06-04-2003 22:53									#61
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

OK, this is a bit OT, but what sort of Russian tanks came in between the development of the T72 and the T90, and does Iraq have any of them?

	06-04-2003 23:10									#62
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Jaguar Warrior OK, this is a bit OT, but what sort of Russian tanks came in between the development of the T72 and the T90, and does Iraq have any of them?

The T-80 would be the tank model, and Iraq doesn't have any of them.

	07-04-2003 00:19									#63
	Tired of ads?

It is a bit confusing because the Soviet Union did not go out of its way to clarify this sort of question but AFAIK

The original post WWII tank was the T54/55 type, developed into the T62.

Then the T64/T72 came out. The T64 was Soviet forces only and the T72 was similar but exported.

Then the T80 came out and was followed by the T88 (or they may have been variants of the same model).

Then the T90.

It is further complicated by there being several variants of each model, usually with non-interchangeable parts.

	07-04-2003 00:22									#64
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Ive had some arguements about Explosive reactive armor vs Cobham armor (from a T-90 vs M1A1 discussion). Any thoughts on superiority or advantages/disadvantages of one or another?

	07-04-2003 00:35									#65
	Inflate your Upload Space

Explosive reactive armour only works once

Seriously - a burst of 25mm fire from a Bradley would make a mess of, or even detonate, a segment of reactive armour and strip away the protection from that part of the tank. It then depends on the probability of a tank round or a missile hitting that area.

	07-04-2003 00:53									#66
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by CerberusIV Then the T64/T72 came out. The T64 was Soviet forces only and the T72 was similar but exported. Then the T80 came out and was followed by the T88 (or they may have been variants of the same model).

The T64 and T72 were from different design lines with the T64 produced by the Soviets before the T72 but in limited numbers compared to the many variants of the T72 and T80. In many ways the T64 can be seen as an experimental tank design that saw some production.

The soviets exported the T72S which was a stripped down version of tank with which they equipped their own divisions.

	07-04-2003 01:27									#67
	Put an end to popups!

The T-72 is no match for any US or UK tank out there. While a T-72 has to get within 200 yards to hope for destroying an Abrams head on. An abrams simply stands off at a mile with no problems.

A bradley 25mm DU*AP munition can certainly penetrate a T-72's front turret armor. Unfortunately for the T-72 deathtrap, it probably wouldnt get the chance to fire back. As the ammunition storage is located in a turret compartment and we have all seen the pictures of the T-72 turrets a half mile away from the rest of the tank. The T-72 125mmA2 gun is underpowered even in its day. Among other things it ammunition suffered poor quality control, some rounds simply never detonating after penetration or some round simply never firing at all. It was the Warsaw Pact standard up until the late 80's.

A few more disadvantages are the most obvouis. T-72's are unable to use there Laser Range finders on the move and must fire from stationary positions. Bradleys and Abrams are mobile vehicles when firing in tank battles.

The Auto Loader on a T-72 can only get out 4-5 shots per minute. The Abrams can go 10-20 on a good loader.


Conclusion
Theres no match. A T-72 cannot take on anything in Iraq currently with exception, the humvee.

	07-04-2003 01:57									#68
	Suffering from ads?

I think a T72 in Russian hands would accomplish far more than in Iraqi hands.

	07-04-2003 02:30									#69
	Full PM-box? Change here!

I think your wrong. As the T-72M1b (Lions of Babylon) Iraqi local produced version is considered better than the last Russian produced T-72BV model. The Russian had scrapped most of there T-72's after the gulf war realizing the folly of there design. The T-90 is much better tank. Its everything the T-72 was meant to be.

I think Iraqi Republican Gaurd tank crews were very well trained now and in the gulf war. For all there losses, they stood and fought and got several hits. Its just a matter of the tank being such a poor tank. And now look at the recent counter attack. 30 T-72's and some buses counterattacked. We just cut em up before they had a chance to damage us.

	07-04-2003 06:15									#70
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Should say that only about 1/3 of Iraqi T-72's (500) were ever locally produced. Most were imported from WP states. The factory was made in 1986 and built about 400 T-72's before being bombed in 1991 and was unable to continue producing at a good pace. In 1998 it was targeted again but at the time it was proved that the factory had stopped producing tank parts but was changed to a civilian auto-parts plant.

	07-04-2003 08:51									#71
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by red_mustard As the T-72M1b (Lions of Babylon) Iraqi local produced version is considered better than the last Russian produced T-72BV model.

Interesting...any source on that?

I'd imagine that those T-72s were to be upgraded in a couple of areas, but that they would still be lacking in others compared to the Russian version...like optics/targetting equipment, perhaps.

Anyways, I think he meant that Russian crews should be, on the average, much better than Iraqi ones...

	07-04-2003 09:03									#72
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Tanks need to be in hands of experienced crews and competent commanders to be truly effective. Israelis didn't care whether their tanks were M48, M60, or Centurion, they kicked Syrian and Egyptian butts regardless. Iraqi military doctrine was stuck at WW1 level.

500 T-72s in Russian hands can be a frightening force.

	07-04-2003 09:07									#73
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

dp

	07-04-2003 09:07									#74
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Wow, a rare tp...damn server....

	07-04-2003 09:08									#75
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by CerberusIV It is a bit confusing because the Soviet Union did not go out of its way to clarify this sort of question but AFAIK The original post WWII tank was the T54/55 type, developed into the T62.

During 1946 the T-44 was coming into limited service, plus the soviets were making IS-3's. The T-54/55 was an offshoot of the T-44, but it did have to wait a few years before coming into service, while the T-34/86 remained the main tank o Soviet forces (look at film of the Soviets coming into Budapest and see how many T-54's vs. T-34/86 you can spot.)

I agree with the notion that the Iraqis are doign badly not only due to vastly inferior equipment but bad training and unimaginative use of what little they got.

	07-04-2003 09:11									#76
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by CerberusIV Explosive reactive armour only works once Seriously - a burst of 25mm fire from a Bradley would make a mess of, or even detonate, a segment of reactive armour and strip away the protection from that part of the tank. It then depends on the probability of a tank round or a missile hitting that area.

So basically, the T-90 is worthless?

	07-04-2003 09:12									#77
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by red_mustard Should say that only about 1/3 of Iraqi T-72's (500) were ever locally produced. Most were imported from WP states. The factory was made in 1986 and built about 400 T-72's before being bombed in 1991 and was unable to continue producing at a good pace. In 1998 it was targeted again but at the time it was proved that the factory had stopped producing tank parts but was changed to a civilian auto-parts plant.

play that DL music, white boy!

	07-04-2003 11:01									#78
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by red_mustard A bradley 25mm DU*AP munition can certainly penetrate a T-72's front turret armor.

The 20mm M919 APFSDS-T round with DU KE penetrator has approximately 78 grams of DU in a 6.5mm x 98mm dart with a three vane fin (approximate 12 mm from center to tip of fin).

The PK / Penetration tables are classified, of course, but it is not classified that the specification and requirement established by the Army was for an effective round to defeat "projected light armor threats of the 1990's and beyond" at range. (my emphasis). This was due to the finding that the Tungsten penetrator in the previous M791 round (used during the first Gulf War) was inadequate to deal with anticipated top-end light armor threats at range.

The non-classified performance characteristics of the M919 would indicate about a 15% improvement on the performance of the M791, for which I have seen the PK / Penetration tables.

This is nowhere near the ~780mm long, ~8 kg penetrator of the 40mm M829A1 "silver bullet" DU KE penetrator.

Glacis armor on the T72 series is about 200mm and highly sloped, turret armor is cast 280mm max, so given the known performance of the M829A1 and M791, it's laughable that the M919 will penetrate the frontal turret armor of the T72 or any MBT under typical combat conditions. (i.e. target and firing vehicle moving, normal engagement ranges)

quote: Unfortunately for the T-72 deathtrap, it probably wouldnt get the chance to fire back.

70 and 73 Easting demonstrated they can shoot back, just not effectively or often.

quote: As the ammunition storage is located in a turret compartment

So's the ammo in an Abrams, and with the autoloader, it's irrelevant.

quote: and we have all seen the pictures of the T-72 turrets a half mile away from the rest of the tank.

The turret assembly weighs about 20 tons. The best an Abrams was able to do with the silver bullet is blow the turrets about 50 feet up in the air.

quote: The Auto Loader on a T-72 can only get out 4-5 shots per minute. The Abrams can go 10-20 on a good loader.

About 3.5 with the autoloader, about 18 with the human loader in an M1A1. 10 rounds per minute from an M1 loader does not meet the minimum proficiency standard.

quote: Theres no match. A T-72 cannot take on anything in Iraq currently with exception, the humvee.

The Iraqi crews are **** and so are the officers making the vehicle deployments, and you can't operate in an environment dominated by enemy air, but the weakness in T-72 capability (though it is mediocre) is neither as extreme as you suggest, nor is the lack of performance based primarily on inherent weaknesses in the T-72.

	07-04-2003 11:12									#79
	Support Apolyton

Yeah, the heart of it is the air power.

Tank on tank engagements on an equal level shouldn't happen to much.

Somehow I don't think the Abrams would look all that great if the Iraqis had 600 attack aircraft and satellites over the desert....

It also kind of makes the deployments moot, where can they go? In Iraq, which is a big table, they can't even 'head for the hills'.

Now if the Iraqis had about 1200 MiG-29s with trained pilots there'd be some real bloodshed.

	07-04-2003 12:07									#80
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

It's been quite a while since any arab army had pilots worth something on their side.

	07-04-2003 12:12									#81
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat The 20mm M919 APFSDS-T round with DU KE penetrator has approximately 78 grams of DU in a 6.5mm x 98mm dart with a three vane fin (approximate 12 mm from center to tip of fin).

*flys overhead*
Now your way above me here. I just know the basics

quote: The PK / Penetration tables are classified, of course, but it is not classified that the specification and requirement established by the Army was for an effective round to defeat "projected light armor threats of the 1990's and beyond" at range. (my emphasis). This was due to the finding that the Tungsten penetrator in the previous M791 round (used during the first Gulf War) was inadequate to deal with anticipated top-end light armor threats at range.

All I know is, I can find thousands of pictures where 25mmAP had penetrated Iraqi T-72 turrets with ease.

quote: The non-classified performance characteristics of the M919 would indicate about a 15% improvement on the performance of the M791, for which I have seen the PK / Penetration tables.

Ill take your word for it.

quote: 70 and 73 Easting demonstrated they can shoot back, just not effectively or often.

73 easting is over-rated. For those of you who arent aware, in 1991 About 700 Republican Gaurd tanks of the Tala****a took up positions west of the Basra-Kuwait Highway (aka..highway of death) in an attempt to stop coalition forces from cutting off the Iraqi army retreating north. The Iraqi tactics were laughable, with 'killboxs' and tanks dug in, they were destroyed with much delaying coalition troops for only 12 hours. The official casualties were more than 5,000 Iraqi's killed vs 3 US soldiers. Every Iraqi tank that entered the engagement was destroyed. 13 Coalition tanks were lost/disabled. Ya granted, they fought like REAL soldiers. But the outcome never was in doubt.

quote: So's the ammo in an Abrams, and with the autoloader, it's irrelevant.

Ever heard of Explosion hatch compartments? The difference beiing if a shell hits an abrams turret, the force blows upwards as opposed to outwards. So the result? The crew and tank are generally left intact after a turret hit.

quote: The turret assembly weighs about 20 tons. The best an Abrams was able to do with the silver bullet is blow the turrets about 50 feet up in the air.

Ever heard of exageration?

quote: About 3.5 with the autoloader, about 18 with the human loader in an M1A1. 10 rounds per minute from an M1 loader does not meet the minimum proficiency standard.

Ya keep in mind a Soviet model T-72 is so poorly designed its plagued with problems with its autoloader. Example: Iraqi POW's complained that when they hit a berm or lisp at high speeds, the ammo would be jammed resulting in them having to either abandon the vehicle or unjam the shell from the autoloader.

quote: The Iraqi crews are **** and so are the officers making the vehicle deployments, and you can't operate in an environment dominated by enemy air, but the weakness in T-72 capability (though it is mediocre) is neither as extreme as you suggest, nor is the lack of performance based primarily on inherent weaknesses in the T-72.

I wouldnt call the republican Gaurd ****. They engaged many of Iranian Centurion and M60 tanks with great success and there brigade level commanders knew Soviet tactics down to the letter. It just came down to the basic weekness of the T-72 and poor reliability


"Interesting...any source on that?"

I could. If you give me some time The Iraqi T-72 local version had more armor, and better optics than the export version

	07-04-2003 12:16									#82
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: I wouldnt call the republican Gaurd ****. They engaged many of Iranian Centurion and M60 tanks with great success and there brigade level commanders knew Soviet tactics down to the letter. It just came down to the basic weekness of the T-72 and poor reliability

Centurions and unupgraded M60s are vintage ( I assume they're not, since the only time they could get their US tanks is prior to the revolution. ). the T-72 was better. so was the soviet tank of their time, the T-62.

	08-04-2003 00:19									#83
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by red_mustard *flys overhead* Now your way above me here. I just know the basics

I hate to break it to you, but *I* just know the basics, since I'm not an ex-ordy or ex-armor or mech grunt. You're still solidly in the don't have a clue stage.

quote: All I know is, I can find thousands of pictures where 25mmAP had penetrated Iraqi T-72 turrets with ease.

All I know is you're 100% wrong. There haven't been thousands of T-72's killed by anything, the last time we were killing them, the M791 Tungsten core DU KE penetrator was the issue AP round for the 25mm M242 main gun on the Bradley, and all confirmed Bradley kils on MBT's in combat operations were with the TOW-2.

If you had a clue about ordnance and ballistics, you'd realize the dimensions of the DU KE penetrator prove that it can't penetrate T-72 turret armor, because long rod penetrators can't penetrate steel armor significantly longer then the penetrator itself. The "silver bullet" is almost three times longer than the thickest armor on a T-72, that's why it penetrates with ease and can remain intact enough to exit. The M9191 DU KE penetrator is barely over a third the length of the thickest T-72 armor, so as best will shatter after a non-lethal partial penetration of T-72 frontal turret armor.

Perhaps you're mistaking the diameter of the KE penetrator for the diamter of the shell casing? The Bradley's 25mm M242 gun fires a 6.5 mm DU KE penetrator in a 20 mm sabot round, while the 120mm M256 gun on the M1A1 fires a 25mm DU KE penetrator in a 40 mm sabot round. The M900 APFSDS-T round fired from the 105mm M68A1 gun on the original M1 Abrams and M60A3 has a DU KE penetrator that is close to 25 mm in size (about 22 mm).

Even if the 6.5mm DU KE could penetrate the frontal armor of a T-72, you'd be hard pressed to find a photo of it, because the entrance hole would be smaller than the penetrator diameter, if there was an entrance hole at all (due to meltback and solidification) You'd have to be sitting on the glacis plate taking close-up photos to even see the mark left by a 6.5 mm DU KE penetrator, and the Tungsten penetratrator will just shatter and leave a small dent and groove.

quote: 73 easting is over-rated.

Tell that to Tradoc, the Army War College and the NTC. I'm sure they'd appreciate your expertise in correcting their misperception.

quote: For those of you who arent aware, in 1991 About 700 Republican Gaurd tanks of the Tala****a took up positions west of the Basra-Kuwait Highway (aka..highway of death) in an attempt to stop coalition forces from cutting off the Iraqi army retreating north. The Iraqi tactics were laughable, with 'killboxs' and tanks dug in, they were destroyed with much delaying coalition troops for only 12 hours. The official casualties were more than 5,000 Iraqi's killed vs 3 US soldiers. Every Iraqi tank that entered the engagement was destroyed. 13 Coalition tanks were lost/disabled. Ya granted, they fought like REAL soldiers. But the outcome never was in doubt.

(a) Who do you think Eagle troop / 2 ACR engaged at 73 Easting? (hint: it was an IRG Tawakalna battalion)

(b) You're also mixing facts and engagements - the remnants of IRG Tawakalna, Iraqi 7th AD and Iraqi 50 ID(Mot) and other units were slaughtered on Highway 8, north of Basra, on the way to the next Euphrates crossing north of Basra. This was a mix of retreating/routed units in road movement and had nothing to do with the original blocking disposition of the three IRG divisions within the KTO.

quote: Ever heard of Explosion hatch compartments? The difference beiing if a shell hits an abrams turret, the force blows upwards as opposed to outwards. So the result?

That's nice, but we were talking about loading speed.

quote: I wouldnt call the republican Gaurd ****. They engaged many of Iranian Centurion and M60 tanks with great success and there brigade level commanders knew Soviet tactics down to the letter. It just came down to the basic weekness of the T-72 and poor reliability

Here's a free tip on evaluating the capability of a third-rate force based on results against another third-rate force: **** on **** still equals ****.

I wouldn't rate being an expert on Soviet tactics very highly, especially when you lack the means (> air parity, and artillery coordination) to execute those tactics.

	08-04-2003 01:56									#84
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Without entering into the argument , what MtG says about the diameter size of the holes made by APFSDS rounds is correct. Until you see it up close and personal its hard to relate the relatively small hole made by these rounds compared to the gun caliber. Even AT missles such as TOW dont make a big hole on the outside. My first thought when I read

quote: All I know is, I can find thousands of pictures where 25mmAP had penetrated Iraqi T-72 turrets with ease.

was that you were probably looking at the effects of tank or missle fire.

All I can say is that when NATO was looking at the business ends of the T72's and T80's across the iron curtain we didnt think they were poorly designed at all. Dont write it in stone cos its been over 20 years since I was involved but I think that one of the main reasons we switched to APFSDS rounds was because we expected that conventional AT from the 105mm would have great difficulty penetrating the T72 and T80 frontal armour at combat distances. Rightly or wrongly from hindsight, we perceived that the later model 72's and T80's were superior tanks than anything we could field with the exception of the Leopard (I also think the chieftan was better when actually running). Thats what drove the development of the new generation of tanks such as the Abrams and challenger etc. On a side note, our fear of the BMP, drove the development of the AFV's.

	08-04-2003 12:52									#85
	Tired of ads?

How would, say, a KönigsTiger fare against modern tanks/APC's?

	08-04-2003 13:04									#86
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

It would be slaughtered completely and totally.

	08-04-2003 13:18									#87
	Increase Your PM Length

Guys, if it makes any difference, the Capt. did say that the 25mm gun did kill the tanks.

	08-04-2003 13:19									#88
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

How thick is the armor on Abrams and Leopard and other modern tanks, then? My book on tanks says they're "classified"...

In optimal conditions, where the modern thermal sights and such would have little use, would the mighty 105" Pak gun even scratch any modern AFV? Surely an APC would be toast?

	08-04-2003 13:25									#89
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

I've read somewhere that frontal armor on an Abrams (and may I interject here that its just so cool to have the same family name) is in the neighborhood of 600-700 mm. That's about two feet, to us ignorant Americans.

	08-04-2003 17:40									#90
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Tattila the Hun How thick is the armor on Abrams and Leopard and other modern tanks, then? My book on tanks says they're "classified"... In optimal conditions, where the modern thermal sights and such would have little use, would the mighty 105" Pak gun even scratch any modern AFV? Surely an APC would be toast?

No one admits to exact armour thickness. The composition of Chobham armour means that overall thickness isn't really a true comparison of protective ability anyway. FWIW the Vickers website claims the ChallengerII is the best armoured of the lot. It may well be but doesn't quite have the mobility of the Abrams. This simply reflects differences in British and US tank design philosophy. The LeopardII is the oldest design of the three and may be a little behind but is still a lot better than virtually anything but a ChallengerII or Abrams.

The 8.8cm KwK43 fitted to the King Tiger was the most powerful all round tank gun from WWII. Better than the US 90mm and the British 20pdr. Probably comparable to the 105mm used by virtually all NATO tanks for most of the Cold War. With the possible exception of the Chieftain, it would have been useable against any of the older designs up to the M60 and T72. After that it would struggle and would not seriously trouble the main armour of the current generation of MBT's.

Older APC's like the M113 are vulnerable to heavy machine gun fire. Even Bradleys and Warriors are not anything like as heavily protected as a MBT.