To T-72 lovers... why do you like it?

[dejawolf]

That is offcourse if the autoloader does not load my arm insted of a round offcourse!

GAH! for the onehundredmillionth time, that is a MYTH!

only the very early T-64 autoloaders had that problem, and was long fixed by the time of the T-64A.

[oscar19681]

Ok then if you guys ever implement the t-64 and early auto laoder in sbp please make sure you also include the Ouch! sound sample for the gunner allong with it!

[Ssnake]

Can we have your arm and voice for that?

We won't need more than two takes, if you're disciplined and avoid unnecessary noise. :angel:

[LtGeorge]

Can we have your arm and voice for that?

We won't need more than two takes, if you're disciplined and avoid unnecessary noise. :angel:

Ha ha!

I see the T-72 issue not being quiet if the T-72M1 was ever released as a playable vehicle. I think a realistic model of it would reveal its deficiencies, like if the gunner was forced to manually transfer the laser range to the ballistic computer, or extreme difficulty in firing on the move while traveling at speed (both issues from Zaloga's survey). I'd imagine that quickly, people will be asking for the T-72BM or T-90 - more armor and better FCS.

Which would be great to have, but it means more work for a team already overloaded with work...

[Stratos]

Not really, I want the T72 to play it as a T72 with all his limits and benefits. Of course if they include a non playable T55. Then my hapiness will be complete

[dejawolf]

Ha ha!

I think a realistic model of it would reveal its deficiencies, like if the gunner was forced to manually transfer the laser range to the ballistic computer, or extreme difficulty in firing on the move while traveling at speed (both issues from Zaloga's survey).

well, zaloga was wrong. oddball, who was a T-72 gunner told me that you had a button you pushed, which would automatically superelevate the sight to the correct height, and then you put it back on target, like on the leo in emergency mode.

the stabilization will keep the gun stable at slow cross-country speeds of about 25kph,

at higher speed the aim will start bobbing up and down slightly.

there's still crippling deficiencies in its FCS.

the main GPS is limited to a fixed magnification of 8x, there's no MRS, and no cant sensor,

no dynamic lead, no TC override, but instead the TC is able to slew the turret onto his periscope's LOS, and he can make the turret turn left and right with 2 buttons.

and on top of that, the LRF aimpoint is usually offset randomly in some direction to the gun aimpoint. the 2A46 main gun of the T-72M1 has a shorter barrel life, compared to the russian

2A46M, and later variants.

and finally the radioset in the export tank is the old R123 set which uses vacuum tubes instead of circuits. the T-72A uses the R173, which is smaller and doesnt need to be heated before use.

then there's weakspots in the front armour where even 25mm can penetrate, such as around the gunners GPS.

[Hedgehog]

well, zaloga was wrong. oddball, who was a T-72 gunner told me that you had a button you pushed, which would automatically superelevate the sight to the correct height, and then you put it back on target, like on the leo in emergency mode.

the stabilization will keep the gun stable at slow cross-country speeds of about 25kph,

at higher speed the aim will start bobbing up and down slightly.

there's still crippling deficiencies in its FCS.

the main GPS is limited to a fixed magnification of 8x, there's no MRS, and no cant sensor,

no dynamic lead, no TC override, but instead the TC is able to slew the turret onto his periscope's LOS, and he can make the turret turn left and right with 2 buttons.

and on top of that, the LRF aimpoint is usually offset randomly in some direction to the gun aimpoint. the 2A46 main gun of the T-72M1 has a shorter barrel life, compared to the russian

2A46M, and later variants.

and finally the radioset in the export tank is the old R123 set which uses vacuum tubes instead of circuits. the T-72A uses the R173, which is smaller and doesnt need to be heated before use.

then there's weakspots in the front armour where even 25mm can penetrate, such as around the gunners GPS.

WTF????

Valve radios? In a tank?

Can you imagine if this list belonged the M1 there'd be a riot in congress.

[LtGeorge]

the main GPS is limited to a fixed magnification of 8x, there's no MRS, and no cant sensor,

no dynamic lead, no TC override, but instead the TC is able to slew the turret onto his periscope's LOS, and he can make the turret turn left and right with 2 buttons.

and on top of that, the LRF aimpoint is usually offset randomly in some direction to the gun aimpoint.

Well, Zaloga may have been incorrect in the details but your post suggests the same conclusion - it isn't a hot sh!t FCS. That's why my hypothesis is that when the T-72M1 is released, there will be about a month of extreme happiness amongst the T-72 wanna-be's, and then once they're tired of getting shredded by M1s and Leopard 2s they'll be wanting the T-72BM.

Which would be really cool if we could have both T-72s, but it's a process just getting one...

[Stratos]

Is not my idea to fight against M1 and Leo2, is not the idea of the T72 either. Leo1's and all the other bunch of IFV are there to be killed. A noncrewable T55 will be very cool too, this way you will be able to play against other T72, T55, Leo's...

[dejawolf]

Well, Zaloga may have been incorrect in the details but your post suggests the same conclusion - it isn't a hot sh!t FCS. That's why my hypothesis is that when the T-72M1 is released, there will be about a month of extreme happiness amongst the T-72 wanna-be's, and then once they're tired of getting shredded by M1s and Leopard 2s they'll be wanting the T-72BM.

Which would be really cool if we could have both T-72s, but it's a process just getting one...

not so at all. scenarios with the T-72M1 can be balanced with areas of reduced vision range, and more T-72s than M1s.

using it right will become a tactical challenge.

it'll be like tigers vs shermans and T-34, and everyone knows who won.

[LtGeorge]

not so at all. scenarios with the T-72M1 can be balanced by providing areas with reduced vision range, and superior numbers of tanks.

using it right will become a tactical challenge.

it'll be like tigers vs shermans and T-34, and everyone knows who won.

No doubt it would be a tactical challenge, and I believe the T-72 was designed for engagements under 1km (central European terrain) so that is easier on the FCS and gun stab. But my point is that there are many variants of the T-72, and I feel that a true depiction of the T-72M1 that we currently have is at the simplistic end of the scale - ie, no Svir, quirky FCS, etc, especially since the T-72M1 was for export.

I would support having both the T-72M1 and T-72BM introduced as playable, because I still foresee demand for a more modernized WP tank after the playable T-72M1 is released. The demand will either be to make the T-80U playable, but it may be easier to respin the T-72 as the T-72BM. Again, thinking of development time here...

Either way, it will be cool to fire off a Svir when it is finally playable.

[daskal]

I wanna have a crewable T55 (actually t-62) 'cause I want to re-film all of my favorite scenes from the "Beast" in SB. LOL

[dejawolf]

the T-72M1 wasn't standard in the soviet army, true, but a lot of warsaw pact nations fielded it, and it is likely one of the first tanks that you'd face in WW3 (if it hadn't gone nuclear)

as for T-72BM, those were renamed to T-90 after the first gulf war, so as not to cripple foreign sales.

what the russians had was the T-72B, and it wasn't such a huge improvement FCS wise.

new night sight with the ability to fire ATGMs, and thats about it.

[Volcano]

I agree with LtGeorge about the excitement of a playable T-72 being short lived once people try to use them.

The T-72 will definitely be able to go up against the M1 and Leo2, you just have to give the T-72 a numerical advantage. We will have people that don't mind playing the T-72, but it will be the same ones who do not mind playing the LeoAS1 (which isn't many -- they can be counted on one hand, and I am one of them).

[Stratos]

Well we need the T72 to try it

[Marko]

No doubt it would be a tactical challenge, and I believe the T-72 was designed for engagements under 1km (central European terrain) so that is easier on the FCS and gun stab. But my point is that there are many variants of the T-72, and I feel that a true depiction of the T-72M1 that we currently have is at the simplistic end of the scale - ie, no Svir, quirky FCS, etc, especially since the T-72M1 was for export.

I would support having both the T-72M1 and T-72BM introduced as playable, because I still foresee demand for a more modernized WP tank after the playable T-72M1 is released. The demand will either be to make the T-80U playable, but it may be easier to respin the T-72 as the T-72BM. Again, thinking of development time here...

Either way, it will be cool to fire off a Svir when it is finally playable.

I Would also support This option as i also believe the novelty would ware off very quickly

the T-80U would be a much better option.for its fire control thermal camera and better

Armour protection. and yes i know only a small proportion off T-80's have been fitted with Thermals.

[Thiefcatcher]

Nah, they do not want to do that, they just want whine about not having a playable T-72. The AS1 is just too difficult! The irony is that the AS1's FCS is better than the T-72, so the day there is a playable T-72 the same people that refuse to play the AS1 but ask for the T-72 will never play it, and switch over to asking for a playable T-80.

Thats the Point!! Your right. People will not use ist, because as soon it´s avaliable they will discover that they see no goal against tanks like the M1. Leo2A5 /A4 and Strv 122. And they will start whining when the disscover that it´s probably hard as hell to shoot with that tank. No "goodies" as in the western Tanks like the TIS, no real computers, no commanders sight, only looking forward with 30 degree of sight in front.... and so forth

I dont belive, that the majority will switch back to the "old" tanks like Leo1 AS1 or A5 and Leo2A4 (as Joker in a Sce) to have a foe they can match with the T72.

Anyway, I do belive that playable Russian Tanks would be fine and awesome in certain scenarios ie. OPFOR Sce.´s

Greetz

[Stratos]

Need to tell again? there are more tanks in SB other than Leo2 and M1. We can fight against T80, other T72, Leo1...

And what do you think? The T72M1 can't kill the M1 or the Leo2?? Tell me you never got killed by a AI T72? And If the AI can kill your mighty M1 what will do a human?

An old adagio of fighter pilots say that the best pilot always win

[dejawolf]

I dont belive, that the majority will switch back to the "old" tanks like Leo1 AS1 or A5 and Leo2A4 (as Joker in a Sce) to have a foe they can match with the T72.

Anyway, I do belive that playable Russian Tanks would be fine and awesome in certain scenarios ie. OPFOR Sce.´s

Greetz

hum, and i'm sure nobody would like to play WW2 vehicles in the game because we have the leopard 2A5. which is wrong at so many fundamental levels, as i'm constantly hearing how "great it would be to have WW2 tanks in SB"

whether the latest and newest is in a scenario is completely dependant on the scenario designer, not the guys playing the scenario.

oh i forgot. give the M1A1 or leopard 2A4 DM-13 and the T-72 3BM42M, and you have yourself a lop-sided battle... in favor of the T-72.

unlike the leopard 1, the T-72M1 has front turret thickness of nearly 560mm RHAe.

[Captain_Colossus]

I'm not convinced the T-72 would simply get retired by SB players any more than Leopard I or CV90 risks that- either can find themselves out of place against a modern main battle tank; besides, the central conceit of any particular scenario design can easily make up for the difference- T-72 group against mech infantry or rear echelon group rather than well equipped M1A1 tanks, simulated Chechen wars, Iraq versus Kuwait or Iraq versus Iran, Lebanon 1982, or India versus Pakistan.

I see more real world material to draw upon with T-72 than what we have with T-80U. In short, it's more a matter of a well thought out scenario design weighed in the balance more than any other factor- everyone has heard of the Battle of 73 Easting, but one notorious, under-reported action where T-72 equipped Republican Guard Tawalkana Division actually succeded in repulsing a US probe occured during the Battle of Phase Line Bullet- what that showed was that under select unconditions, even a technologically outmatched opponent can achieve success- it's not impossible.

The scoring parameters and mission design do not necessarily have to award all victory points to the T-72 force for simply defeating all M1A1 or Leopard 2 tanks on the map, or even for holding the objective at the end of the day- a tactical victory worked into the story of the mission may simply require a successful delaying action or unacceptable attrition of enemy forces. To that extent, even the T-72 in itself can be as dangerous as any modern tank, backed up with artillery and mech infantry support.

[ChuikovChambered]

Posted by Captain Colossus

but one notorious, under-reported action where T-72 equipped Republican Guard Tawalkana Division actually succeded in repulsing a US probe occured during the Battle of Phase Line Bullet- what that showed was that under select unconditions, even a technologically outmatched opponent can achieve success- it's not impossible.

Never heard of it. Do you have a link to a report on that action? I'm quite interested.

[GH_Lieste]

You could start with the first entry returned from a google search for "phase line bullet".

My google-fu is weak today, but even I managed that

[ChuikovChambered]

You could start with the first entry returned from a google search for "phase line bullet".

My google-fu is weak today, but even I managed that

Thanks. I looked at that result. It looks like the Bradleys got in over their heads with Iraqis and friendly fire, true, but the M1s did a number on the Iraqis, and scared the rest into destroying or abandoning their units. The Wikipedia page lists the action as a Iraqi pyrrhic victory, but I thought this thread was more about how T-72s could match up to M1s and Leo 2A4s if the T-72s had a numerical advantage among other things, not what happened when a mixed group of 6 Iraqi T-72s and 18 BMPs caught a platoon of 4 Bradleys by surprise, then got their hineys blown into sub-orbit by a group of M1s.

[GH_Lieste]

You seem to have misread it.

I reckon that it means a company, rather than platoon of 14 BFV engaged by a company of BMP, both sides supported by tanks.

*All* BFV damaged in a longish skirmish, including several from M1 fire from the rear and fratricide between the BFVs . If you follow up the links it analyses the cause of loss of the BFC destroyed in this action.

While not strictly about M1 directly vs T72, it is a very good example of how things can very rapidly go very wrong even for an army which outclasses its opponent in fire power, training and C^3

[Captain_Colossus]

Thanks. I looked at that result. It looks like the Bradleys got in over their heads with Iraqis and friendly fire, true, but the M1s did a number on the Iraqis, and scared the rest into destroying or abandoning their units. The Wikipedia page lists the action as a Iraqi pyrrhic victory, but I thought this thread was more about how T-72s could match up to M1s and Leo 2A4s if the T-72s had a numerical advantage among other things, not what happened when a mixed group of 6 Iraqi T-72s and 18 BMPs caught a platoon of 4 Bradleys by surprise, then got their hineys blown into sub-orbit by a group of M1s.

I don't think that is the conclusion that I am trying to impart here- everyone knows the Iraqis did not win a major battle in Desert Storm; this particular phase of operations indicates the US force did not breach the skirmish line in that particular sector. Under fratricidal conditions amidst a pitched battle, the US force eventually withdrew- which was very unusual otherwise for ODS. This is not a strategic Iraqi victory by a long shot, but probably what would be called a tactical victory in the sense that locally the attacking force did not penetrate the defense skirmish line. For a Steel Beasts scenario, this would be adequate enough for a T-72 equiped foe to score a victory. If an outmatched force gave the impression that it was stronger than it really was, that may be a consideration for an event which went badly.

Yes, the surviving Iraqis withdrew and abandoned their positions overnight, and in the larger scope that part of the battle itself was insignficant, if not very unusual in that most everwhere else even surprise contact still gave very lopsided results.

What I am saying here with this illustration that scenario design and the particular local conditions themselves (terrain, visibility, support, position) may matter at least as much as the type and token. What you're looking at in many cases is an opponent's condition for victory- not yours; an opponent which is destroyed may paradoxically in a sense win the engagement- let's say that in doing so he has tied up your attention just long enough to allow other units to escape. That would be his particular mission goal, and he would have achieved that, although from your perspective, he 'lost' the battle. So, the scoring formulas and mission story may allow for 'pyrrhic victories' or whatever you would call them.