator]

Absolutely, but i dont expect individual tank crews on the T72 to have a very long life expectancy in a full blown conflict.......thats my point

And many have better accuracy than an m1, look at NATO gunnery competitions, where even leo1 beat it....the us army tends to buy cheep whenever it can....the fire control on the m1 is a pain in the ass.....just try it in sb1 or pro and see (as compared to the leos) I dont know how it compares to the challenger or the leclerc, but assume its worse than either of those as well.....

Protection is another matter entirely...

[Retro]

Thank you very much for these picture Dejawolf, most instructive :)

Some more pictures like these and something like your tank gallery (with a bit of history/explanation/trivia for each vehicle) would surely be a nice bonus on the SB2 CD..

[RecceDG]

Are those comments on the Abrams FCS based on actual hands-on experience, or only on the sim?

The wobbling around of the reticule is exaggerated in the sim.

And if you use it the way it is intended, it is every bit as deadly as the Leo FCS. The trick is lase-blaze-dump lead in rapid succession (a good HOTAS joystick works wonders)

If you have been accurately tracking the target (which has to be done with the Leo FCS as well) and if the lase and fire are done nearly simultaniously, it'll hit. And if you keep tracking while the round is in the air (good practice on both Leo and Abrams) the reticule should be still on, even if the shot missed, so no wiggling around. Need to relay? Just dump lead and you're back to a non-wiggling reticule.

Don't get me wrong, I much prefer the Leo's dual-axis mirror. But the FCS on the Abrams isn't that big a handicap if you use it right.

DG

[Wolfman]

When there were trials in Kuwait in late 80s, Abrams could not match M84 accuracy.

Source, please?

[hussar11]

As a person who as actualy crawled in and over a T72-M ( one of three sent to CFB Gagetown in the 90's)
They are VERY tight ( me 172 cm)
If I can ever find the pics I took that day I'll see if I can download a few.

Of the 3 T72's sent to Gagetown
1 went to the ranges, 2000M off of pad 5 ( still there )
1 went to the base museum
1 was kept as a runner for a few years ( not sure what happened to this one )

[KSB]

T72 is indeed not on pair with the latest tanks, but at its time period it was a real threat for the western tanks. I really do not think it would be as milk run for west as it is so commonly accepted.

Well, the T-72 is old, real old when you think about it. The T-72 started out as a cheaper and less complex version of the T-64. No barrel launched ATGM, simplistic FCS, and a host of other advanced features were cut to keep the cost down. The T-72 was meant to replace the T-55 in the role of both domestic mass produced tanks for the Army and a tank that could be produced by client states (I.E. Warsaw Pact)

In that role it worked well and would have stood up just fine to 2nd line NATO tanks like the M60 or Leo1. The T-64s and T-80s were meant to take on NATO's best. Unlike the Abrams or Leo2, the T-72 was never meant as a tank-killer.

I guess that's one reason I want to see it, or any other Former USSR hardware, playable in game. I'm sick of tossing HEAT rounds at infantry only to watch them thumb their noses at me. The playable M2 Bradley and it's 25mm Auto-Cannon in SB:Pro is nice, but I want some 125mm HE-Frag rounds to really clobber them with. That was my only gripe with SB1, no HE-Frag rounds for REDFOR. Effective Anti-Infantry cannon ammo is one of the few advantages that Russian tanks have over their 120mm armed NATO counter-parts.

P.S. As for Russian voice acting. I have a few years under my belt from College and some reference material to work with. I wouldn't mind taking a stab at it. I don't have SB:Pro, but if I could get a list of file names and what is spoken in them I might be able to come up with something.

[dejawolf]

the T-72 could also act as a pinning force in a soviet steamroller, while the T-80's flanked the NATO forces, and the artillery was raining on NATO positions.
well maybe, i don't really know how soviet steamroller tactics work. from what i've heard, it involves a lot of tanks going in a single direction, with heavy artillery coverage and hinds.
the russians told the syrians, they needed a lot of artillery for steamroller tactics to work. they didn't listen, bought too little artillery, and made a few fatal mistakes, and israel ended up top, swiftly kicking the syrians out of their country.

[Trekker]

As a person who as actualy crawled in and over a T72-M ( one of three sent to CFB Gagetown in the 90's)
They are VERY tight ( me 172 cm)
If I can ever find the pics I took that day I'll see if I can download a few.


You learn to fit in a tank. Im 192cm and i have no problem fitting in the BMP-1 commander or gunner spot, and it's smaller then any T-72spot. But i can't fit in the Leo2 TC spot, im to wide.

[flyboy]

I think if my memory serves me is that a more recognisable term for steamroller would be Blitzkreig.Which was developed by the Russians in the 1930,s as a deep thrusting war or Deep War as the term goes.Then taken on by the Germans by Runstedd,Guderian and Rommel.I think the T72 is surnominous with the term Ak-47.A weapon cheaply built and massed produced,something which saved the soviets in WW2 with the T34 series.With their massive armies they could afford to at the time where communism was funneling huge amounts of money into the military during the cold war.

[Vati]

Dejawolf, from the folks who were there. If you are requesting written stuff, I cannot help you.

KSB, I know that it is old. That's my point. Compare west tank in that period w/ T72 (which even was not regarded as a main russian tank), and you see it is more than well up to the task in tank vs tank up to the second half of the 80s when west 120 started massivly replacing the 105.

[tankenator]

yes its from experience......the gunnery on the m1 is simply archaic......better than the wp alternative, but without autolay, for example, if the LRF is out, you must deduce your own lead.....which leads to errors.....just one example

[chrisotto]

memory serves me is that a more recognisable term for steamroller would be Blitzkreig

Blitzkrieg and Steamroller are two different concepts of military operations.

In Steamroller, think 10x superiority in artillery, 5x in infantry, 3x in tanks and just a massive onslaught of material overwhelming the possibilites and superiority of NATO equipment, which needs to either pull back or get shot down.

Blitzkrieg is about using maneuvering space, movement, speed and armour to achieve a break-through, followed with a swift exploitation and the classic aim of acheiving a "Kesselschlacht" or double-envelopment.

[Wolfman]

Dejawolf, from the folks who were there. If you are requesting written stuff, I cannot help you.


As soon as I read something like "M1A1 couldn't match M84's accuracy" it sends up my bullshit flag. What exactly couldn't it match? I'll accept that the M84 offers the same capability as the M1A1 in terms of first round hit probability, but comments implying the former is vastly better than the latter sound like typical chest beating BS to me.

The M1A1 ensures a first round hit on a vehicle size target out to 4km (as dictated by the ballistic computer), even if both are moving. How much more accurate can a M84 be? I don't buy it.

[Vati]

Wolfman, I am not here to argue about that... either you belive or not, it's totally your problem.

[Wolfman]

Wolfman, I am not here to argue about that... either you belive or not, it's totally your problem.

Don't make claims you cannot substantiate, it does not help the quality of information found on this forum.

[OddBall]

When there were trials in Kuwait in late 80s, Abrams could not match M84 accuracy.

Funny. I know a former 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment Company XO who witnessed Kuwaiti M-84s doing tank range in early 90's. He said that except for one crack crew, they couldn't hit the broad side of a barn.

[dejawolf]

in short:
steamroller beats you silly, bliztkrieg punches through your guts, and mess up your innards.

[stuart666]

I think if my memory serves me is that a more recognisable term for steamroller would be Blitzkreig.Which was developed by the Russians in the 1930,s as a deep thrusting war or Deep War as the term goes.Then taken on by the Germans by Runstedd,Guderian and Rommel.I think the T72 is surnominous with the term Ak-47.A weapon cheaply built and massed produced,something which saved the soviets in WW2 with the T34 series.With their massive armies they could afford to at the time where communism was funneling huge amounts of money into the military during the cold war.

S'funny, seem to recall it was a chap called JC Fuller who invented it in 1918. :wink:

Surely the fact that it was a crack crew would seem to indicate that it would probably have been related to zeroing the main gun? There is no reason to believe the 125mm isnt anything other than a fine gun, if its properly used. The T72/M84 had their problems, but a bad gun wasnt one of them.

[dejawolf]

the T-72s maingun has come in several different versions, each increasing the barrel life of it, and probably accuracy as well.
versions include:
2A46 (export versions, initial russian versions of the T-72)
2A46M (T-72B, initial version of the T-80)
2A46M-1 (T-80U...)
2A46M-2 (T-90S)

the problem with russian guns is that they don't have any muzzle reference sensors, to account for gun droop after firing a few rounds.

[Vati]

Wolfman, I know guy from the party who did M84 trial shooting (and no they werent kuwaities). I am really not in the mood for this piss contest. So take it whatever you want. Redicule it, or whatever fits your ego. Fine by me. ;)
However I bet my sister that you would accept if I said it otherway around, w/o any hysterical questioning. People had hard time believing that an old rpg7 could disable the mighty abrams as well. :) Look, let me say it this way, you can say that 84 gunner got extremly lucky and abrams got some faulty munition, like in Greece. Fits PC better? :D
At the end of the day, the reality is such that in open, M1 could smoke 84 w/o any problem. So even if 84 can shoot more true, it doesnt help it anything, as its ammunition is pathetic.

OK, enough.... Now lets move to more important stuff... how to persuade Ssnake to squeeze T72M1 into the SB autumn update! 8)
For one... we need more kittens! :twisted:

[Vati]

the problem with russian guns is that they don't have any muzzle reference sensors, to account for gun droop after firing a few rounds.
Why would they need it, if it is publicly known fact, that these tanks would not survive 1st contact w/o turrets flying in the air ;)

[12Alfa]

either you belive or not, it's totally your problem.

Seems to be your default answer when we call you on your posts.
Is something a muck here?

[Scorpius]

When there were trials in Kuwait in late 80s, Abrams could not match M84 accuracy.

Source, please?


Vati how can you make such a claim if you have no documented proof? Because you heard from somebody who talked to somebody who, etc.....

This is your opinion is it not? If that's your opinion then fine, but I don't think it's factual.

[Wolfman]

Look, let me say it this way, you can say that 84 gunner got extremly lucky and abrams got some faulty munition, like in Greece. Fits PC better? :D
At the end of the day, the reality is such that in open, M1 could smoke 84 w/o any problem. So even if 84 can shoot more true, it doesnt help it anything, as its ammunition is pathetic.

Please explain precisely what you mean by "M84 an shoot more true"? An argument supported by round to round dispersion in mils or MOA at a given distance would be nice.


However I bet my sister that you would accept if I said it otherway around, w/o any hysterical questioning. People had hard time believing that an old rpg7 could disable the mighty abrams as well.

I would be careful with statements like that.

[Vati]

Seems to be your default answer when we call you on your posts.
Is something a muck here?
Yep, because I know that it doesnt matter how much is written the end result is, as the past proofs, the same - "that's not good enough for me". It's like telling you guys that Bf109 is not as crap as discovery channel says it was. Been through such discussion so many times, I am pretty much tired of this. It's up to you how you process the information. Do a research on your own. The easiest thing is to say: "BS!! Hard data/sources!!!eleven!". :roll:

So as of now, I will simply avoid any technical discussion, as civil manners are not really the strong point on this forum when it comes to such topics.

[flyboy]

To Chrisotto,Dejawolf and stuart...I stand corrected.thank you...serves me right for believing everything I hear on video docos.Is this going to degenerate into a "mine is bigger than yours" thread.The better technollagy isn,t always the best way to win a battle.Sure it will give you an edge but tactics,team cohesion and a shitload of luck will turn any allied commanders day to hell.

[GaryOwen]

When there were trials in Kuwait in late 80s, Abrams could not match M84 accuracy.

Funny. I know a former 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment Company XO who witnessed Kuwaiti M-84s doing tank range in early 90's. He said that except for one crack crew, they couldn't hit the broad side of a barn.

Do you know which Company?

[chrisotto]

To Chrisotto,Dejawolf and stuart...I stand corrected.thank you...serves me right for believing everything I hear on video docos.

You weren't that "wrong" - wrong is such a horrible word, anyhow. The Soviets were on the verge of developing OMG warfare, or modern blitzkrieg, when they ran out of cash and the wall came tumbling down.

On IIRC, the AK-47's mechanism was copied and currently is prominently in use in the Galil and Stgw90 / SIG 550 rifle families, with higher quality standards and fabrication methods.

[dejawolf]

Yep, because I know that it doesnt matter how much is written the end result is, as the past proofs, the same - "that's not good enough for me". It's like telling you guys that Bf109 is not as crap as discovery channel says it was. Been through such discussion so many times, I am pretty much tired of this. It's up to you how you process the information. Do a research on your own. The easiest thing is to say: "BS!! Hard data/sources!!!eleven!". :roll:


well, why don't you ask our resident T-72 gunner a little around here.
oddball surely knows the ins and outs of the 2A46 gun he was firing.
which btw, seems to be he most likely gun put into the M-84.
in theory, an L50,8 gun with a 125mm caliber SHOULD actually be more accurate than an L44 120mm caliber gun.

maybe the russians has done it in one of the latest incarnations of their 2A46m's, or the ukrainians with either of their KBA's (which is based on 2a46M design)-
heck, the whole breech changed dramatically between 2a46 and 2a46M..

anyways theres a few people here willing to believe your statements...
IF YOU PROVIDE SOME EVIDENCE.

[Torak101]

Lighting seems to be much more pronounced than other interiors. Can you elaborate?

The light is probably caused by all the holes from the small arms fire :nukem2:

[Wolfman]

So as of now, I will simply avoid any technical discussion, as civil manners are not really the strong point on this forum when it comes to such topics.

You state something which you cannot support and get called on it, and suddenly this forum doesn't have "civil manners"?

[OddBall]

Do you know which Company?

Well, no. But Scott Cunningham aka ArchAngel was in it, he's the guy whom I heard it from, so maybe you know.

[Scorpius]

So as of now, I will simply avoid any technical discussion, as civil manners are not really the strong point on this forum when it comes to such topics.

You state something which you cannot support and get called on it, and suddenly this forum doesn't have "civil manners"?

I agree Wolfman. You'd be hard-pressed to find other forums where people are as respectful and mild-mannered as this one. That included the 10+ other forums I belong to and the 1 that I administrate.

Vati you haven't backed up your claim with any evidence so you change the subject.

[Wolfman]

Yep, because I know that it doesnt matter how much is written the end result is, as the past proofs, the same - "that's not good enough for me". It's like telling you guys that Bf109 is not as crap as discovery channel says it was.

Vati, don't you think it is a bit arrogant of you to assume that posters on this forum get their information from TV shows?

Been through such discussion so many times, I am pretty much tired of this. It's up to you how you process the information. Do a research on your own. The easiest thing is to say: "BS!! Hard data/sources!!!eleven!".

It is up to each one of us to support our claims with facts. The burden of proof is on you, not on me.

[stuart666]

To Chrisotto,Dejawolf and stuart...I stand corrected.thank you...serves me right for believing everything I hear on video docos.

You weren't that "wrong" - wrong is such a horrible word, anyhow. The Soviets were on the verge of developing OMG warfare, or modern blitzkrieg, when they ran out of cash and the wall came tumbling down.

On IIRC, the AK-47's mechanism was copied and currently is prominently in use in the Galil and Stgw90 / SIG 550 rifle families, with higher quality standards and fabrication methods.

Quite so, I have no more copyright on wisdom than anyone else. It would be more accurate to say that within 10 years, a number of different countries had come to the same conclusion about the use of Mechanised equipment. I think Fuller was the first, though arguably some of the ideas he was mooting were being put down in paper around the same time by one Ewin Rommel in a book about Infantry attacks. So no offense intended flyboy. :)

As for the 125mm gun, one would have to ask that IF it is so poor why do the Russians persist in using and not buy in 120mm western smoothbore guns? I dont believe it is superior, but it would be a great mistake to underrate it. Any faults it may have are with the fire control equipment, and M84s were hardly standard as regards T72s anyway.

[Torak101]

I thought I would share these with you guys.

http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d88/torak101/scan0008.jpg
Captured vehicles

http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d88/torak101/scan0004.jpg
Here is a size comparrison between an M1A1 and a T-72

http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d88/torak101/scan0006.jpg
Thats me in the drivers station of the T-72. These things where death traps.

http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d88/torak101/scan0001.jpg
Thats me on the right when I was skinny lol

http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d88/torak101/scan0003.jpg
Movement to contact with air cover

http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d88/torak101/scan0007.jpg
Sorry for the poor quality, in some cases, I was a bit scared lol. All I had was a cheapo camera my family sent me in the mail.

[dejawolf]

the reason russia has persisted on using the gun, is because its good enough, and they've invested heavily in it. they have enormous amounts of ammunition lying around, as well as large amounts of their tank fleet is fitted with it (the other being the 100mm and 115mm of the T-55 and T-62, which is still serving in chechnya)

[stuart666]

Excellent photos Torak, ought to post them up on Tanknet. Quite a few Desert Storm there.

[Volcano]

Not sure if anyone knows it or not... those pipes in the front of that one T72 image (scan0006.jpg) were a custom / homemade Iraqi invention that piped the exhaust down under the tank to get rid of the plume. Of course you would still have a dust cloud...

[12Alfa]

The size comparsion is I belive a T-55 not a T-72, or am I loosing it?

[MatsW]

Not sure if anyone knows it or not... those pipes in the front of that one T72 image (scan0006.jpg) were a custom / homemade Iraqi invention that piped the exhaust down under the tank to get rid of the plume. Of course you would still have a dust cloud...

Is that true? Do you know why the had the pipes in front of the tank? Why didn't they just put some simplier construction at the exhaust that redirected it downwards or had the pipes backwards/downwards?

[12Alfa]

They have a copy of that in the musum in Ft Knox.
We were told there it was to kick up dust to hide from the enemy as most TIS won't go through a sand cloud.

[Torak101]

Not sure if anyone knows it or not... those pipes in the front of that one T72 image (scan0006.jpg) were a custom / homemade Iraqi invention that piped the exhaust down under the tank to get rid of the plume. Of course you would still have a dust cloud...

It might be, it was a long time ago....looking at the splash guard I think that might be right.

[Torak101]

Not sure if anyone knows it or not... those pipes in the front of that one T72 image (scan0006.jpg) were a custom / homemade Iraqi invention that piped the exhaust down under the tank to get rid of the plume. Of course you would still have a dust cloud...

Of course it didn't work worth a s*** :nukem:

I have more if you want me to post them.....

[dejawolf]

The size comparsion is I belive a T-55 not a T-72, or am I loosing it?

yeah thats one of the chinese variants of the T-55.

[12Alfa]

Good, all my AFV studends can now relax.....

[Torak101]

The size comparsion is I belive a T-55 not a T-72, or am I loosing it?

yeah thats one of the chinese variants of the T-55.

It exploded just as nicely as the T-72. Call it a T-2000 for all I care, it was a p.o.s.

[Torak101]

I thought you might find this pic interesting. Look at the tank in the background. :D

This picture was given to me so I have no idea about the details.

http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d88/torak101/scan0009.jpg

[Zipuli]

Would that be the T-55 "Enigma" in the backround with all that extra armour?

Zip

[rump]

Would that be the T-55 "Enigma" in the backround with all that extra armour?

Zip

Jup, also see: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/afv/pdfs/enigma.pdf
(3.4 MB pdf document).

Regards,

Rump

[WIzzard019]

I think that is not to avoid Dust clouds,but to produce a smoke wall to retreat,by injecting Fuel into it, don't know for sure,but I heard that the M60 bridgelayer version has that too...,and the Tank in the background should be the "Enigma" with extra Armour and as far u can see the counter-weight behind the turret..

[ShotMagnet]

The .pdf is a thing of beauty. Thanks.


Shot

[Crusty]

Following on from Dejawolfs size comparison with the M1, I went to a Military vehicle event today, and was lucky enough to get these pics of a T72 and a Challenger 1 prototype side by side.

it does make you appreciate what a smaller target it presents