#171  
Old 04-08-2012, 10:21 PM
dejawolf's Avatar
dejawolf dejawolf is offline
Senior Member
Friday Night Battle CO - 10x SB Pro PE Beta Tester 
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Norway
Posts: 4,650
Re: T-72 - what's the verdict?

the M60 has it's fair share of disadvantages. it's slow-slower than a T-72.
it's protection is worse than the T-72, although it protects fairly decently against what the soviets had. there's no target designation feature for the TC, he has to climb down into the turret, and "find" the target through the GPSE. front hull is thin, about 230mm LOS, and front LOS thickness on turret chins is about 254mm, about 1/3 of the front turret profile. so it can be easily penetrated, by ALL 125mm apfsds rounds the russians fielded, at pretty much all ranges.
by comparison the original T-72 Ural had a fairly uniform ~340mm protection over the whole front profile.
the 105mm APFSDS rounds of the 1970s were more or less useless against this, and the later T-72A was even able to fend off the early 105mm HEAT round.
so in the 70s, the russians had a lighter, faster, better protected tank that could kill the M60 at any range. while the M60 only had a higher rate of fire, and better optics. and additionally, the T-72 was more numerous.
Reply With Quote
  #172  
Old 04-09-2012, 01:23 AM
mpow66m's Avatar
mpow66m mpow66m is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northeast
Posts: 1,146
Re: T-72 - what's the verdict?

yes i get what you are all sying,but in the end id rather hv the M60 or M1 over the T72.Not to underestimate it,and having never been in one,but i think Western Armour(or most allies) was better at it.The T72 is kind of like an AK47(fine rifle),but id rather have an M14.
__________________
When the people fear their government there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
Reply With Quote
  #173  
Old 04-09-2012, 09:49 PM
Ssnake's Avatar
Ssnake Ssnake is offline
Senior Member
Scenario Contest Judge SB Pro PE Beta Tester 
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Hannover, Germany
Posts: 16,483
Re: T-72 - what's the verdict?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mpow66m View Post
Yes but why sacrifice quality for quanity?
SImple. The Soviet production lines were better suited to cranking out lots and lots and lots of tanks, provided they were designed for ease of production. And that's what the T-72 was tailored for - minimal production costs while achieving certain standards for mobility, protection, and firepower.
The nature of centralized planning of the economy was that you evaluated only a handful of key parameters and that the rest didn't matter in the reward system (heh... reminds me of certain business practices of top level CEOs in the banking system - they do everything to maximize their bonuses, even if it ruins the company (or the economy) - purely incidental, I presume). Soviet planners rewarded the fulfillment of production quotas, and they wanted a tank at minimal production cost that had very good armament at its time, excellent mobility, and "adequate" armor protection.

For example, the M60's engine has a reputation for being extremely robust. Soviet planners would argue that a lifetime of tens of thousands of operating hours is a waste of production resources if the average tank's life expectancy on the battlefield is a mere ten days. Creating an engine that lasts just 1500 hours of running time would give you ample reserves, provided that you don't waste them all in costly live exercises. These tanks to a large extent went from the production line straight into long-term storage, e.g. East Germany had an entire tank regiment fully loaded with fuel and ammo in a hidden underground storage (in blatant violation of the CFE treaty, but only discovered after the German reunification).
Why waste your engineering hours and make production more costly to make the tank maintenance friendly, if it's built to last a mere two weeks on the battlefield?

In contrast, western tank designs focused on crew survival and minimal operating costs over the projected lifetime of a tank, also minimal turnaround times in maintenance and repairs (hence the concept of modularity and a multi-tier repair system). That made the individual tank a lot more costly but made your life easier afterwards.
I don't think that the Soviet designers would question that a lot of the Western features make the operation of a tank easier for the crew. But that wasn't a key factor for them when they were tasked to develop the T-72.

It isn't really leading anywhere if you try to use a western yardstick on a Soviet tank. It will only tell you that the designers and the Soviet economy must have been enigmatic or incompetent. If you look at what they were actually trying to accomplish, you realize that within their frame of reference they were just as smart and used principles of economy. It's just that they used a totally different frame of reference.

The ultimate arbiter is of course the battlefield. As it turned out, the T-72 didn't fare as good as the Soviet designers hoped it would. But in the absence of a high tech tank opponent, the T-72 is a fearsome beast that can wreak havoc to whatever draws its attention.
__________________
Do not use PMs to contact me - send me an email if you want me to do you a favor, and I'll be your happy servant.
Reply With Quote
  #174  
Old 04-09-2012, 11:00 PM
Hedgehog's Avatar
Hedgehog Hedgehog is offline
Tree Assassin
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: In the forest, with an M109, a hatchet and some worried trees.
Posts: 4,455
Re: T-72 - what's the verdict?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ssnake View Post
These tanks to a large extent went from the production line straight into long-term storage, e.g. East Germany had an entire tank regiment fully loaded with fuel and ammo in a hidden underground storage (in blatant violation of the CFE treaty, but only discovered after the German reunification).
Where was that?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #175  
Old 04-10-2012, 12:56 AM
Ssnake's Avatar
Ssnake Ssnake is offline
Senior Member
Scenario Contest Judge SB Pro PE Beta Tester 
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Hannover, Germany
Posts: 16,483
Re: T-72 - what's the verdict?

Too long ago, I don't remember the details. Maybe Google can dig something up about it.
__________________
Do not use PMs to contact me - send me an email if you want me to do you a favor, and I'll be your happy servant.
Reply With Quote
  #176  
Old 04-10-2012, 02:54 AM
mpow66m's Avatar
mpow66m mpow66m is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northeast
Posts: 1,146
Re: T-72 - what's the verdict?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ssnake View Post
SImple. The Soviet production lines were better suited to cranking out lots and lots and lots of tanks, provided they were designed for ease of production. And that's what the T-72 was tailored for - minimal production costs while achieving certain standards for mobility, protection, and firepower.
The nature of centralized planning of the economy was that you evaluated only a handful of key parameters and that the rest didn't matter in the reward system (heh... reminds me of certain business practices of top level CEOs in the banking system - they do everything to maximize their bonuses, even if it ruins the company (or the economy) - purely incidental, I presume). Soviet planners rewarded the fulfillment of production quotas, and they wanted a tank at minimal production cost that had very good armament at its time, excellent mobility, and "adequate" armor protection.

For example, the M60's engine has a reputation for being extremely robust. Soviet planners would argue that a lifetime of tens of thousands of operating hours is a waste of production resources if the average tank's life expectancy on the battlefield is a mere ten days. Creating an engine that lasts just 1500 hours of running time would give you ample reserves, provided that you don't waste them all in costly live exercises. These tanks to a large extent went from the production line straight into long-term storage, e.g. East Germany had an entire tank regiment fully loaded with fuel and ammo in a hidden underground storage (in blatant violation of the CFE treaty, but only discovered after the German reunification).
Why waste your engineering hours and make production more costly to make the tank maintenance friendly, if it's built to last a mere two weeks on the battlefield?

In contrast, western tank designs focused on crew survival and minimal operating costs over the projected lifetime of a tank, also minimal turnaround times in maintenance and repairs (hence the concept of modularity and a multi-tier repair system). That made the individual tank a lot more costly but made your life easier afterwards.
I don't think that the Soviet designers would question that a lot of the Western features make the operation of a tank easier for the crew. But that wasn't a key factor for them when they were tasked to develop the T-72.

It isn't really leading anywhere if you try to use a western yardstick on a Soviet tank. It will only tell you that the designers and the Soviet economy must have been enigmatic or incompetent. If you look at what they were actually trying to accomplish, you realize that within their frame of reference they were just as smart and used principles of economy. It's just that they used a totally different frame of reference.

The ultimate arbiter is of course the battlefield. As it turned out, the T-72 didn't fare as good as the Soviet designers hoped it would. But in the absence of a high tech tank opponent, the T-72 is a fearsome beast that can wreak havoc to whatever draws its attention.


ahh yes makes sense, explains why Eastern and Soviet ways of thinking are so radicallly different.I could never subscribe to their ways of ''doing things''.But in the end their way of doing what they do best caused thei demise,and over 40 yrs later the T72 lives as the T90.Its been around for a long while but in any form IMHO its still obsolete.....but thats good for us.lol.
__________________
When the people fear their government there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
Reply With Quote
  #177  
Old 04-18-2012, 01:51 PM
Itkovian Itkovian is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 108
Re: T-72 - what's the verdict?

Is there a manual for the T-72 somewhere? I'm not at my PC right now and couldn't find anything in the downloads section.

I must admit T-72 gunnery is a complete mystery to me.

Itkovian
Reply With Quote
  #178  
Old 04-18-2012, 02:18 PM
rump's Avatar
rump rump is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Amsterdam, the Netherlands
Posts: 1,056
Re: T-72 - what's the verdict?

The wiki entry for the T-72M1 is a good start:

http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/index.php/T-72M1

- Rump
Reply With Quote
  #179  
Old 04-18-2012, 04:09 PM
Itkovian Itkovian is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 108
Re: T-72 - what's the verdict?

Bloody hell, I looked for it and all I could find was the vehicle database entry. I must have
looked at the wrong T-72 version.

Oh well, thank you.

Itkovian
Reply With Quote
  #180  
Old 04-19-2012, 02:07 AM
streakeagle's Avatar
streakeagle streakeagle is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 49
Re: T-72 - what's the verdict?

Plenty of pics of T-72s killed at max ranges by Israeli M60s. If both tanks are equally vulnerable to each others' guns, I would go with the more accurate one and/or higher rate of fire, which would be the M60 based on combat results. In reality, tanks rarely act alone. Combined arms matter a lot. But the Israelis somehow managed to get into some heavy tank vs tank fights and used the M60 to its strengths. They didn't really like the M60, but if you give them a weapon, they figure out how to use it well.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:05 PM.