Welcome to Steelbeasts.com

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

LtGeorge

T-72 - what's the verdict?

209 posts in this topic

Very happy with the T-72M1, though the interior model doesn't seem to have beeen lavished with as much love as models like the Leo 1A5 or CV9030. I'd love to see a functional gunner's hatch.

Edited by FlatTax
typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ironically, the T-72's turret interior is one of the oldest turret interiors that were ever made for SB Pro.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe because there is a lot more to modeling a crewable tank in SB Pro PE than having a 3d model of the turret? Just a wild guess :diable:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe because there is a lot more to modeling a crewable tank in SB Pro PE than having a 3d model of the turret? Just a wild guess :diable:

Yes, the devil is in the details (of the FCS). ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have come to realize how hard it is to search for posts from me containing "T-72" and being recent threads with more than five replies. I guess this is because this stupid forum software refuses to search for three-character expressions and doesn't coint the hyphen as a character. That's very unfortunate since the explanation takes a bit of time. In summary:

  • A playable T-72 was planned as early as 2002, but "life got in the way"
  • 2005 we commissioned the artwork in a second attempt to get it done
  • We were then interrupted by a flood of customization requests that we couldn't turn down
  • It took us until 2010 to finish the backlog of customization jobs
  • As soon as we were free again to work on things of our own, the T-72 was finished

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...if only I could find my own long replies in this forum here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a good use of the Centurion and M60A3 as well, since they are currently unplayable, but of course the Centurion is completely over matched with the T-72M1.

I really like the T-72 just for the fun of being "back in the '60's." Just wish the reverse speed was about ten times faster!

And bring on the playable Cent! That was my tank, and I'd love to try it out against the SB T-72s! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bump

eSim team: Maybe you should put a "disclaimer" sticky up explaining vehicle availability. (And any other relevant choices concerning content. E.g. the level of complexity of system "x".) Or just a basic description of the purpose of SB as primarily a tactical armored warfare simulator/trainer (as I understand it.) and the limitations that come with being a very small company with existing obligations.

I say this only in the interest of saving you some time so don't read anything into it. :biggrin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gunnery: I'm slow with it (I've only tried it on the range) and actually find it a hoot out to about 1500 meters. Above that, my accuracy on moving targets starts getting seriously wobbly. It's no coincidence (boom boom) that below 1500m KE rounds don't drop much either, so once you relax away from lase and blaze mentality you realise it's easier to just concentrate on aiming. I'd feel confident on stationary targets at much longer ranges, but don't think that's the sort of scrap you want in a T-72.

The engagement sequence isn't too difficult, it's really the aiming bit that's tricky. If it calculated lead I think it'd be genuinely pretty easy to use in human player's hands.

I like the gunner's control over ammo, too.

I'm figuring that in a scenario if I'm using it correctly gunnery ranges ought to be pretty close anyway. Certainly no sitting on hills Leo 2 stylee and blasting away with bolts of zeus...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My best gunnery score with the T-72 is 84, and that won't be repeated by me any time soon. Out to 2k, I'm ok. Beyond that, not so much...

I haven't used the T-72 in multiplayer yet, but I'm looking forward to it. The only downside I'm anticipating (enjoyment-wise) is the lack of a low-mag daysight, seeing how I (rather ridiculously) spend a lot of time driving from the gun sight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't used the T-72 in multiplayer yet...

Makes me nervous. Literally, my palms get all sweaty waiting for that unnoticed enemy tank to ruin my day. :shocked: Great fun!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its hard to believe that that tank struck fear in the hearts of NATO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its hard to believe that that tank struck fear in the hearts of NATO.

this video demonstrates fairly well the mindset of the time.

the west was already fairly respectful of the T-62, and then the russians made the T-72...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards

25,000+* of any tank would have me worried. :)

*Figure from Wikipedia

Yes but why sacrifice quality for quanity?The M60s FCS,Engine,armor and munitions were better than both the T72 and T64.Sure eventually if you throw enough at the M60 its gonna run out of ammo or eventuallly overwhelmed,but at what cost to the OPFOR?They dont care about losses just gaining the OBJ.M60 combined with air power and Arty would hv made short work of the T72.I dont think it has much of a bite,plus their ammo was subpar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes but why sacrifice quality for quanity?The M60s FCS,Engine,armor and munitions were better than both the T72 and T64.Sure eventually if you throw enough at the M60 its gonna run out of ammo or eventuallly overwhelmed,but at what cost to the OPFOR?They dont care about losses just gaining the OBJ.M60 combined with air power and Arty would hv made short work of the T72.I dont think it has much of a bite,plus their ammo was subpar.

I believe Stalin once said: 'Quantity has its own quality'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its hard to believe that that tank struck fear in the hearts of NATO.

It would require someone to be profoundly ignorant to not fear any kind of war or to think that the quality of NATO's partners were all the same, just as the Warsaw Pact had its weaker members, so did NATO. Even peasant conscripts in South East Asia have made tough opponents, in fact, historically the US has had a history of underestimating its opponents until fairly recently from the American Civil War through WW2 and up to the proxy wars of the Cold War.

If you think it's just a straight up 1:1 match between an opponent's tanks and yours, the Soviets did not plan on fighting a war that way. It's very doubtbul that a European war would like this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes but why sacrifice quality for quanity?The M60s FCS,Engine,armor and munitions were better than both the T72 and T64.Sure eventually if you throw enough at the M60 its gonna run out of ammo or eventuallly overwhelmed,but at what cost to the OPFOR?They dont care about losses just gaining the OBJ.M60 combined with air power and Arty would hv made short work of the T72.I dont think it has much of a bite,plus their ammo was subpar.

Can the T-72 kill you? Yes. So, I'm not quite following you. Soviet weapons are just as lethal as anything NATO had, I don't understand what you think is going on here. The difference tended to be more in guidance systems and battle computers, which weren't as as sophisticated.

Everyone pretty much assumes now that WW3 would have not been a coventional war anyway, and sooner or later there would be use of tactical nuclear weapons, and gas and chemical attacks. The T-72 is designed to operate in that context.

Steel Beasts also indicates to me the very severe threat of ATGM teams; when I run scenarios, these are often times worse than the tanks for their ability to break up attacks or push me out of my defensive positions. The missile systems of that time outranged everyone's tanks, and the hits are all lethal. One of the most difficult opponents against Steel Beasts' M60 and T-72M1 is the BMP-1. Across open ground, they can have up to 1-2 km of shooting that ATGM at you with impunity while you try and close the distance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards

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.:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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).

:eek2: Where was that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Too long ago, I don't remember the details. Maybe Google can dig something up about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now