Jump to content

T72


mpow66m
 Share

Recommended Posts

ok. sure. you didn't give an actual figure after you said you could.

 

the reasons why are generally common knowledge- which is why it is surprising that people still for some reason are making excuses or somehow playing up the t-72 as better than it appears to be performing even after they admit in general that there is something going on here.

 

as far as actual numbers- well, even without a ballpark figure you already have a sense of it. we can follow events in syria or in ukraine currently or what have you- and it is quite common what you are seeing even if the numbers aren't concise. you see what is in plain sight.

 

so again, my point all along

 

1) what you are seeing is in plain sight. if it looks like the t-72 is having difficulties even with upgrade programs, that is because it is. your eyes, your awareness of things aren't deceiving you.

2) this does not mean that the t-72 is not in itself a deadly weapon of war. that is not the point. even the t-62 is a deadly weapon of war. but if this is the only story, then it is only the half of it. in the conflicts where the winning side is using the t-72, it seems to be coming at a severe abuse of the equipment.

3) the t-72 is still fun to play in steel beasts, because it is generally outclassed by any tank of the same generation and so therefore it imparts a specific challenge. some players may not like it, i personally like it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Captain_Colossus said:

3) the t-72 is still fun to play in steel beasts, because it is generally outclassed by any tank of the same generation and so therefore it imparts a specific challenge. some players may not like it, i personally like it

 

the T-72 is not outclassed by any tank of the same generation. it is quite deadly against the leopard AS1, and M60A1, and in many aspects outperform those vehicles. 

Edited by dejawolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

fair enough. it is outclassed by the m1 and leopard 2 or challenger where the t-72 is still operating in the same envelope- that is, with upgrade packages and so on; i do not think think the t-72 is sufficient even with modern upgrades, all other things being equal

 

 

Edited by Captain_Colossus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Captain_Colossus said:

fair enough. it is outclassed by the m1 and leopard 2 or challenger where the t-72 is still operating in the same envelope- that is, with upgrade packages and so on; i do not think think the t-72 is sufficient even with modern upgrades, all other things being equal

 

 

B3 has a thermal, and the latest ERA. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

there are also images of the B3 - with thermals and the latest ERA - destroyed in what we are seeing in current events.

 

this is what i'm getting at. and this mainly from the russian side. from what i can see virtually all of the media that you are seeing shows russian losses and almost seems to be going out of the way not to show what the ukranians are losing- which are also using similar equipment

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Captain_Colossus said:

there are also images of the B3 - with thermals and the latest ERA - destroyed in what we are seeing in current events.

 

this is what i'm getting at. and this mainly from the russian side. from what i can see virtually all of the media that you are seeing shows russian losses and almost seems to be going out of the way not to show what the ukranians are losing- which are also using similar equipment

 

 

yes. by javelins. which the Leo chally and abrams also are vulnerable to. 

Edited by dejawolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

artillery, rpgs, drone attacks- ATGMs, whatever, again, why the talking around this? there is a tendency to try to appear 'objective', but in the process becoming almost dogmatic- so that the 'objectivity' in reality starts discounting information which showing that you can objectively make the case that the t-72 is getting whooped. there is always an excuse. it was the iraqis. it was the javelins. it was the weather. always something- so at some point, you see what is going on. what you see is what you are getting. this vehicle is proving itself to be vulnerable. again- you can always keep on making some case that there is this or that reason where the lucky stars didn't properly align or whatever- but after a point this looks like refusing to see the end of the game for the t-72

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you think the use of ATGMs in Ukraine will change how armor is used.Yeah I know the Russians are doing everything wrong.But I guess what Im getting at what lessons will be learned from this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i don't know what the lessons are here, to be frank- for one thing, i do not trust the information from either russia or western outlets. we all know what is wrong with putin. but will we admit the way the western media covers the conflict in the sense that it is projecting into it like an audience rooting for an underdog, but not being realistic. for instance, i do not necessarily think the russian attack had 'stalled' in the way it was reported, rather, in my opinion, the russians are not fighting a war in the way that it was being sold by the west, that is, it wasn't necessarily their intention to capture kiev in two days. what they are doing is laying siege- they are deliberately cutting off important cities, and encouraging the civilians to flee.

 

but it's the same old story with the russians isn't it. sure. here come the conscripts and the bmp-1s, bmp-2s and t-72s and so on. where is the new equipment and the professional army that were supposedly working on but seem to once again hold back. if you want to survive a russian conflict, it's better to be one of the 'professional' volunteers in the higher quality units, that way you aren't likely to be used as fodder. the russian logic does not seem to work in the same way you would expect even after learning lessons from grozny or something. instead double down once again on what they were doing for decades even after promising reforms

Edited by Captain_Colossus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Captain_Colossus said:

i don't know what the lessons are here, to be frank- for one thing, i do not trust the information from either russia or western outlets. we all know what is wrong with putin. but will we admit the way the western media covers the conflict in the sense that it is projecting into it like an audience rooting for an underdog, but not being realistic. for instance, i do not necessarily think the russian attack had 'stalled' in the way it was reported, rather, in my opinion, the russians are not fighting a war in the way that it was being sold by the west, that is, it wasn't necessarily their intention to capture kiev in two days. what they are doing is laying siege- they are deliberately cutting off important cities, and encouraging the civilians to flee.

 

but it's the same old story with the russians isn't it. sure. here come the conscripts and the bmp-1s, bmp-2s and t-72s and so on. where is the new equipment and the professional army that were supposedly working on but seem to once again hold back. if you want to survive a russian conflict, it's better to be one of the 'professional' volunteers in the higher quality units, that way you aren't likely to be used as fodder. the russian logic does not seem to work in the same way you would expect even after learning lessons from grozny or something. instead double down once again on what they were doing for decades even after promising reforms

I agree theres no way Putin or his Generals could have thought they could conquer Ukrainia in 2-3 days.They ll surround their Objs and shell them into oblivion to get them to surrender,but that ll never work.The RU have lost 11 high level Officers on the front lines where they should never be.....you can only come to one conclusion from that...they are going up there to get get troops motivated and fix the massive mess both logistical and strategical.I just watched a video of an RU Officer talking with another about shooting soldiers who did not want to fight.Id say it was legit based on the emotion behind it,the sounded depressed, beaten and exhausted.I think what we are seeing now is the death throes of the USSR and its remains.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bob Bobbers
If you watch in slow motion at around 58 secs you can actually see the missile strike the turret, which appears to cause detonation of the shell loaded in the breach, which then detonates the ammo rack, black smoke billows from the barrel and the turret rotates, likely due to a dead crewmember falling against the controls or else damage causing a malfunction. The turret ring didn't separate so the trapped explosive force finds its escape at the weakest point - the hatch. That one survivor that climbs out of the emergency hatch was phenomenally fortunate.
Show less
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/11/2022 at 9:41 PM, mpow66m said:

Do you think the use of ATGMs in Ukraine will change how armor is used. Yeah I know the Russians are doing everything wrong. But I guess what Im getting at what lessons will be learned from this.

 

We cant say for sure till the dust settles. But i can say for sure I think it validates that  360 degree APS suites need to be made standard fleet wide if going into conflict zones where agtms are present especially top down attack like javelins.

 

But I think this is why the Americans for example has been buying Israeli trophy suites for the M1 series. Russians had been developed Arena APS but its questionable how many have actually been applied to their tank fleet ( if any at all).

 

I acknowledge there wont be opportunity for a proper combat analysis until the dust settles, but i think its fair to say they haven't properly applied lessons learned from Chechen wars and the 2008 Georgian war, and overall one of the reasons western militaries are highly regarded, United States in particular is because of how much more $$$  and time they can invest in training on a yearly basis and because logistics is of greater importance than tactics or individual soldier competency 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/11/2022 at 9:04 PM, dejawolf said:

B3 has a thermal, and the latest ERA. 

 

Only the soft packs on the sides  are latest relikt,  otherwise what you see on the front Hull and Turret is still Kontact 5.Relikt has a distinct look ( see T80BVM or T90M). Without ERA the main armor as you know is going to be same protection as T72B mod 85 or 89.

 

Also how many T72's ( or tank series any in Russian tank fleet) have independent CITV for commander? How many have battlefield management system? I Think only T90M and T14 Armata. have those.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well if you have masses of these obsolescent / obsolete vehicles and you are expecting the opposition to not so effective then it probably makes sense to husband you newer, more effective types until the enemy exhausts their supply of anti armour weapons on the older types.

 

I mean they could have sent in T-34s and T-55s out of storage too.

 

I suspect they were hoping the operation would be:

 

a. Over quickly

 

b. Not see an influx of NLAW, Panzerfaust 3, Javelin, etc. to make up for their initial consumption.

 

Its one thing to try and attrit / wear down the enemy before you send in the "good stuff" if they have a fixed amount. Quite another if that initial stock keeps being replenished or even grows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Kev2go said:

 

Only the soft packs on the sides  are latest relikt,  otherwise what you see on the front Hull and Turret is still Kontact 5.Relikt has a distinct look ( see T80BVM or T90M). Without ERA the main armor as you know is going to be same protection as T72B mod 85 or 89.

 

Also how many T72's ( or tank series any in Russian tank fleet) have independent CITV for commander? How many have battlefield management system? I Think only T90M and T14 Armata. have those.

BMS is not neccesarily standard on all western tanks either. 

sure, but main armour on T-72B is not bad. 520mm or so, including hull. and K5 reduces penetration power of incoming rounds by around 30%. which means only the M829A2 or M828A3 can reliably penetrate it. not to mention interior space and overall profile is smaller, so it's harder to hit the "softer parts" especially at long ranges due to gun dispersion. at shorter range, side protection is actually superior to western tanks such as leo and abrams, although post-penetration survivability is... poorer. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/12/2022 at 9:27 AM, mpow66m said:

''B3  has a thermal, and the latest ERA. "

 

 

 

I'm guessing that probably what we're seeing here is simply a system that wasn't thoroughly ruggedized enough before being fielded.  This wouldn't be the first time it happened, IIRC.

When "Schurzen" (spelling?) side skirts got slapped on WW2 era German armor as a bandaid against anti-tank rifle rounds smashing up their expensive equipment, shortly after fitting them they discovered that they were too easily bent, knocked off, damaged, or destroyed just by moving around through certain woodland areas etc that normally weren't a problem for tanks.  I seem to recall that eventually the answer was a combination of improved attachment methods together with bending the ends of the plates in so they were more likely to make things slide along the outside than to allow them to get inside and scrape the plates right off the tank.

 

As for tanks and obsolete, IIRC, the pendulum swings both ways, it just goes one direction at a time.  The latest generation of high end anti-tank weapons are obviously quite effective.  I imagine that soon enough we'll start seeing 360 degree APS including those that protect against top attack munitions added, simply because there is a limit to how much armor you can pile on to your tanks if you still want them to move.

 

The Abrams is badly in need of something like that.


The Leopard 2 is badly in need of some similar upgrade programs.  I would REALLY like to see the hull ammo storage thing being addressed sooner rather than later.  Reconfigure with an internal bunker including blow-our panels for hull storage (if possible), or switch to something like the Challenger 2 system that will douse the rounds in water if hit, or change to individual armor plated tubes to try protecting the rounds from penetrations like some of the Merkavas do, really do something or pretty much anything to reduce the vulnerability.  Whatever is lost in terms of total capacity can be addressed, if necessary, by adding an external stowage canister in the bustle rack to hold the left over rounds.  Unlike the T-Tank designs where the ammo is pretty much always going to be strapped to the crew, I think the Leopard has enough room to come up with a little bit better solution.

 

EDIT TO ADD:  A question about the "Relikt" soft packs.  Are those things the only ERA covering the sides of those T-Tanks fitted with it in the bags like that?  Or are they placing it over the top of the more usual Kontakt1/5 ERA that we would expect to see there?  If the Relikt in the bags is the only ERA in that area I am really shocked that they allow them to deploy with something so fragile.  If it was designed as an easily attached supplement, then I can understand how something like that might be acceptable.  If you can get it to stay there, good, so much the better.  If it falls off, you've still got your Kontakt 5.

Edited by Maj.Hans
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Maj.Hans said:

The Leopard 2 is badly in need of some similar upgrade programs.  I would REALLY like to see the hull ammo storage thing being addressed sooner rather than later.  Reconfigure with an internal bunker including blow-our panels for hull storage (if possible), or switch to something like the Challenger 2 system that will douse the rounds in water if hit, or change to individual armor plated tubes to try protecting the rounds from penetrations like some of the Merkavas do, really do something or pretty much anything to reduce the vulnerability.  Whatever is lost in terms of total capacity can be addressed, if necessary, by adding an external stowage canister in the bustle rack to hold the left over rounds.  Unlike the T-Tank designs where the ammo is pretty much always going to be strapped to the crew, I think the Leopard has enough room to come up with a little bit better solution.

 

 

yeah, leo has plenty of unused space. 

i'd just redesign the bustle area to be more similar to the abrams, move radios and stuff in rear of turret in front of loader and under gun, and move entire ammo rack

into rear bustle, and whatever cannot fit there, move it into a separate compartment inside stowage area in rear turret. 

then swap out hull ammunition bunker for a large fuel tank/stowage area.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
On 5/5/2022 at 12:51 PM, Captain_Colossus said:

0:46 briefly you can see the commander's TIS for the T-72b3- which logically looks very similar if not the same in the T-90A

 

 

 

That does not appear to be a independent commanders TIS.  But rather a  display showing what the Gunner is seeing through his sight, kind of how M1A1 has gunners sight extension ( minus maybe being able to take control does T72b3 Commader take over controls?) . Commander can see what the gunner is doing  but does not have its own independent TIS in the form of a CITV to search for targets whilst gunner is engaging his own targets. meaning T72B3 does not have hunter killer capability, which i was reffering to in a earlier post.

 

there was a T72B3M demonstrator that had that capability, but im not sure if it was officially adopted and if it was, how many numbers. 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i don't make any claims that it is a CITV sight- i simply do not know the full details- but it is a commander's TIS sight. there is scant information as to how the system is integrated in a vehicle which was never designed with a TIS to begin with. it took me this long just by circumstance to see quick video grabs of it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Someone mentioned leopard 2 hull ammo.

 

If this is removed by setting stored rounds to 0 in the mission maker, does ProPE change the vulnerability in the way it does for the T-72?

Edited by Maj.Hans
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...