T-72: Still Useful or Not?

[Waylander]

Where do you get the idea from that the T-72 has never been upgraded after desert storm?
In fact many WarPac countries already fielded better versions (T-72M1) than the one in service with Iraq, not to talk of the T-72B which was in service with the red at that time.
Since the 90's several upgrades to the design were done in order to improve the T-72. Examples are the T-72BM upgrade for existing tanks in the russian inventory, new build T-90s, polish PT-91s or Jugoslawian T-84s.

Several companies offer a wide range of upgrade packages ranging from small changes to fundamental improvements.

As for the fatal ammo explosion problem. Most western tanks, apart from the Abrams, face this problem to some degree due to parts of the reserve ammo being stored without special ammo compartments although the T-72 series is more vulnerable in this aspect than most other tanks due to them having no special ammo compartment at all and with the carussell being alot more vulnerable than for example the Ammo Bunker in the turret of a Leopard II or Leclerc.

 

[eckherl]

Carefully re-read the post above yours.

See this bit: "I know a number of US master gunners who came up against elements of the RGuards and rated them as worthy foes. Some of them gave no quarter, - the Medinas being a good example."

What GF is saying is that he knows (as in has met, talked with at length) a number of US (United States) master gunners (which, I'm guessing is what the best gunners are called in the M1 Abrams tanks the the US fielded in both Gulf War I and II). They were saying to GF that the Republican Guards (an elite Iraqi unit supposedly very loyal to Saddam) were worthy foes, and that some gave no quarter. In other words they faught well and bravely, some to the death depite being in inferior equipment. GF goes on to mention an Iraqi unit of the Republican Guard for special mention, the Medina's.

Now we have dissected that paragraph in depth, can you see where it is that GF draws the opinion that not all of the Iraqi army was poorly motivated, led and trained. He's based the advice he has provided on example provided by the gunners of US tanks who were there and actually engaging the Iraqi tanks. Now, to me as an observer of this conversation, I'd take that as pretty good evidence that you cannot make a blanket statement that: "motivated and they well [sic] tell you they weren't and weren't exactly well trained especially by western standards "

How much more obvious does GF have to make it? Incidentally, he made a similar point 6 days ago.

Do you require this level of assistance to interpret the rest of GF's posts?

Just to add a little to a Master Gunners job description:

Sets up all gunnery related training at unit level including setting up gunnery ranges.
Understands all maintenance related issues inregards to the tank turret.
Sufficent in potential enemy armor, vehicle capabilities and how to defeat it.
Sufficent in enemy tactics, assists the Company Commander if needed.
Master Gunners hold positions from Brigade staff all the way down to Company Platoon Sargeants, Tank Commanders or Company Commanders Gunner.

God how I miss the good old days.

 

[eckherl]

GF has hit it correct on his response in regards to T-72M capability and Iraqi force structure during both confrontations with the U.S, I highly doubt that the outcome would have been any different even if the Iraqi's were sporting Leo 2's for example purposes. Name one army during this time period that could of come up against the likes of a U.S force structure and effectively defeat it, there is a reason why China and Russia to some extent are setting up there force structures to compare with the U.S system that is in place.

T-72M is a capable tank provided that the training is propper in both gunnery and tactics, we should also add the need for propper logistical support, remember the tank projectiles that they were issued could not get the job done.

Russia has done the job in making an attempt to keep the T series up to Western technology standards but they still have some areas of improvements, I just laugh my rear end off listening to the Tanknet crowd talk about how great the T-90 series tank is, they make it sound as if a western tank cannot even defeat it from the frontal quadrant even though things are now starting to surface in the public domain in regards to some of the T-90 series short comings. The U.S has always known where the Russians were going to go in regards to vehicle capability with this tank, there is a reason why we purchased T-84 tanks from Ukraine, and yes we did in fact purchase these tanks along with some other tanks models. The bustle mounted system that will be added to the T-90 will be a good attempt to eliminate flying turret syndrome, Russia will lean towards the West for items needed to eliminate technology short comings to help improve combat vehicle capabilities, the Global Economy is alive and well and who would of ever thought that Russia would lean towards France, Germany, Italy and Israel just to name a few to purchase new toys.

 

[gf0012-aust]

there is a reason why China and Russia to some extent are setting up there force structures to compare with the U.S system that is in place.

Both Russia and China have been open in stating that the lessons learnt for their own Force RMA is based on the lessons of GW1 and GW2.

Both have elected to reshape to smaller professional militaries with a hi-tech focus.

Part of the issue with the russian decision to acquire western equipment is because they recognise that they don't have the capacity or capability to offer equivalent locally built platforms. China has actively pursued this path since GW2.

The Russians were the first to tout the need for an RMA in the early 80's but never got around to implementing it - GW1 and GW2 provided the initial catalyst - and in Russias case, Chechnya and Georgia "sealed the deal"

 

[Feanor]

Both Russia and China have been open in stating that the lessons learnt for their own Force RMA is based on the lessons of GW1 and GW2.

Both have elected to reshape to smaller professional militaries with a hi-tech focus.

Part of the issue with the russian decision to acquire western equipment is because they recognise that they don't have the capacity or capability to offer equivalent locally built platforms. China has actively pursued this path since GW2.

The Russians were the first to tout the need for an RMA in the early 80's but never got around to implementing it - GW1 and GW2 provided the initial catalyst - and in Russias case, Chechnya and Georgia "sealed the deal"

The path to the current reforms wasn't quite like that, and the RMA that the USSR envisioned in the late 80s was very different from what is happening right now. In principle you are correct, however the first Chechen war hardly prodded any serious military reform, or even consideration of such on a practical level. And even the second Chechen war, only saw minor shifts in policy (such as the introduction of contract soldiers on a limited basis). Morever the changes that were produced in the immediate sense from the Second Chechen War often times turned out to either be specific to that conflict (such as the individual purchasing of modern equipment for the infantry) or plain wrong, such as the contract soldiers program which posited the contract soldiers as hardly different from a conscript (with the exception of minor improvements in living conditions, and a decent paycheck). Only the Georgian campaign, and the relatively vigorous approach to military reform of the late Putin and early Medvedev presidencies has produced substantial shifts, with the Georgian war providing the key impulse.

 

[gf0012-aust]

The path to the current reforms wasn't quite like that, and the RMA that the USSR envisioned in the late 80s was very different from what is happening right now. In principle you are correct, however the first Chechen war hardly prodded any serious military reform, or even consideration of such on a practical level. And even the second Chechen war, only saw minor shifts in policy (such as the introduction of contract soldiers on a limited basis). Morever the changes that were produced in the immediate sense from the Second Chechen War often times turned out to either be specific to that conflict (such as the individual purchasing of modern equipment for the infantry) or plain wrong, such as the contract soldiers program which posited the contract soldiers as hardly different from a conscript (with the exception of minor improvements in living conditions, and a decent paycheck). Only the Georgian campaign, and the relatively vigorous approach to military reform of the late Putin and early Medvedev presidencies has produced substantial shifts, with the Georgian war providing the key impulse.

I was speaking in generalities on the path to RMA for russia - however, we have had russians advise us at various conferences that the impetus started with GW1 and Gw2 and that the Chechnyan wars hilighted significant deficiencies in force structure and doctrine. Georgia was the wake up call.

the focus of my response is deliberately steered towards technical and doctrinal deficiencies. Putins focus was after C2 when it was apparent that C1 wasn't an aberation - Georgia hilighted the need for speed. Putin has always been in the foreground of reform even though Medvedev is visibly present on the front row. I'd be putting more credence on the influence of Putin over Medvedev for the surge in RMA developments.

 

[Feanor]

I was speaking in generalities on the path to RMA for russia - however, we have had russians advise us at various conferences that the impetus started with GW1 and Gw2 and that the Chechnyan wars hilighted significant deficiencies in force structure and doctrine. Georgia was the wake up call.

the focus of my response is deliberately steered towards technical and doctrinal deficiencies. Putins focus was after C2 when it was apparent that C1 wasn't an aberation - Georgia hilighted the need for speed. Putin has always been in the foreground of reform even though Medvedev is visibly present on the front row. I'd be putting more credence on the influence of Putin over Medvedev for the surge in RMA developments.

It's interesting you should say that, granted that the reforms are being conducted by General HQ as far as I can tell, while Serdyukov (Putin's man) is simply overseeing financial flows and conducting some basic overall administrative regulation.

After C2 changes were slow, and few in number. No practical structural reform was undertaken, and the experiment with contract soldiers was simply extended, rather then being critically analyzed and advanced based on that. Part of it was of course the budget issue, which still didn't allow for significant numbers of new equipment, but another part was the lack of any decisive desire for change.

 

[Marc 1]

GF has hit it correct on his response in regards to T-72M capability and Iraqi force structure during both confrontations with the U.S, I highly doubt that the outcome would have been any different even if the Iraqi's were sporting Leo 2's for example purposes.

You could probably go so far as to say that even if the Iraqi's were equipped, lead and trained the same the end result would have been the same - the Iraqi's were stuffed without control of the air. When you hear stories of F111's going 'tank plinking' with guided bombs, you know that things weren't good for the poor bloody Iraqi's.

 

[justone]

Where do you get the idea from that the T-72 has never been upgraded after desert storm?
In fact many WarPac countries already fielded better versions (T-72M1) than the one in service with Iraq, not to talk of the T-72B which was in service with the red at that time.
Since the 90's several upgrades to the design were done in order to improve the T-72. Examples are the T-72BM upgrade for existing tanks in the russian inventory, new build T-90s, polish PT-91s or Jugoslawian T-84s.

Several companies offer a wide range of upgrade packages ranging from small changes to fundamental improvements.

As for the fatal ammo explosion problem. Most western tanks, apart from the Abrams, face this problem to some degree due to parts of the reserve ammo being stored without special ammo compartments although the T-72 series is more vulnerable in this aspect than most other tanks due to them having no special ammo compartment at all and with the carussell being alot more vulnerable than for example the Ammo Bunker in the turret of a Leopard II or Leclerc.

Thanks for the information I learn something new. You answer the question.

 

[eckherl]

Both Russia and China have been open in stating that the lessons learnt for their own Force RMA is based on the lessons of GW1 and GW2.

Both have elected to reshape to smaller professional militaries with a hi-tech focus.

Part of the issue with the russian decision to acquire western equipment is because they recognise that they don't have the capacity or capability to offer equivalent locally built platforms. China has actively pursued this path since GW2.

The Russians were the first to tout the need for an RMA in the early 80's but never got around to implementing it - GW1 and GW2 provided the initial catalyst - and in Russias case, Chechnya and Georgia "sealed the deal"

France has really upped the anty now, expect to see a upgraded engine pact being offered by SESM called the ESM 350, this will be offered to T-72 and T-90 users, will be very interesting to see if Russia also decides to give this system a try or if there is a chance that they could lose out on engine pact orders from current and future clients.

 

[kay_man]

France has really upped the anty now, expect to see a upgraded engine pact being offered by SESM called the ESM 350, this will be offered to T-72 and T-90 users, will be very interesting to see if Russia also decides to give this system a try or if there is a chance that they could lose out on engine pact orders from current and future clients.

impressive. the steering wheel and transmission look especially cool.And it provides nearly 350 Hp more than russian engines.
However the Indian T-90s is equipped with 1000 hp engine ...dont know for sure iif its an Indian modification or Russian and is it available for export?

 

[Saiga]

As far as I know the later Russian models are equipped with an V-96 1100hp engine.

 

[IronsightSniper]

As long as you keep the tank modernized with the best avalible armor, ammuniton, and training manuals, things should go swell.

Add some BMPTs to your tank fleet and you're pwning.

 

[Feanor]

Improvements in projectile technology would give this size caliber gun range and performance, just think about how many rounds they could carry versus a split load of 30mm and 100mm then factor in their little guided wizzers. This vehicle was not designed as a tank but a infantry support vehicle, a auto cannon this size will handle anything less than a tank, punch out building structures and helicopters, and as you stated what is the performance value of the 100mm if you have to rely on a flank shot for heavy armor, 57mm auto cannon would give just as good of a performance. But who knows if they will even field it.

I've discovered the 57mm firing complex you were talking about earlier.

ru_armor: Ðовое боевое отделений от СММ - конкурент «Бахчи»

It seems it's a combat module with a 57mm gun, 30mm automatic grenade launcher, 4 ATGMs, and a 12.7mm machinegun. What I'm wondering about is the 92 rounds for the 57mm. This would mean that it's not a replacement for the 30mm gun on the Bakcha-U, because it simply doesn't have enough rounds to provide the rapid-fire support that the 30mm offers, with it's 500 rounds. (and 34 for the 100mm). It does have a better ATGM (the Kornet) but it's not barrel fired, making it more complex, and more exposed imo.

Anyways the complex is currently a proposed upgrade for the PT-76 amphibious light tank. I doubt SMM has the influence to beat KurganMash for the BMP-3M and BMD-4M contracts, which is where the real money for these combat modules is.

I'd want to see it with higher RoF, and something to the tune of 300-500 rounds. The FCS sounds impressive, but the overall concept seems lacking. It doesn't even look like a competitor for the Bakcha-U, instead it looks like a different class of weapon systems.

 

[IronsightSniper]

Bro, that's called the BMPT, or Terminator if you want.

Protection of a MBT, armaments meant for Infantry, perfect Future Combat Vehicle.

@Edit, actually I was close, but wrong. It's called the BTR-T Heavy Armor Personal Carrier. Here is the info on it from this Russian Inventory.

The BTR-T heavy armored personnel
carrier (APC) is intended for carrying
personnel of motorized infantry subunits
in mass destruction weapon
environment and in conditions of fire
contact with the enemy, as well as for
defeating targets in battlefield.
The BTR-T is a highly protected heavy
armored personnel carrier developed
from obsolete T-55 battle tanks
through their radical modernization.
A low-profile turret is mounted on a
tank chassis, which carries a platform
with up-to-date missile-gun armament:
a 30mm automatic gun and the
Konkurs ATGM launcher. Such armament
enables the APC crew to effectively
defeat both lightly armored
ground and aerial targets and heavily
armored ground targets.
The crew compartment rearrangement
made it possible to accommodate
the APC commander, the driver,
and five troopers in the hull.
Equipping the APC with a smokescreen
laying system, as well as
enhancing its antimine protection
and built-in ERA significantly
increase the vehicle's protection as a
whole.
The crew and troop compartments are
equipped with the up-to-date life
support system that enables the crew
and troopers to accomplish combat
missions in mass destruction weapon
environment and in any climatic conditions.
Using the design solutions invested
in the BTR-T project, it is possible to
develop vehicles of this kind on the
basis of any obsolete Russian or foreign-
made battle tank.
The modular layout concept of the firing
compartment makes it possible to
arm the BTR-T with various weapon
options upon customer's request.


BTR-T armament versions:
1. 2A42 automatic gun,
Konkurs ATGM launcher
2. 2A42 automatic gun,
AGS-17 automatic grenade launcher
3. Two 2A38 two-barrel automatic
guns
4. NSV-12.7 antiaircraft machine gun,
Konkurs ATGM launcher
5. NSV-12.7 antiaircraft machine gun,
AGS-17 automatic grenade launcher



Chassis T-55
Weight, t 38.5
Crew 2
Troopers 5
Armament 30mm 2A42 automatic gun,
Konkurs ATGM launcher
Ammunition load, rounds:
2A42 gun 200
ATGM 3
Protection built-in ERA
Smoke-screen laying system:
type 902V
number of smoke dischargers, pc 12
Maximum speed, km/h 50
Fuel distance, km 500
Negotiable obstacles:
uphill or downhill slope, deg 32
bank gradient, deg 30
vertical obstacle, m 0.8
trench crossing width, m 2.7
water barrier depth, m:
unprepared wading 1.4
with employment of deep wading equipment 5.0

 

[Feanor]

No. These are two different projects. The BTR-T is a T-55 conversion with a 30mm automatic turret, and troop transport capacity. The proposed vehicle would be a PT-76 derivative, a much lighter ammphibious vehicle, with a more powerful weapons complex, but much weaker armor and no troop transport capacity.

 

[IronsightSniper]

Well, the diagram looked like the vehicle you were talking about, so

 

[Feanor]

Well, the diagram looked like the vehicle you were talking about, so

Next time try reading my post... although in all honesty the diagram I linked to looks nothing like a BTR-T (other then the general parts: it's an armored vehicle on tracks with a gun).

 

[IronsightSniper]

I did read your post, and the description was oddly similar to the BMPT, exluding the 57mm heavy cannon. The BMPT does have 4 ATGM launchers, and although you never said a pair of 30mm auto cannons, I just thought, what the hell, he forgot one gun. And it does have 7.62mm guns, except that the BMPT has a pair of those too, and I just applied the same logic with the 7.62's as I did with the 30's :d

 

[Feanor]

Except the different chassis, and the different combat module... again the only real similarity is that they're both Russian tracked armored vehicles.

In fact any multi-role combat module that Russia has designed lately tends to include a low-caliber autocannon, ATGMs, and 7.62 MGs...