Jump to content

T72


mpow66m
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Members

I appreciate the snark, but it was designed to allow maneuvering in the motor pool - and not much beyond that. As to why they made that design decision we can speculate. If in doubt, my money is on "to keep the transmission as cheap and as compact as possible", not as a tool of education for the valiant defenders of the rodina.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every piece of military equipment is a CAPABILITY that is linked to it's armies doctrine and its national strategy.

 

In most cases, militaries don't buy or develop a piece of equipment for the sake of having something new and shiny.

 

Modern Russian doctrine is still very similar to its Soviet WW2 origins of "Deep Battle", which relies on speed and mass to overwhelm it's enemies. They originally saw the T-34 as the workhorse that could best support that doctrine and continued to evolve the design. I personally don't think the T72 has a very colorful development history. It has a few modifications over the T64 that favor the terrain of western Europe but nothing fancy. 

 

I also think the T72 fits just fine for the Soviets/Russian doctrine.

 

I've also never understood the "T72 versus M1/Leo" argument. Or any argument on individual equipment. There is so much more that dictates a battle before two tanks start shooting at each other from a few hundred meters, and there have been enough wars won or lost despite tactical outcomes.

 

 

Edited by Apocalypse 31
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/3/2022 at 3:11 PM, Ssnake said:

For the moment, either T-90 or Czech T-72M4. The former represents the protection level better, the latter the thermal imager capability.

 

Yess ... maybe if I ask real nice like we can get a little bit upgraded OPFOR tank. So emulation of T72B3. Doesnt need switchology or interior - just thermals and reactive armor. I would be ecstatic to have something like the Challenger interior but with a workable sight and human controlled tank.

I might have mentioned this once or twice before ... as one who plays OPFOR once or twice ... 😁

Also ... if used correctly, then the T72 is lethal - make no mistake about that.

Edited by Nike-Ajax
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Nike-Ajax said:

Also ... if used correctly, then the T72 is lethal - make no mistake about that.

 

accomplished with scenario design- so for example you might script a situation where t-72s are attacking and destroying headquarters units and/or second and third echelon formations, supply units, military police, civil defense units and so on- the presumption is the t-72s have punched through or routed around the shocked front line defenses; or, in the case of attacking enemy tanks, which are already reeling and start the battle damaged, low on ammunition or without full strength

Edited by Captain_Colossus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

it is a con. because it is implied that a faster reverse gear would be useful to shift positions- say for example doing an ATGM drill. if you play the t-72 in steel beasts, you will see how useful it would be when you cannot back out of the way of a guided missile which is approaching. so the joke is that soviet crews were not permitted to retreat, so no reverse gear for you comrade

Edited by Captain_Colossus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Captain_Colossus said:

 

accomplished with scenario design- so for example you might script a situation where t-72s are attacking and destroying headquarters units and/or second and third echelon formations, supply units, military police, civil defense units and so on- the presumption is the t-72s have punched through or routed around the shocked front line defenses; or, in the case of attacking enemy tanks, which are already reeling and start the battle damaged, low on ammunition or without full strength


We are talking SB now - or I think we are ?

And I use T72´s almost every Sunday.

Ask some of the boys if it can only destroy second and third echelon troops ...

Join and I will show you 😇

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for reversing like Ssnake stated then it was a deliberate choice that they did not use effort to make it high speed in reverse. So focused on other aspects, obviously not because they were too stupid to make a reverse gear. And certainly not because they tried to make it so units couldnt retreat.

It fit Soviet doctrine and making a Tank or any fighting vehicle is always a compromise between speed, protection and firepower.

That doesnt mean its bad. Just means it fits a role in another doctrine.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

+ T-72 is one if not only tanks in SB that can fire over rear deck.  And... Umm... Quite bit more survivable when engaging enemy by reversing. I mean... Often you can survive quite few hits. When doing so. (- the Fack that you're a statue afterwards)  or in lucky case that you achieve your mischief without being hit . You. Drop enemy's jaws by cruising away full speed...  Showing your mighty log strip to them. 

 

Tested and proven. It works to engage enemy like this... Although turtle speed. xD

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Nike-Ajax said:


We are talking SB now - or I think we are ?

And I use T72´s almost every Sunday.

Ask some of the boys if it can only destroy second and third echelon troops ...

Join and I will show you 😇

 

that is not what i am saying- i am not saying that it cannot destroy a modern tank target; i am saying what you call 'used correctly' can be set up in the mission editor for specific type of scenario where the t-72 is performing as it is conceived, that is, we've already presumed a breakthrough or set loose on the attack where the enemy is already somewhat depleted (again, the assumption is attrition through previous contact or already hit with artillery, soviet frontal aviation strikes or what have you as the t-72 waves are coming from over yonder) for single player scenarios at least; generally in multi-player i don't see those kinds of mission designs set up that way, usually you see a lot fewer t-72s going up against fresh m1s or leopard 2s or what have you without say entire grid squares annihilated with ballistic missiles or a helicopter regiment or whatnot. that in theory is how it should work and how the t-72 would ideally perform; again i have to say it though- show me a modern conflict where you see this happening in this way. rather what you are seeing is either more conventional forms of warfare or insurgency suppression where the t-72s are taking substantial losses, precisely because they are not fighting to the potential with which they were conceived

Edited by Captain_Colossus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Nike-Ajax said:

As for reversing like Ssnake stated then it was a deliberate choice that they did not use effort to make it high speed in reverse. So focused on other aspects, obviously not because they were too stupid to make a reverse gear. And certainly not because they tried to make it so units couldnt retreat.

It fit Soviet doctrine and making a Tank or any fighting vehicle is always a compromise between speed, protection and firepower.

That doesnt mean its bad. Just means it fits a role in another doctrine.

 

 

you're making my very point- the way the t-72 is conceived, for various reasons the emphasis isn't to fight going in reverse or switching positions like a defending western tank would need to do- therefore it simply fits with the soviet process and a more economical design, less complicated moving parts and so on- again easier maintenance in garrison, cheaper design over all for the requirements of an 'economy' main battle tank. this makes sense because in ww3 there is not going to be much need to send broken tanks back to depot level maintenance for refit or repair, the war will be over much sooner than a tank can be mended and sent back again. surviving isn't prioritized under that logic- which does after all make a bit of sense. what would be the point to recover damaged tanks from the point of view the war would either be over before repairs could be complete or one side or the other would be destroyed anyway; from the individual crew's standpoint, it looks like a deathtrap, but the bigger picture is how the t-72 is conceived to perform with all the other moving parts as part of a larger system, since the soviets really took care to plan and calculate everything fitting into place like a science- the overall synergy if that is what you would call it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a turret down, or a hull down position, if positioned well (training) the AFV need not face forward, IF you want to retreat quickly.

True the obstacle protecting you and your AFV requires standoff, but there are times where while in a Sight/Turret/Hull down one could back into that area.

And does not the T tanks fire over the rear deck? Reversing slowly to fire, and max forward speed to next position is possible using this method if you gain the first shot, or not seen yet. 

From a battle position where your defending to the death it requires all armour facing the threat.

 

Food for thought?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Captain_Colossus said:

this makes sense because in ww3 there is not going to be much need to send broken tanks back to depot level maintenance for refit or repair, the war will be over much sooner than a tank can be mended and sent back again.

 

Ah yes, the ole "war will be over by Christmas" thought process. 

 

If anyone is an expert in employing base-model T-72s within Steel Beasts, @Nike-Ajax is it. He has a masterful way of taking "obsolete" Eastern Bloc equipment and fighting it in a manner that emphasizes all of its strengths while exposing all of BLUEFOR's weaknesses. Specifically, that involves disrupting BLUEFOR elements with indirect fire during his main body's approach, fixing BLUEFOR maneuver elements into position between both massed direct and indirect fires so BLUEFOR has to fight the battle on his terms, before destroying BLUEFOR with echeloned indirect fires followed by massed vehicles and infantry at close range to drive and march over BLUEFOR's dead and dying line elements. This can naturally be followed by an exploitation, but usually the scenario ends at this point. 

 

This is exactly the type of engagement the T-72 was designed for, and it happens almost every single Sunday at 2 PM EST. ;)

 

As for modern conflicts, the biggest hinderance is that the T-72, BMP-2, etc are designed at the Battalion Detachment (BDET) and below level to perform Tactical Actions, which can be considered roughly analogous to the US' Battle Drills. BDETs and below perform one tactical action at a time, and these actions are inherently dynamic, with notably less planning than a western counterpart (MDMP, Seven Questions, etc). A key element to this working is having overmatch when it comes to indirect fire assets. For this to work, you need 3:1 (for a Supporting Force/Element) or 5:1 (for an Action Force/Element) odds in indirect fire alone. Most modern conflicts have lacked this... but not all. Notable exceptions where "fires" (I'll include aviation assets here, to include drones, and also electronic warfare as it helps to achieve similar effects) were used effectively to facilitate this style of fighting include the 2008 Russo-Georgian War by the Russians, the Russian's performance in Ukraine in 2014, and the recent Nagorno-Karabakh War in 2020 as seen by the Azeris. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Mirzayev said:

 

Ah yes, the ole "war will be over by Christmas" thought process. 

 

If anyone is an expert in employing base-model T-72s within Steel Beasts, @Nike-Ajax is it. He has a masterful way of taking "obsolete" Eastern Bloc equipment and fighting it in a manner that emphasizes all of its strengths while exposing all of BLUEFOR's weaknesses. Specifically, that involves disrupting BLUEFOR elements with indirect fire during his main body's approach, fixing BLUEFOR maneuver elements into position between both massed direct and indirect fires so BLUEFOR has to fight the battle on his terms, before destroying BLUEFOR with echeloned indirect fires followed by massed vehicles and infantry at close range to drive and march over BLUEFOR's dead and dying line elements. This can naturally be followed by an exploitation, but usually the scenario ends at this point. 

 

This is exactly the type of engagement the T-72 was designed for, and it happens almost every single Sunday at 2 PM EST. ;)

 

As for modern conflicts, the biggest hinderance is that the T-72, BMP-2, etc are designed at the Battalion Detachment (BDET) and below level to perform Tactical Actions, which can be considered roughly analogous to the US' Battle Drills. BDETs and below perform one tactical action at a time, and these actions are inherently dynamic, with notably less planning than a western counterpart (MDMP, Seven Questions, etc). A key element to this working is having overmatch when it comes to indirect fire assets. For this to work, you need 3:1 (for a Supporting Force/Element) or 5:1 (for an Action Force/Element) odds in indirect fire alone. Most modern conflicts have lacked this... but not all. Notable exceptions where "fires" (I'll include aviation assets here, to include drones, and also electronic warfare as it helps to achieve similar effects) were used effectively to facilitate this style of fighting include the 2008 Russo-Georgian War by the Russians, the Russian's performance in Ukraine in 2014, and the recent Nagorno-Karabakh War in 2020 as seen by the Azeris. 

 

 

 

honestly don't follow your point. 'the war will be over by christmas' simply does not compare to a ww3 nuclear war- you're using some kind of trope where pundits or strategists predict quick victories in a limited conventional war. again, presuming full scale, non-conventional, nuclear war- something that you can neither simulate in steel beasts nor have seen in any real world conflict to date is what i am speaking of. your comparisons with 2008 or 2020 or nike-ajax's performance in steel beasts isn't what i am talking about (i don't even understand where steel beasts analogy is supposed to come in, as if a battalion or brigade level steel beasts scenario compares to the scope and scale of ww3. i would have assumed this already speaks for itself) . i repeat again- i have never said the t-72 cannot be a threat. i am saying that the actual performance in real world conflicts it has shown to be vulnerable and is prone to losses. the fact of regularly occurring losses of t-72s isn't something i am conjuring out of thin air- and this isn't even a controversial point, but somehow there is this tendency to talk around this for some reason

Edited by Captain_Colossus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i could not tell you how many t-72s have been destroyed in all conflicts it has even been involved with, but we do know more or less that is is not a few. this site claims that 245 armenian t-72s were lost in 2020. are you going to tell me that nike-ajax expertly employs the t-72 in multi-player, therefore that settles it-

 

https://theprinciplesofwar.com/uav/lessons-for-uav-employment-in-nagorno-karabakh-region/

 

again, before someone comes along and repeats yet again an anecdote about steel beasts or misconstrues the point i'm making- to re-iterate- i'm not saying the t-72 cannot be a deadly weapon. of course it is. what i am saying is that it has shown to be rather vulnerable and prone to losses in real conflicts; now for some countries the t-72 is the best they can do given the constraints they are operating under. but it bears repeating, in a way you get what you pay for, and the real world results tend to show.

 

Edited by Captain_Colossus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have skills to make them in Photoshop or Gimp. I have tried some skins on RBR but they were quite ridiculous. Those nets should be more efficient to diguise shape of tank's profile. I looked some nets on T-72's and they were great. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/5/2022 at 7:24 PM, Captain_Colossus said:

i could not tell you how many t-72s have been destroyed in all conflicts it has even been involved with, but we do know more or less that is is not a few. this site claims that 245 armenian t-72s were lost in 2020. are you going to tell me that nike-ajax expertly employs the t-72 in multi-player, therefore that settles it-

 

https://theprinciplesofwar.com/uav/lessons-for-uav-employment-in-nagorno-karabakh-region/

 

again, before someone comes along and repeats yet again an anecdote about steel beasts or misconstrues the point i'm making- to re-iterate- i'm not saying the t-72 cannot be a deadly weapon. of course it is. what i am saying is that it has shown to be rather vulnerable and prone to losses in real conflicts; now for some countries the t-72 is the best they can do given the constraints they are operating under. but it bears repeating, in a way you get what you pay for, and the real world results tend to show.

 

 

i could probably tell you, and also why they were destroyed. 

in desert storm, it was the thermal imager of the abrams, and poor maintenance by iraqi army. most of the systems in their tanks were barely functional, and they had spent most of their best ammunition fighting the iranian army, which was outdated export rounds design (BM-12, BM-15) unable to penetrate even the front armour of the T-72M1. in 1991, russian army had far better BM-32 and BM-42 in their arsenal, with double the penetration power. 

during 73 easting, if i record correctly, the iraqis dug their tanks down into battle positions, so their tanks were completely stationary. a sandstorm blew up however, which obscured the american advance. while the iraqi tanks were completely blinded by the sandstorm, the americans were able to see around 500-1000m ahead with their thermals. the result was a complete destruction of the iraqi ambush. 

the difference in training between US and iraqi army also has to be emphasized. Iraqi army barely received any training, much less live fire training. meanwhile the US army had training simulators, and frequent live fire training exercises, along with joint training exercises with NATO. 

as a comparison, sweden did a trial years ago with centurions and strv 122, where they put a completely fresh crew into the strv 122 and centurion crew with years of experience. the result was predictable. 

strv 122 crew was completely outclassed by the much more experienced centurion crews. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...