Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Armor Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Why The T-72 Survives
SYSOP    3/31/2015 6:46:21 AM
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2 3 4   NEXT
avatar3    Ryan   3/31/2015 8:47:48 AM
Some things about the T72 you left out. It was designed for skinny WWII midgets who after more then a couple hours driving are in spinal and bladder agony. The running gear transmits every rock, rut and sideslip to the crew. You will have a headache from the noise and vibration. Learn to breath through the mouth and never ever clench you teeth together while underway. In winter your feet will freeze while the condensation drips down on your head. This cannot be remedied but you can dull the pain by smoking a Tok (dope cigarette) or drinking plenty of Vodka. I not sure if this stuff is supplied officially but your driver/mechanic (who really seems to own the tank) will be well equipped with both. In summer you will fry and choke on the dust because the hatchs have to be open. Two of the most dangerous situations will be combat (for obvious reasons) and refueling. Refueling is bad because the service people do stupid stuff (like smoking, running the engine, not cutting the fuel hose off in time) so that you'll catch fire. It goes on and on.
 
Quote    Reply

joe6pack       3/31/2015 11:09:15 AM
It's an interesting background on the T-72.. but as to why it "survives" (a tad bit of irony in that.. given it's battlefield performance.. but I digress).. 
 
I think can be summed up in: They made a lot of them, made them relatively cheaply and exported them with really only being concerned if the check would clear..
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Nate Dog    Joe   3/31/2015 12:12:49 PM
Not relatively, very cheap.

Also, the checks didn't always have to be good, often your politics were enough to get away with bouncing the odd payment. Avatar, my father was a gunner in captured T55/62's, re-engined and up gunned. Didn't change the fact pretty much they behaved exactly as you described. Horrible vehicles to live in, crew were pretty much done by the time they got to the front, and they had an annoying tendency to draw friendly fire.
 
If the T-72 is anything like them (it is, slightly modernised, but essentially the same tank) then as above, as a fighting machine, its a very nasty piece of work. They did however build a lot of them. Field 80 divisions of them and they'd be incredibly hard to stop ;) 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy       3/31/2015 12:45:06 PM
If this is a second generation tank, and WWI tanks were first generation, then what about all those tanks in WWII et al?
 
And, while it may be a rubbish tank, I'm not sure it is really that out of date compared with many Western tanks.
 
Some countries, such as Turkey, still field M60s.  The British Challenger II is a good tank, but it entered service in 1998, with the last of 386 tanks delivered in 2002.  It is due to remain in service until 2025.  The proposed upgrades, such as a new engine and new gun, have long been cancelled in budget cuts.  There is no replacement in sight.  The vehicles it fights alongside such as FV432 (Bulldog), Warrior and Scimiter are even older, with designs dating back to the 60s and 70s.  Newer vehicles such as Jackel and Mastiff are not survivable against a conventional enemy.
 
I don't think the Russian's are the only people with tank problems!
 
Quote    Reply

joe6pack    various things   3/31/2015 2:09:47 PM
>Field 80 divisions of them and they'd be incredibly hard to stop ;)

I suspect that was a reason for all the focus on NBC protection.. because I think NATO was pretty convinced that "tactical" nuclear weapons (tactical as being defined as nuclear weapons going off in Germany ) was going to be the only solution to that 80 division problem.
 
>Some countries, such as Turkey, still field M60s.
I've only talked with older folks that had crewed the M60's... other than poor protection.. (one anecdotal story included a practice round penetrating the frontal armor in a training accident...) crews seemed to like it.  I'd even heard some initial resistance to the M1.. which was a tremendous jump in protection, mobility, accuracy..
 
That said.. I wouldn't want to be facing the T-72 horde.. outnumbered 3-4 to one in general.. or maybe a 10-1 or greater ratio at the point of attack... in an M60...    M1.. I wouldn't be thrilled.. but would feel a lot better about it..
 
>...was a gunner in captured T55/62's, re-engined and up gunned.
 
Given the era it was deployed.. I'd thought the T-55 / 62's were a relatively good / reasonable tank...   While deploying the T-72's in the 70's.. in the face of the U.S. deploying the M1.. Germany the Leopard II.. and even the UK's later model Chieftans...  not so good a match up.. as far as quality and capability go..
 
 
Quote    Reply

trenchsol       3/31/2015 2:33:10 PM
A friend of mine was a conscript in Yugoslav army, drafted in tank unit. Yugoslavia adopted Russian equipment and much of Russian doctrine. It was, more or less, smaller clone of Russian Army. So, my friend underwent training, and they were told not to expect to live longer than few minutes if they go to real war.
 
That, pretty much, explains living conditions in Russian tanks. Heavy losses were expected, and victory was to be achieved by massive attacks. No point improving living conditions for those who are going to die, anyway.
 
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy       3/31/2015 3:24:48 PM
You get the same jokes (sad truth?) in the British Army, with regard to life expectancy in a 'real' war - with para's and platoon commanders expected to live 7 minutes or something daft.
 
I agree with Joe, that the post-T34 tanks such as the T55 and T62 four-man crewed vehicles seemed to be a more effective tank than the T64 and on 3 man crew tanks.  Both for their historical setting, and for smaller powers today.
 
The IS1, 2, 3 and T10 series of tank didn't seem to stick around for long after WWII.
 
Quote    Reply

avatar3    its true!   3/31/2015 4:44:17 PM
Its true, large numbers of inferior tanks can overwhelm smaller numbers of superior tanks. During WWII the US built the Sherman 4, a medium gasoline powered tank in numbers that overwhelmed the superior tanks of the Germans. I believe the ratio was 5 to 1, the Sherman could be built in automobile assembly plants using a variety of off the shelf engines. Sherman's were easily repaired, a concept that today is called "fixing it forward." The Germans initially laughed but once they realized that no matter how many Shermans they knocked out more were going to come down the road they became demoralized. Eventually they were beaten by numbers.
 
Quote    Reply

wjr321       3/31/2015 7:44:15 PM
It's also reasonable to note that German tanks of WW2 were hanger queens. They were too complex for the conditions of use. At least that is what an old heer guy told me many years ago. He fixed them for the Africa Corps and, later, owned a bar in Florida.@import url(http://strategypage.com/CuteSoft_Client/CuteEditor/Load.ashx?type=style&file=SyntaxHighlighter.css);
 
Quote    Reply

keffler25       3/31/2015 7:50:40 PM
Hmmm. The side protection on German tanks was THIN (Panther especially, and that most seen in the road wheels). Once the Americans and Canadians (*veterans) realized this basic defect, they used the exploit to aim for side hull shots. The 5 to 1 quickly became 1.5 to 1 and when that happened, it was over for the Herr in the West. The exchange ratios became nearly equal at the end, once the 76 replaced the 75 in the Sherman.     
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply
1 2 3 4   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics