Talk:T-72/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Remove "Combat Performance" section?

The whole section seems to be written by a fanboy and doesn't cite sources. To improve the quality of the article, perhaps it should be removed? Edward Sandstig 01:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. That section reads like an essay. IMHO we should rework the article and divide it into distinct sections:

• introduction (i.e. above the first section) - currently only a single line.
• Development - Development of the tank.
• Description - A description of the tank (probably pick a variant T-72M1).
• Upgrades - A further development section explaining the various upgrades. Only explores major production variants.
• Combat history - a fact based history of it's deployment - i.e. don't get into any editoralizing. With simple verifiable statements rather than sweeping generalisations.
• Variants - A complete family tree style list of variants.

I'm currently working on a rewrite of the BMP series of articles that although incomplete shows roughly what I'd like to see. I shouldn't really get involved in a second re-write until I finish the BMP one though. Megapixie 02:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The section appears to be pasted verbatim from Defence Journal (if anyone knows otherwise, my apologies). I've reverted to the previous revision. —Michael Z. 2006-06-15 02:23 Z

Good spot. Megapixie 02:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

When an anonymous editor adds twenty paragraphs in a single edit, it's time to do the Google phrase test. Grab a longish phrase from the middle of a sentence, and Google it in quotation marks. You might have to try two or three phrases in case someone has retyped it sloppily, but in this case my first try got a single hit: "protection of the hull and turret front section is represented by multilayer armour panels ensuring". —Michael Z. 2006-06-15 04:56 Z

He/She did it again. Maybe we can request the banning of IP: 59.186.172.145? Edward Sandstig 10:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Outdated article?

The author of this page seems to be consistently 5 to 10 years behind the curve in his understanding of Russian and Ukranian tank technology, and several statements are glaringly incorrect. I have made a number of corrections. I welcome discussion of them.

And he seems to think T-62's have an autoloader...Perhaps he's from a different time line? :o) But we should not forget that wikipedia is basically an amateur project. Making mistakes is part of the normal process of article building. They have the essential function of annoying (or amusing) experts so much they put in the correct information. ;o) It may be of comfort to you that the articles about the Western tanks are far worse!

MWAK--84.27.81.59 17:15, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

Description medium tank instead of mbt

I've changed the description of the T-72 as a "medium tank" to a "main battle tank", as that fits the tank better. "Medium tank" is more of a historical term than something that is used for modern tanks, as the distinction between heavy and medium tanks has all but disappeared.

--Martin Wisse 21:48, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

this article is a mess

Ergh, this article is a mess. Full of duplications and contradictions. Anyone care to sort it out? I hesitate, due to a lack of in-depth knowledge of the upgrades performed on exported Russian tanks... Dan100 19:37, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

Agreed, but I warn you, if the article is rewritten to a high standard, the duplications and contradictions will creep back in. If the T-72 is ever acknowledged as the quality piece of kit that it is here, the article will be edited by Clancyites to contradict that. The defining rule seems to be: "No tank is allowed to be called 'good' if the M1 is not called 'better', and no reference shall ever be made to any variant of any tank produced after 1960 by any country without a comparative reference to the *latest* version of the M1 Abrams." IE, an acceptable article about the T-62 would say, "The T-62 was a capable tank, but it is inferior when placed beside the M1A2SEP."

Gee, perhaps the Soviets ought to have considered, when they designed the T-62, that the Americans would eventually produce the M1A2?.

Unfair, but go figure. Propaganda is powerful, and that's what we're up against. I believe that American enthusiasts are incapable of concieving of any tank ever made without becoming sexually aroused by the thought of the M1A2's superiority to it. -- You'd think that people who are interested in military equipment would be aware of the old adage about underestimating one's enemy. You do better (and learn more) by respecting him, and keeping in mind the fact that there's no surer way to lose a war than to go into it thinking that your equipment is invincible. As they say; pride goeth before the fall. Sigma-6 18:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the primary reason for the continued defeat of Arab states by Western armies is poor training. You seem to be forgetting that the Patton series of tanks weren't that great themselves...they were totally outclassed by their contemporaries, T-64s. They wouldn't stand up so well on the modern battlefield themselves. Give any American, German, or Israeli tank crew a T-72 and they'd still beat the piss out of an Arab crew with an Abrams, Leopard 2, or Merkava. It's all about training. You're also ignoring the fact that monkey models do exist, and the deficiencies are quite important. Try using optical gunnery control against a tank with laser rangefinders and a ballistic computer on it. Probably not so much fun. Oh, and uh, sign your posts.

Parsecboy 11:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Exactly my point; Western tank crews are much more highly trained than their Arab counterparts, and that is the crucial variable. Parsecboy 11:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is always one exception to the rule, and the Egyptian Army in 1973 was in fact, well trained. I'm talking about the vast majority of Arab militaries, which are generally poorly trained and poorly led.

I never said the Patton series were "pieces of crap", I merely stated that they were outclassed by their Soviet contemporaries in the T-64. Again, the reason for an outnumbered Marine unit's victory over the Iraqi Army at Kuwait Airport is primarily the vast difference in training, coupled with the M60s being modernized with ERA, etc., while the Iraqi tanks were monkey models. Why is it hard to understand that the only Soviet tanks the Western armies have ever fought were lower quality export models? The munitions supplied for the T-72 had as much as half the penetrating power of the original Soviet model. Your argument about armor protection is only relevant to the export models. The Soviet tanks had far better protection. Parsecboy 13:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, in fact, I am currently serving in the US Army as an intelligence analyst. Do you know what an important piece of being an intelligence analyst is? Knowing the characteristics and capabilities of weapon systems that might be used against the US Army. First and foremost among those are FSU equipment. Right, Soviet armor was destroyed in Afghanistan, but those tanks weren't fighting Western tanks in the Arabian deserts, from a distance of 2000 meters. They were fighting guerrillas with RPGs, at ranges of s few hundred feet in difficult terrain, something tanks don't do so well. As for sources about the monkey models, read Suvorov's "Inside the Soviet Army", ISBN: 0425071103. Parsecboy 16:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, the reason you didn't hear about it in the 70's was because Suvorov didn't defect until the early 80's; he didn't write that book until 1984 (in which he coined the term "monkey model"). And yes, I have been downrange. I've seen the destroyed Asad Babil tanks pushed off to the side of the road in Baghdad, with gaping holes in the turrets. You say that Against these vehicles the various tanks of the Arab armies were target practice. That is true, but it implies that the tanks were not skillfully employed, not that they were no match for Western armor. I think you misunderstand me a little. I'm not arguing that the Soviet tanks were as good as Western armor. My argument is that you can't characterize the Soviet models by the poor performance of the export models, which are widely known to be of a much lower quality than the versions the Soviets built for themselves. Nor can you use the combat performance of poorly trained Arab militaries (who by and large never train, and when they do, use totally scripted manuevers that are no real benefit) made up of unwilling conscripts, against highly trained and motivated Western armies. My point is it's not black and white; there's a lot of grey area. Parsecboy 11:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course, one other thing to consider is that apart from training, a bog standard export model of something like a T-72 is hardly going to compare with a massively uprated version produced by some of the former WarPac countries. The Osprey book on the old T-54/55 series goes into depth about that, now I'm NOT saying a T-55 is a good contempary tank, but you must admit that at the time it was first made, a 54/55 series could have been a match one on one for an M47 or M48, a British Centurion or French AMX-30. Another thing to consider is that Soviet tanks are usually lighter than the newer gen Western tanks (Challenger I/II, Leopard 2, M1 Abrams), this is primarily so they could be easily transported on rail. However, as I was saying, the Osprey book on the T-55 series shows some of the massive upgrade programmes initiated by some countries that changed the vehicle and gave it far more protection. Also, there is always a lucky shot, a tank can be mission killed if not outright destroyed. Douglasnicol 13:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Late reply to the above, but for one I believe the fuel drums in most Soviet tanks are ejectable, and it isn't just a Soviet design that has them. Look at the entry on the LeClerc, most assuredly a current gen tank and you will see a picture of one sporting external fuel drums. Douglasnicol 20:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Word. Er...I mean, I tend to agree with that. Its all in the training this isn't just with tanks though, with almost any equipment training can make you a much more effective fighter. --Wootonius 12:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

A lot of this material could go into a separate article on Soviet tank design. But I agree, there's some rewriting to be done. —Michael Z. 20:56, 2004 Dec 21 (UTC)

Cost

...approximately one-third cheaper per unit than the M1 Abrams

Is that correct (i.e. 2/3 the price of an M1), or should it be one third the price of an M1? —Michael Z. 2005-08-5 05:05 Z

• I had a few problems with the edit that this quote came from. In modern USD - [1] seems to suggest somewhere around 1 million USD for an export T-72S and [2] suggests 2 million USD for a T-90. From http://members.aol.com/panzersgt/hist.html - the M1 was supposed to cost about 0.5 million USD (in 1972 dollars) - the M1A2 in present day dollars costs about 6.7 million USD [3]]. Anyone have any better T-72 numbers ? Megapixie 05:28, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Also, that refers to its intended cost, so it means in the 1970s. Can you quote meaningful prices in the USSR, or is that comparing apples to oranges? Export prices are probably easier to peg, but the difference wouldn't be as dramatic. —Michael Z. 2005-08-5 16:09 Z

• Meaniful internal Russian numbers are probably hard to come by given the way the Rouble tends to rock and roll (someone prove me wrong please :) ) Flicking through my copy of Soviet/Russian Armor and Artillery Design Practices: 1945 to present (p114) gives export prices of
  • 1.2 mil USD for T-72S
  • 2.0 mil USD for T-80U
  • 3.0 mil USD for M1A1

Since the book was published around 1999 - I would figure those for 1998-9 prices. Seems like the M1's cost has inflated a lot of 6 years.

Merge T-72MP

I notice there's a new article on the T-72MP upgrade package, with next to no text. Unless someone is planning to write an extensive article on the subject, I think the modernizations should be described here. The categories Category:Ukrainian armoured fighting vehicles and Category:Modern tanks can be added here too. —Michael Z. 2005-10-19 18:07 Z

Added official page of the company that builds the tanks

The company that builds them is the same company that builds the t-90 and also other variants such as BRIDGE LAYER http://www.uvz.ru/eng/edata/euvz/eprodukt/mprod/mtu.htm

МТУ-72 ENGINEER VEHICLE FOR REMOVAL OF OBSTACLES http://www.uvz.ru/eng/edata/euvz/eprodukt/mprod/imr.htm ИМР-3М

ARMOURED DEMINING VEHICLE http://www.uvz.ru/eng/edata/euvz/eprodukt/mprod/bmr.htm БМР-3М

ARMORED RECOVERY VEHICLE http://www.uvz.ru/eng/edata/euvz/eprodukt/mprod/brem.htm БРЭМ-1

ARMOURED DOZER-SNOWPLOUGH http://www.uvz.ru/eng/edata/euvz/eprodukt/mprod/tbs.htm ТБС-86

And ofcurse

TANK T-90C http://www.uvz.ru/eng/edata/euvz/eprodukt/mprod/t_90.htm

Also added range with barrels which is 600km

Deng 2005-11-28 5.15 CET

Jack-in-the-box

'This can be a strength as well as a weakness. The turret of the T-72 has a tendency to fly off when the tank is hit, prompting the American tank crews who faced it during the two Gulf Wars to refer to it as the "Jack in the Box."'

How is this a strength or weakness? An internal explosion has killed the crew, and what matter whether it causes the turret to fly off?

Incidentally, I think internal explosions commonly remove turrets of many types of tanks; Iraq just happened to be using T-72s. —Michael Z. 2005-12-12 22:39 Z

The question is how likely is internal explosions. The T-72 passanger compartment stores more shells than the ammo compartment, and the casing is inflamible. This means more likely, and faster, secondary explosions. M1A1 Abrams has no shells stored in the crew compartment except I believe the ready rack. Challengers have a segrated ammo compartment as well. Hence, secondary effect for either is going to be a lot lower. Chin, Cheng-chuan

DU sabot and crew survivability

I believe the following are incorrect:

"Even the most recently produced T-72s are not especially well protected against conventional threats (with the notable exception of the T-72BM); NATO standard 120 mm/L60 guns, firing the M829 series depleted uranium APFSDS rounds or German Tungsten DM-53 can kill them on the first shot from any angle out past two kilometers, and even the older NATO standard 105 mm/L68 can kill a T-72 at a kilometer or more—at least with depleted uranium ammunition.[Citation needed] (in fact it could kill any modern tank as well because no armour offering effective protection against DU APFSDS exists)"

T-72BM is produced at 1988. Its armor protection is more than respectable, even in today; as for the potency of DU APFSDS, many existing armor of today is capable of defeating them, since M829 is known to have been defeated with composite armor combined with Kontakt-5 ERA. M829A1 is a powerful round, yet its speculated penetration value--610mm RHA--is lower than that of M1A1HA. The A2 is the same story. M1A1 with armor upgraded to M1A2 standard and other upgraded tanks of the same generation could withstand it, including the T-80UM and T-90M, a T-72 derivative. It was believed that the A3 model has an obsecenely penetration value--960mm at 2km--but that was the result of over estimating its velocity. It turns out that the A3 model was slower, not faster, then the previous models, as the same experts who did the initial estimation readily admits. The DU sabot is the most formidable armor piercing bullet there is. It is not invincible.

Also, the stuff about improving crew survivablity by improving fire control is nonesense. The fire supression system in the T-72 can be improved alright, but the fire control system? Taking the shells stored in the ammo compartment would reduce the total number of ammunition carried to 20 something, and no improvement in FCS would justify that--for urban fighting against infantry type threats that's plenty, but that's all the small ammo load can handle.

-Chin, Cheng-chuan

A lot of what's written in the current article is utter garbage western (especially US) propaganda. Just for example, the stuff about manual loader being faster. First of all, a manual loader in Abrams isn't faster, and definitely not consistent. He can have "bursts" of fast loading, provided that conditions are perfect but he gets tired, and can't maintain those "bursts" indefinitely. T-72's autoloader loads 6-8 rounds per minute, which is comparable to a manual loader with "bursts" and even better when it comes to consistensy. Basically, whoever wrote the current article purposely tried to "dog T-72 out" because he is a bitter loser who hates anything in Russian military.

I sick of allot of propaganda,the T-72's gun on certain models was thought to be not that good,but the real reasons were flaws in the ammo. Many people think that a T-72 is not able to take out an Abrams,but a T-72 armed with a AT-11 Sniper/Svir would knock out an Abrams with little or no problems. Dudtz 4/24/06 8:03 PM EST

It's not 'incorrect', it's absolute nonsense. Somebody a: is unaware of the capabilities of 'even the most recently produced t-72', and b: the simple fact that armour capable of defeating DU APFSDS has existed since the eighties.

The original article here was nothing more than a long description of the 'inferiorities' of the T-72 model with no context at all, comparing its original spec to current American models. I edited and almost totally rewrote the article from a neutral POV, and all that 'apples-to-oranges' drivel was gradually filtered back in by people who apparently have only read Clancy, and got all excited and hyped-up when American tankers blasted their way through a retreating force equipped with kit that was 30-years out-of-date. Umm. . . that's not anything to get excited about, IMHO; that's just the expected outcome. As for who wrote the 'original article', and what parts belonged to whom, I'm not at all sure, but whoever he was, he also wrote the same propaganda in the other soviet tank articles. Sigma-6 18:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The gun on the T-72 isn't really innacurate,the cheaper ammo that was often used by non Soviet countries was innacurate and underpowered. Dudtz 6/17/06 6:45 PM EST

Such myth emerged after the two Gulf wars. The truth is - not only iraqi tanks had obsolete munitions, but in addition their gun's bores were totally worn out - it seems saddam's generals never ever bothered to replace them (even after iranian war) - hence, accuracy (and penetration power to some degree) went to hell. 195.98.64.69 02:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

T-72 in context

Can someone rewrite this article from a more neutral point of view, without always comparing the T-72 to modern Western tanks (how about comparing it to the tanks of its generation), and without going off topic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.98.96 (talk • contribs)

I would be in favour of that too, at least keeping the latest T-72 in its context, and then noting that the Iraqi engagement involved obsolescent tanks on one side. Anonymous, if you are familiar with the subject, then be bold! —Michael Z. 2006-01-16 17:17 Z

I fixed what I could, like the part about Iraq, but I am not an expert on tank characteristics, so I can't rewrite that much.

Agreed. Personally, I have no problem with comments like ". . .and inferior", if they're put in context, as in ". . .and inferior, compared to the systems produced twenty years later in the American tanks that it was up against in Iraq."

I understand the powerful (sexual?) need Americans have to claim that their equipment is superior to everyone else's, but can they refrain from adding little comments on the main articles unless they can contextualize them? Comparing old systems which were breakthroughs at the time to much newer, more advanced ones, and referring to them as 'inferior' just makes you look foolish. Of course, the 1st Rate Ship-of-the-Line is 'inferior' to the Dreadnought, but unless you can bring a dreadnought back to 1805, you're not going to win the Battle of Trafalgar with it.

The fact is, when the T-72 was initially produced, the US was fielding the M-60, and the original M1 model had a 105mm gun, and the Iraqi T-72 was not ever much developed beyond the T-72's initial design state, while the M1 that faced it in 1991 and 2003 had benefitted from decades of upgrades in technology. Why is this so difficult to understand? Sigma-6 18:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it is more than a bit snarky to suggest that people who compare tanks have sexual disfunctions. The fact is, the T-72 is not a artifact of a bygone era, it is a weapons system that is still in use today, and is encountered on the battlefield by modern western tanks. In fact it may be THE most common tank design still in use. Now, I think it would be unfair to suggest the original Soviet designers or planners were deficient just because they did not anticipate western MBT technology of the 80s and 90s, but we should at least note that it is vastly inferior to modern MBTs, both western and eastern. People who are not familiar with tanks in general may pop into WP to see what a "t-72" is when they read about them in the news, and they need at least a rough overview of how they compare to other tanks. Identity0 08:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Autoloader Problems

One thing that was neglected in this article was that the T-72's autoloader had the habit of wanting to stuff-in the arm of gunner. It was not unheard of to see a Soviet soldier who had lost an arm to his own T-72 tank.[4] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.138.139.155 (talk • contribs) .

I thought that was a common myth. I know the BMP-1 autoloader was supposed to be lethal, but I thought the T-72 (etc) series autoloader was okay? Does anyone have any hard sources to share either way ? Megapixie 00:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the T-64's loader was initially worse than the T-72's. There's a bit about autoloaders in this PDF Why Three Tanks?, but it takes a bit of reading to sort out all of the objects. —Michael Z. 2006-02-28 02:31 Z

Oh God, it's ignorant people like the person who posted the arm-eating autoloader lies that post the most disrespectful and disinformed propaganda about Russian tanks. T-72's autoloaders don't "eat" anyone's arms. It's pure and utter lie! Man, the whole T-72 article was written by an ignorant jerk with no respect or knowledge for the T-72 and its performance. Not only are there numerous lies and ungrounded speculation, he didn't write an article about T-72, he wrote a comparisson of "T-72 vs...", and even that was filled with lies and disinformation. I have been reading about T-72 for a long time, in books and various publications and they all put this low-life of a person to shame. I don't know yet where to start but I'm thinking of editing this whole thing to a more neutral article that mostly concentrates on technical stuff. Just look at M1 Abrams article here - more propaganda from ignorant people that list only its positives, even though there are tons of negatives, as well as never-ending Pentagon propaganda and lies. I don't even know if I should bother, there are already reputable sources on the net about T-72 that debunk all these lies from jerks who know nothing about T-72.

That is definitely a myth. Anybody who has been inside a T-72 and has a little bit of common sense realises that it's almost an impossibility because of the protective shields on both gunner's and TC's sides. Even if this shield is removed, it would take either a very stupid person or a masochist to lose his arm, simply because any of either TC's or gunner's actions during combat doest not require to put their arms in the way of the ramming device. --Renius 21:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I read those shields were added *because* of the problems found with the autoloaders being dangerous. Toby Douglass 16:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

No arm can get stuffed into the breach because the gunner would have his arms nowhere near the rammer at this point. He would have both hands on the gun controls, keeping the optics on the target and being ready to fire when the little "gun ready" shows up. The shield were there from the beginning to make sure that the subframe, which ejects the spent case stub and moves into a circa 45 degree angle, does not catch the arm of either gunner or commander.

Overall, this article seems to reflect the knowledge of the early to mid-seventies. 82.195.186.220 22:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)Dag Patchett, 21 Feb 2007

T-72 versus T-80 numbers

WAIT A SECOND. The T-72 is NOT the most common Soviet tank in the late 1980s. It was the T-80. The first line of this entry is wrong. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.239.222.84 (talk • contribs) .

According to a table in Soviet/Russian Armor and Artillery Design Practices: 1945 to Present (p.165) - CFE counts for armor (European Russia): 1990 to 1997

     T-72   T-80   T-64  T-62  T-55  T-54  PT-76 Total
1990 5,092  4,876  3,982 2,021 3,130 1,593 602   21,296
1991 5,092  4,907  3,982 2,021 3,130 1,593 602   21,327
1992 2,293  3,254  1,038 948   1,266 539   483   9,821

The T-80 doesn't become the most common tank until somewhere between 1991 and 1992. Could you cite a source before going any further please. Megapixie 01:27, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I stand corrected. My information is generated by a tank-net inquiry which I might have misinterpreted. Do you have information on the number of T-64's in service? -Chin, Cheng-chuan

I have expanded the above to include all the tanks covered in the table (the actual table covers from 1990 to 1997 - but I'm too lazy to enter the complete data). Megapixie 10:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Updated Specs

I've changed the specs table on the right from T-72A (earliest version of T-72) to T-72BM (latest version of T-72) with the correct values, as well as fixed some missing values. The original author, in his ignorance, for some reason chose the earliest T-72 model (T-72A) to base the specs and reviews on, when it's well known that T-72BM entered service in 1989.

Will make additional changes later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirabell (talk • contribs)

It seems to me to be appropriate to list the specs for a basic and widely-produced version of this tank, for the sake of comparison to newer tanks. The T-72BM's specs are closer to a T-90's. It's also nice to have the specs match the infobox photo. —Michael Z. 2006-06-15 02:27 Z

i would think the best way to go would be like the patton article...show the inital "A" specs, and then also the upgrades for the "BM" model Parsecboy 13:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Multiple infoboxes can get awkward, and I prefer to only use them when there are significant "type" models, e.g. T-34 and T-34-85. How about an infobox for the original or typical T-72 (when we decide what that is), and a small table of models, as in KV-1#Table of tank models and T-34#Table of tank models? —Michael Z. 2006-12-07 19:25 Z

Newer/Better Article

The article was finally updated with a newer/better version that mainly focuses on technical stuff and debunks all of the nonsensical propaganda drivel against T-72 that was posted before.

Enjoy! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirabell (talk • contribs)

Just to be clear what we are talking about

• changes :changes
• old version
• new version

I'm not sure I agree with the "newer better article" - while I agree that there is some editorializing in the original - there is a considerable amount in the new version. Also a lot of the "foreign" version information has been removed. The 'combat performance' section is one long series of uncited statements. I was going to revert - but I thought it was better to discuss here before doing so.

There is some useful content in the new article.

How does everyone else feel about a revert / merge with / to the old version of the article? Megapixie 01:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

After seeing what he did to M1 Abrams, I'd revert first, ask questions later. --Carnildo 00:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

And, having seen his latest atrocity, I've done just that. --Carnildo 00:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Could someone retrieve the useful technical data from this fellow's unilateral, irresponsible revert, and merge it with the current article? Mirabell is not a native English speaker, so some grammar will need to be corrected. Sigma-6 19:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

You call this new and better? "Overall, as it was discovered, during the entire operation "Desert Storm", using all means, there were 14 (fourteen) T-72 tanks destroyed, including those, which were destroyed by the retreating Iraqi troops." Give me a break. -Some dork

Err, 'some dork', why would that seem odd to you? Given that the Iraqis only had about 50 of them, and most of them were operated by the Republican Guard and never saw action, that number doesn't seem so odd. If you'd had a look at the publically available data on Iraq's land forces in 1991 and 2003, you'd have had something to put that claim into context. . . assumedly you're not interested in actually having the facts? After all, most of Iraq's force consisted of T-55s and T-62s, which are hardly a match for an M1A1 any way you slice it. Is it his grammar you have a problem with? It's not exactly good form to dispute someone's data because they're not a native speaker of your language. I recommend that you do your research before you dispute people's data. 'Give me a break' indeed. Sigma-6 18:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Someone should still make this article neutral.

The "newer/better" version appears to have been stolen verbatim from Defence Journal. I've reverted. —Michael Z. 2006-06-15 02:29 Z

There's a lot of ... odd claims in the article that I've made changes to. For one, the Agava-2 thermal sight is not French. It's a first generation Russian TI (made by Zenit). The Russians don't even use foreign components on their tanks at all, they only offer it for export. The claim that in 1985 they were fitted with french laser rangefinders in 1985 is also quite weird- Russian tanks, including upgraded T-55s and T-62s, had been equipped with LRFs from long before that. More's required, I think.Beryoza 14:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

"The jack-in-the-box" tank

That is the stupidest thing that I ever seen. All tanks (and this include the western tanks) loose, at least, their turrets when their whole ammunitions explode. Only the newest tanks with auto-loaders have their ammunitions stored out of the crew compartment (T-84 Oplot, Black eagle and Leclerc). Here I have an image of a Panzer IV completely destroyed by an internal explosion and we do not call the panzer IV "the desintegrating tank"! Kovlovsky 19:11 30 april 2006

http://www.battlefield.ru/destroyed/germany/pz4_03.jpg

We may not bad mouth the Panzer IV but the Sherman tank's infamous nickname, Ronson, is certainly mentioned. The question is not whether the reference ruffles feathers but whether it's accurate. 198.111.39.17 02:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

"All tanks (and this include the western tanks) loose, at least, their turrets when their whole ammunitions explode."

That is inaccurate statement. M1 for example has all of its ammunition stored in the ready & semi-ready racks in the turret bustle. These rounds are separated from the crew compartment by armored doors and in the case of a cook-off it has blow-off panels to vent the explosion upwards and not towards the crew compartment. Leo 2 however does store some of its ammunition in its hull, however it is still better off against ammunition cook-off than T-72, which has 22 rounds in the carousel(these rounds are relatively well-protected against anything but direct penetration to the carousel itself, which considering how low in the hull the carousel is located in, is rather unlikely). The problem is not those 22 rounds in the carousel, it is the 22 other rounds stored all-around the crew compartment, of which 11 are stored inside fuel cells and other 11 without any protection what-so-ever other than the tanks armor itself. Any penetrating hit to the crew compartment in T-72 is likely to set off some of those rounds.

The damage also has to do with the type of rounds the tank is carrying. If a APFSDS is set off,it will probably pierce the hull and go outside the tank,leaving the crew with a few cuts and burns. The crew would more likely be killed from Frag or HEAT rounds going off inside the tank. Dudtz 6/25/06 1:09 PM EST

That is the stupidest thing that I ever seen. All tanks (and this include the western tanks) loose, at least, their turrets when their whole ammunitions explode.

This is incorrect. Modern Western tanks have blow out doors, such that an ammunition explosion's blast is directed out of the tank, and away from the crew. As such, the turret is not seperated from the tank. Toby Douglass 16:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Propellant is pretty dangerous all by itself. If it goes off, it doesn't matter if the warhead is roundshot or a nuke: you're still going to be cooked. --Carnildo 01:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Leopard 2 and Abrams M1 store part of amunition in crew compartment. Latest Merkava have carusel like T-72.

Carusel in T-72 located right in the bottom of tank. This is most protected/less hitted place. Penetration of hull do not mean cook-off of all amunition. Carusel ammunition is well protected from top by carusel itself. If penetration of hull/tank is so strong and carusel ammunition cook-off, than crew have no chance anyway. Enotus 13:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem with the T-72 is that ammunition is stored in the crew compartment. If the compartment is penetrated and a round is hit, that round may well explode, which by itself would likely be fatal to the entire crew, but also is likely to detonate the all remaining ammunition, which causes the spectacular turret ejection. If the ammunition was stored in a seperate compartment, penetration of the crew compartment would only cause injury or death if the penetration actually hits crew member; it is often the case that an incoming round will penetration the compartment but miss all the crew members. Compare this situation to a modern tank, which has a seperate ammunition compartment with blow out doors; any hit upon the ammunition load will injure no crew. Toby Douglass 16:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The Carousal stores only 22 shells. The vast majority of the on-board main gun ammunition of the T-72 are stored in the crew compartment, thus made vulnerable to penetrating shells. -Chin, Cheng-chuan

comperrible

how come aircraft have a comparable craft but not tanks

Because there aren't that many designs to compare between. --Carnildo 01:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, Soviet and Western tanks during the Cold War were developed for significantly different strategic and tactical doctrines. A one-on-one comparison of, say, a 70-ton M1A1 Abrams and a 41-tonne T-72BM, is just missing the point. The former is designed for high survivability in a four-tank platoon while in defensive war. The latter is intended to be massively produced, expended, and factory-rebuilt and reissued to a new unit if possible, operating in ten-tank companies in the advance.

Changes to this Cold War status quo are gradually being reflected in the evolution of tank design. —Michael Z. 2006-07-11 19:27 Z

Agreed, and in any case, the T-72BM is not an example of that doctrine, it was the immediate predecessor to the T-90, and reflects more the former doctrine than the latter. Sigma-6 00:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Untrue. More technology keeps getting added to Soviet, Russian and Ukrainian tanks, but the basic design principals go back to the T-34, and the design pattern hasn't changed significantly since the T-64. They are only currently experimenting with adopting western survivability features like turret-bustle ammunition storage in prototypes (Black Eagle tank, T-84 Yatagan), the exception being the Ukrainian T-84 Oplot, of which only one tank company is known to be in service.

Even so, the emphasis remains on lighter, smaller, low-profile tanks. Crew space is kept down by using an autoloader. 30 tonnes of weight is saved by keeping it small and using composite armour, reactive armour and active defences. —Michael Z. 2006-11-22 18:32 Z

Gun precision

I've removed this statement: "The main gun of the T-72 has a mean error of one metre at a range of 1,800 m, which is considered substandard today." because it is not true. Yugoslav copy of the T-72 on the test in Pakistan has placed 6 rounds in the same target hole, disipation was about 15 cm, and tank was moving while firing and distance was 1500-2000 meters.

I reverted your edit because you deleted information without explaining it or citing a source. Better information is always welcome on subjects such as this, because it is so hard to come by verifiable sources. In the future:

• Please fill in an edit summary, explaining your edit.
• Please be specific—include the detailed information and figures about the M-84.
• Please try to cite a verifiable source, even if it must be in Serbo-Croation. Perhaps later someone will translate it, or find an English edition, or find another source.
• If necessary, explain on the article's talk page.

Thanks. Please go ahead and correct the article. —Michael Z. 2006-07-21 13:57 Z

Tank comparison

I think that people here should try to compare the T-72 to his contemporaries before comparing it to modern MBT, it would be more fair. Remember that the T-72 was intended to fight against the american M-60, M-48, perhaps the M-103, the french AMX-30, the British Centurion (perhaps the Conqueror)and the Chieftain, which is, I think, the only enemy tank that was, more or less, his equal. After this, it is right to compare it to the newest tank to evaluate his combat capabilities in a modern battlefield. I think that the article would be greatly improved. There are also a lot of uncited informations involving numbers or appreciation. It gives a smell of subjectivity to the article. Kovlovsky 17:33 30 april 2006

T-72BM(2006) and BMPT copyright issue

I notice that the superb pictures of the new T-72BM (as opposed to the Kontakt-V equipped T-72B(M)) from E1.RU have been put on the page- is that in accordance with Wiki's rule on copyright? Further, I wonder if the BMPT belongs here or should have its own entry? Beryoza 07:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I see a copyright notice on the source page of those two images, but no evidence of the CC licence claimed by the uploader. The image pages need more information. —Michael Z. 2006-08-04 14:23 Z

The uploader has been asked to remedy this. —Michael Z. 2006-08-04 15:04 Z

gulf war 1 and 2 t-72 performance needs fixing!

while the article does note that "t-72"s used by the iraqis in 1991 and 2003 were 'downgraded export versions' it fails to mention that many of these tanks were not even that, but were instead the 'Lion of Babylon' tank, which was IRAQI-BUILT. so, the 't-72s' faced by abrams tanks in gulf wars 1 and 2 were iraqi-built copies OF the soviet/russian export version of the T-72 (which was itself inferior to the original t-72). this is twice removed from the T-72 used by the red army. this is the case with much of the other 'russian' equipment used by middle-eastern armies as well. export variants are not the same quality! and copies of said variants are even less so.

tired of noting this trend.

A couple oF small changes

"its rate of fire depends very much on the state of repair of the autoloader, which is necessary due to the extremely small and cramped interior space in the turret, which prevents the addition of a fourth crew member as a loader."

I have removed this line from "which is necessary" onwards. The sentence misrepresents the Design intent of the autoloader. The decision to adopt an autoloader was to allow for the reduction of the crew tank size as a result - The sentence implies that the small size of the turret is a design flaw (rather than an intentional feature) which has been patched up by using an autoloader. Besides, the presence of the autoloader and the resoning behind it is explained elsewhere in the article.

I have also added a sentence to the Introduction of the article attempting to put the T72 into context with the tanks that entered service at around the same time. I'm hoping that it might balance out the inevitable comparisons to the M1 if the reader is made aware that the T-72 belongs to the previous generation of tank design... 86.132.51.63 22:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

gun elevation

the first line in the section calls it a "common myth", but then goes on to say that it does, in fact, have a lesser ability to depress its main gun. so which is it? is it a myth? or is it fact? if there aren't any replies to this in a few days, i'm going to edit out the "myth" statement. Parsecboy 13:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Armour

Hello, I was just passing by this page and was having trouble with the following paragraph.

Armour

Armour protection of the T-72 was strengthened with each succeeding generation. The original T-72 turret is made from conventional cast armour. It is believe the maximum thickness of 280mm, the nose is about 80mm and the glacis of the new laminated armour is 200mm thick, which when incline gives about 500-600mm LOS thickness. Late model T-72 features composite armour protection.

In particular,

It is believe the maximum thickness of 280mm, the nose is about 80mm and the glacis of the new laminated armour is 200mm thick, which when incline gives about 500-600mm LOS thickness. L

I don't know enough about the subject to be confident in rewording this, but it's awfully hard to understand.
If somone has a minute, this paragraph could use a little care.

- Rockthing 06:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I'm also hesitant to make the change, but here's my alternative:

"It is believed that the T-72's armour has a maximum thickness of 280mm. The new laminated armour is about 80mm thick at the tank's nose, and about 200mm thick at the glacis. Due to the armour's sloping, LOS thickness is 500-600mm. Late model T-72's feature composite armour protection."

Someone more daring please fix her up! 203.45.85.74 14:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)Max

ZEROING PROBLEMS OF TK T-72

tK T-72 equipped with the Russian TPDK-1 is designed to be zeroed for APDS ammunition with a muzzle velocity of 18oom/s.At this range the tangent elevation for the HE and the HEAT round is automatically adjusted.With the invent of soft core ammunition with lesser muzzle velocity the problem of zeroing has been increased,especially in respect to the HE and the HEAT ammunition.all inputs on zeroing and zeroing problems of the tank are welcome here.59.94.253.222 12:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)guederian.

Loading Speed

The statement that 4.3 seconds per shot is "impossible for any human loaders" are blatantly untrue. H. R. McMaster, Captain of Eagle Troop, 2nd ACR of Battle of 73 Easting fame said that his exceptional loader could "load one shot every three seconds". This is available on youtube. US Army loader qualification course asks for one shot every four seconds, if memory serves.