Gunner
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 11
- Points
- 430
Sorry, I don't have the link for this article.
-----------------------
Could the T-72 Work?
Could the T-72 tank work? The Russian designed T-72 is roundly seen as one of the worst tanks in service today. The natural question, of course, is, "Could the T-72 have been a good tank?" This is a question asked of other weapons that never really worked in the past or the present.
First, one needs to look at what the T-72 is. It is a relatively simple tank, particularly when compared to the Abrams, Leopard 2, or Challenger - meaning it is easier to produce in quantity. The T-72 also is easier to man, since one only needs three people (a driver, gunner, and commander) due to the autoloader. It is a small tank (seven feet tall and 45 tons) compared to the Abrams (nine feet and 70 tons), making it a little harder to see and hit. It also comes cheaper than an Abrams, Leopard, or Challenger. One can buy a number of T-72s for the price of one of the Western tanks, but are more T-72s better than a few Abrams, Leopard, or Challenger tanks?
The T-72's combat record is well-known. Israeli military forces destroyed T-72s in combat against the Syria in the 1982 invasion of Lebanon. In Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom, T-72s were easily picked off by the American M-1s and British Challengers. The short version of the T-72's combat record is that the T-72 has often proved to be second-best on the battlefield. And being second-best on the battlefield will not change the fact that one has lost.
Why is the T-72 coming out second-best? Well, in the major conflicts the T-72 has been involved in, it has faced highly professional opponents in Lebanon and Iraq. The Israeli Defense Forces, US Army, and US Marine Corps all train hard - the Americans have been known to comment that Desert Storm was like an exercise at the National Training Center, "only the Iraqis weren't as good" as the simulated NTC opponents. The versions that have faced off against the Israelis and Americans have often been export models, which have been downgraded from what is in Russian service. However, there still are some problems with the tank's design.
First, this tank is small. The armor protection is a little iffy, even with applique or reactive systems. It was not unheard of for sabot rounds to go completely through one T-72 and then to kill a second T-72 behind it. Next, the small size means everything is packed in closely. Ammunition storage for the tank's main gun is nestled inside the fuel tanks. This is not a good thing when the tank gets hit. Everything is going to blow apart. The T-72's nickname among American forces is "Jack in the Box" - usually because one hit sends the T-72's turret flying upwards.
Second, this tank does not have much in the way of ensuring crew survival if it is hit. Tanks are useless without trained personnel - this is why tanks like the Abrams and Merkava often are so big. The Abrams and Merkava are designed so that if they are hit, the crew has a very good chance of surviving. The tank might have to undergo extensive repairs, but the crew can transfer to a new tank, taking the lessons learned with them. The crew of a T-72 that is hit will often end up dead or so badly wounded they cannot return to combat.
Third, the fire-control systems are not that hot. They can be modernized, but the real problem is that the T-72 has to survive to get into firing position. The only real advantage that the T-72 brings over the Abrams, Leopard, and Challenger is that one can buy several T-72s for the price of one of these Western tanks. There's just one problem with this apparent advantage: One must find enough crew for those tanks, and keep in mind that the Western tanks often have fought the T-72 when outnumbered - and emerged unscathed while the T-72s were destroyed.
For all the effort the designers placed into the T-72, it just simply doesn't have the ability to be an effective main battle tank in the 21st century. The tank's major flaws cannot be overcome to enable it to stand up to Western main battle tanks. In this case, buying T-72s is a case of being penny-wise and pound foolish. - Harold C. Hutchison (hchutch@ix.netcom.com)
-----------------------
Could the T-72 Work?
Could the T-72 tank work? The Russian designed T-72 is roundly seen as one of the worst tanks in service today. The natural question, of course, is, "Could the T-72 have been a good tank?" This is a question asked of other weapons that never really worked in the past or the present.
First, one needs to look at what the T-72 is. It is a relatively simple tank, particularly when compared to the Abrams, Leopard 2, or Challenger - meaning it is easier to produce in quantity. The T-72 also is easier to man, since one only needs three people (a driver, gunner, and commander) due to the autoloader. It is a small tank (seven feet tall and 45 tons) compared to the Abrams (nine feet and 70 tons), making it a little harder to see and hit. It also comes cheaper than an Abrams, Leopard, or Challenger. One can buy a number of T-72s for the price of one of the Western tanks, but are more T-72s better than a few Abrams, Leopard, or Challenger tanks?
The T-72's combat record is well-known. Israeli military forces destroyed T-72s in combat against the Syria in the 1982 invasion of Lebanon. In Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom, T-72s were easily picked off by the American M-1s and British Challengers. The short version of the T-72's combat record is that the T-72 has often proved to be second-best on the battlefield. And being second-best on the battlefield will not change the fact that one has lost.
Why is the T-72 coming out second-best? Well, in the major conflicts the T-72 has been involved in, it has faced highly professional opponents in Lebanon and Iraq. The Israeli Defense Forces, US Army, and US Marine Corps all train hard - the Americans have been known to comment that Desert Storm was like an exercise at the National Training Center, "only the Iraqis weren't as good" as the simulated NTC opponents. The versions that have faced off against the Israelis and Americans have often been export models, which have been downgraded from what is in Russian service. However, there still are some problems with the tank's design.
First, this tank is small. The armor protection is a little iffy, even with applique or reactive systems. It was not unheard of for sabot rounds to go completely through one T-72 and then to kill a second T-72 behind it. Next, the small size means everything is packed in closely. Ammunition storage for the tank's main gun is nestled inside the fuel tanks. This is not a good thing when the tank gets hit. Everything is going to blow apart. The T-72's nickname among American forces is "Jack in the Box" - usually because one hit sends the T-72's turret flying upwards.
Second, this tank does not have much in the way of ensuring crew survival if it is hit. Tanks are useless without trained personnel - this is why tanks like the Abrams and Merkava often are so big. The Abrams and Merkava are designed so that if they are hit, the crew has a very good chance of surviving. The tank might have to undergo extensive repairs, but the crew can transfer to a new tank, taking the lessons learned with them. The crew of a T-72 that is hit will often end up dead or so badly wounded they cannot return to combat.
Third, the fire-control systems are not that hot. They can be modernized, but the real problem is that the T-72 has to survive to get into firing position. The only real advantage that the T-72 brings over the Abrams, Leopard, and Challenger is that one can buy several T-72s for the price of one of these Western tanks. There's just one problem with this apparent advantage: One must find enough crew for those tanks, and keep in mind that the Western tanks often have fought the T-72 when outnumbered - and emerged unscathed while the T-72s were destroyed.
For all the effort the designers placed into the T-72, it just simply doesn't have the ability to be an effective main battle tank in the 21st century. The tank's major flaws cannot be overcome to enable it to stand up to Western main battle tanks. In this case, buying T-72s is a case of being penny-wise and pound foolish. - Harold C. Hutchison (hchutch@ix.netcom.com)
