Talk:T-72

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the T-72 article.
Article policies
Russia Portal
T-72 is part of the WikiProject Russian history, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Russian history. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. (add assessment comments)
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified T-72 as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Bulgarian language Wikipedia.
Archive
Archives
/Archive01


Contents

[edit] Unsourced speed

"However, it is capable of very high speed due to its light weight; one tank was clocked at 110 km/h on a German Autobahn."

This is in the weight section, and really should either be sourced, or removed. I have never heard, or read, about a T-72 doing these speeds, and all official literature says half that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.216.246 (talk) 02:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Relative armour protection

Someone typed that T-72 has weaker protection than western M1 tanks, but this is not true, as far as I know, it all went like this (let's begin with earliest examples) when T-72 came out, there was no tank to match it. Then M1 came out, but was not quite as good, it had 105 mm gun, which would probably not have any impression on T-72. Then Americans upgraded M1 to m1A1 and added 120 mm gun, but at the same time, T-72 was upgraded. And so on and so forth, until the developement of T-90 and M1A2, which are direct descendants from T-72 and M1 tanks. If you look at present T-72 tanks, upgraded with Kaktus and Relikt Heavy Reactive armor (which introduces the concept of module armor design, tell me if you want to find out more about it), there is a bit of doubt whether western ammunition will be able to penetrate fully upgraded T-72 tank, plus newest reaktive amrmor. remember, in 1992 US confirmed that their M829A1 rounds can not penetrate T-72 with Kontakt-5 ERA, and this sparked the developement of m829A2 and A3. But since then, Relikt and kaktus reaktive armor have been developed, specifically for countering Kinetic energy penetrators. Also, the articles talks about cold war era, and here is the link:

http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/EQP/era.html

If you scroll down, you will find american M829A1 shattered penetrator, shattered by K-5. This basically means that article is wrong in saying that armor protection of T-72 during cold war was inferior to that of western tanks, in fact, it is possible to argue that it was greater than that of western tanks. Since A2 and A3 rounds for Abrams were developed after the end of cold war, I concluded that the article was wrong in saying that soviet T-72 had less protection. In fact, looking at factors such as armored coefficient (weight of tank divided by the armored internal volume of the tank) T-72 is better protected than western tanks. Add to that Reactive armor that can defeat western penetrators and you have almost certainly better protected tank.

We should either add to article that we are talking about original T-72 without reactive armor and without any upgrades (but then we would have to talk about original M1, which was greatly inferior to T-72) or we should delete the part that says that western tanks had greater armor protection.

people here might argue about iraqi performance of T-72, but unfortunately for them, there were not many T-72s in Iraq, but ratehr Iraqi version of soviet downgraded export version, produced without proper armor elements and using cheep chinese steel (!!!!!) penetrators, tanks were controlled by inferior and uneducated crews. Hence, performance of Lion of Babylon (name of Iraqi version) has nothing to do with original Soviet T-72 tank, especially upgraded. 74.98.216.68 04:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Pavel Golikov.

There are bigger problems with the paragraph you edited. It refers to (1970s–80s) Warsaw Pact planners' response to the 1992 Leclerc tank, for one. There are many statements in the section which need to be sourced or removed. —Michael Z. 2007-07-18 18:54 Z
Kontakt-5 reactive armor was introduced on the T-72B very late in the cold war and would have likely stopped decent APFSDS ammunition from penetrating the turret but not the hull. The Iraqi T-72s were not downgraded any more than your typical export T-72. Also the original M1 Abrams was not inferior to the T-72 of the time. Yes it had a 105mm gun but the M833 APFSDS was quite capable and probably could have penetrated the T-72A. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.162.178.224 (talk) 00:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Employment section

There are some problems with the T-72#Employment section. It's time to find sources or delete material.

A significant characteristic of all Soviet and Russian tanks since the Second World War is their relatively limited range of main gun elevation. The tank's low profile requires a correspondingly low turret roof, which stops the rising gun breech. This inhibits depression of the gun (this was seen as a reasonable trade-off for a low profile). The main gun can be depressed only a few degrees, making it difficult to stop in a well-protected hull-down position (with the tank parked just behind the crest of a ridge and just the muzzle of its gun and part of its turret visible to the anticipated target).

Western tanks have considerably more elevation range and can be parked in a hull-down position with just the gun and a tiny sliver of the turret showing, whereas Soviet designs under many circumstances cannot take up a hull-down position at all because they cannot depress their guns far enough to park behind a ridge and shoot down the hill. In the interest of fairness, the origin and true impact of this shortcoming should be noted. The common Western explanation is that given Soviet doctrine's tactical emphasis on offence over defence, it was not particularly important to the Soviet designers that their tank be able to fight from a defensive position for long periods.

It should be made clear that Western tank can take a hull-down aspect in a wider range of terrain. It is a difference of degree for the respective types of tank—a big contrast in this case, but not something that one tank has and the other doesn't. The assumption about the offensive emphasis is commonly cited, but should be sourced. It should be noted that this characteristic and others are also a direct result of the Soviets' absolute dictates to limit the size and weight of tanks, based on lessons learned from the success of the T-34.

It is more likely that the T-72's designers were acutely conscious of the tank's limited main gun depression. A close look at the T-72 reveals an integral hydraulic bulldozer blade on the underside of the frontal glacis, which enables the T-72 to excavate and construct a defensive position that minimizes the need for gun depression.

True, but could be stated more briefly.

The T-72's lighter armour, lower ammunition count, and lesser gun range when compared to its Western counterparts all indicate that its design prioritised mass production over comparative invincibility. A (relatively) cheap weapon, fielded in quantity, could wear down the better-armoured spearheads of a Western conventional strike even in head-to-head battle. The T-72 is better characterised as a low-cost design balanced for phased offensive and defensive employment than as a tank designed solely for the attack.

Mass production was only one goal of the smaller, lighter design—also strategic and tactical moblity, maintainability, optimized protection.

Indeed, by comparison with its NATO contemporaries the T-72 seems somewhat under-provisioned for protracted offensive operations.

This ignores that Soviet doctrine emphasized expending entire units in the attack, then sending the remnants back to be reformed and rebuilt, while fresh units follow on in further attacks.

Western tanks such as the Leopard 2, the Leclerc, and the M1 Abrams, publicly specified for the capability to defend against a feared Soviet/Warsaw Pact invasion of NATO, exhibit significant offensive capabilities that could serve a preemptive strike as well as a defence including local counterattack. These Western tanks' higher on-board ammunition capacity may well have convinced habitually frugal Warsaw Pact strategists that they were not designed exclusively to fight from well-prepared positions in which additional ammunition could be stowed outside the tank turret (and from which a cheaper antitank solution might have nearly as much effect).

What is this paragraph saying about the T-72? It's built on supposition and inaccurate statements. Western tanks were built for survivability and endurance in the face of superior attacking numbers. Warsaw Pact strategists where extinct by the time the Leclerc saw the light of day. Any reason not to strike this altogether?

Armoured warfare is of course neither simple nor static, historically involving rapid alteration between modes of attack and defence. Engineers on the two sides of the Iron Curtain certainly received contrasting constraints and objectives. Whether evaluated for cost, mobility, armament, or protection, the T-72 is a classic representative of the Soviet school of tank construction.

Recent CIS export designs, intended to compete with Western tanks on the open market, have placed more emphasis on defence and crew survivability. The Ukrainian T-84 Oplot, T-84-120 Yatagan, and Russian Black Eagle appear to have armoured blow-out ammunition compartments.

This section needs references. I'll try to dig some up eventually.

It also needs a bit more of a focussed message. Perhaps information about the design concept of the tank, along with some history relating to the T-34 and T-54, belongs earlier in the Origin or Production history sections.

Agree? Disagree? Suggestions? —Michael Z. 2007-07-18 19:16 Z

Yes, pretty much agreed. The section on Western tanks really does not belong here at all since it adds nothing to the T-72 description. Probably belongs in a different article entirely, such as tank design?--Mrg3105 09:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Armor comparison

Who typed that T-72 has lighter armor than western tanks? It has heavier armor. Compare volume to weight of armor, not just weight of tank. Western tanks are actually thinner protected. I will dig out armor/volume ratios if someone is interested.99.231.48.156 22:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)Pavel, October 10, 2007.

Yes, please find your sources comparing armor thickness of T72 and the Western tanks. That way, we can add another source to the article, which is always a good thing. I'd also be interested in the comparison, just for my own knowledge. Parsecboy 23:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is: http://www.hot.ee/vsevolod/T-72values_eng.htm

Another note: The "fact" of T-72 going 110 km/h in motorway is completely made up and is not obviously never drove a tracked vehicle. Constructionally t-72 can't reach that speed on even ground (as won't other main battle tanks of world either, in real life situations.)

Speed on even ground (2000r/min)on different gears (t-72A) later vith 840hp engine differ from this with top speed 66km/h. In practise t-72 early models can reach speeds somewhat more than these in full throttle but structural maximum speed is around 80-85 km/h. And that's from gearbox, over that speed also track angular velocity is too much with definite maximum speed even in neutral gear and downhill could be no more than 100km/h.

From original manual:

first 8,1:1 (7,3km/h) second 4,3:1(13,6km/h) third 3,5:1(17,1km/h) fourth 2,8:1(21,5km/h) fifth 2,0:1(29.5km/h) sixth 1,5:1(40,8km/h) seventh 1,0:1(60km/h)

[edit] Zulfiqar

I'm curious why this was added to the T-72 entry. The type does not use either the hull, the turret, or the engine of the T-72, and the 125mm weapon is apparently indigenous Iranian design.--Mrg3105 09:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I removed it. The Zulfiqar is an amalgam of technology from the Patton series of tanks and the T72. It's not a variant in any way, shape, or form. Therefore, there's no need to mention it at this article. Parsecboy 11:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Finland

Finland break up almost all T-72 in 2007, rest of spare parts sold to Czech Republic price 4,1 million euro. Argus fin 07:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Variants and countries

I took the liberty to break the list of variants - that was getting really long! - up in different parts, per country, to enhance clearity. Also I added some Russian "obrazets" (= model) designators that I found in several Russian sources, including Uralvagonzavod's latest publication. dendirrek 11:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Driving the T-72 is a real challenge."

I removed the nonsense about the "Driving the T-72 is a real challenge.". How is it possible that those who have actually served as T-72 crewmen haven't noticed the "challenge"? In addition, there was no source mentioned for this "fact" (and even if there was one, it would be wildly inaccurate source anyway). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.248.138.208 (talk) 15:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Probably just some original research. Bogdan що? 16:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] T-72 a further development of T-62 or derived from T-64A?

I have a bit of problem here. One source tells me that T-72 was a further development of T-62 but the other one says that T-72 was derived from T-64A.

Can anyone clear this up? —SuperTank17 (talk • contribs) 15:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

In a sense they're both correct. The T-72 (Ob.172M) was developed by the same factory (Uralvagonzavod) that made the T-62 (Ob.166). One of the first prototypes, the Ob.167, still had the T-62 turret but already the new hull and suspension. On the other hand, the T-72 was an improved yet simplified and cheaper version of the T-64 so some of the parts can be found on both tanks. Another T-72 prototype, the Ob.172, was in fact a T-64A with the new V-46 diesel engine (initially V-45). dendirrek (talk) 17:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Source inconsistency

I noted that the references marked number 5 seem to link up to the T-62 instead of the T-72 ones. Not sure if this is an error or what. Ominae (talk) 11:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I fixed it. Thanks for pointing it out. - SuperTank17 (talk) 16:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Autoloader

I've read articles and seen documentaries on the first Gulf war where it was stated that the T-72's autoloader was a major reason why the Iraqi tanks got so few hits on the American M1's. 6.5 seconds is the *minimum* time for the T-72 to load. A well trained M1 crew can manually load shells in 7 seconds shot after shot. If the Iraqi tank managed to get off the first shot, the crew was sitting there waiting for the next shell to load while an M1 crew had already loaded and fired their second shot. One documentary had an American tank crew member's observation that after the first Iraqi tanks had been destroyed, many Iraqi crews would fire one shot then bail out because before their gun could reload the T-72 would be hit by one or more M1's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.100.251.243 (talk) 07:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually iraqis had quite a lot of hits on US tanks, but very few of them did some damage - explained by the poor training and amunitions quality, already mentioned in the article. It is widely disputed if the autoloader is a disadvantage - it's prone to mechanical failures, but that is only when the tank hasn't been maintained properly (a problem also present in Iraq's armed forces overall). Otherwise, an autoloader device can keep a very rhythmical rate of fire, while the manual loading process can be very rapid, but after the first 5-6 shells the loaders from the crew get pretty exhausted, especially with the DU-shells of the M1 Abrams.

Tangra680 (talk) 12:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sudan

Sudan - 30,000 In Service, is there a sorce for this? Enlil Ninlil (talk) 21:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I doubt the Soviet Union at the height of its power even had that many tanks operational... Koalorka (talk) 21:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Italian upgradings

In several sources about the syrian T-72s, an italian upgrading of the tank was aimed at. No source said any thing about the new charasteristics of the upgraded tank, however. Would some one help updating the article with informations abot that, please? One last pharaoh (talk) 21:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Iraqitankers

Iraqis were very well tankers and well trained in 1991 (maybe not operational but tactical) and the quality of the ammunition was easternstandard,wich was simply less effective against the (in this case)counterparts,just read the story at global security of the three iraqi T-72s wich fired different ammunitions and hit one Abrams wich was mired and alone, three times but without outknocking it (one Sabot was fired from 400meters!!)the Abrams knocked all three out!,although is the estimated number of destroyed T-72s in the TANKBATTLES of DS low (20-50!!),only the losts in the aircampaign were high: 200-230!!(source:global security),so nearly all tanks were lost during the aircampaign and closeairsupportoperations of DS.The T-72 which they had was not effective against coalition tanks and not the tankers marksmanship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.83.83.228 (talk) 17:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

As you said T-72 in Iraq suffered from poor quality of it's ammunition (the fact it was as you called it eastern standard doesn't mean that it wasn't poor quality). As for the training of Iraqi tankers show me a source that tells that Iraqis weren't bad tankers. It is a widely known fact and almost every source says this. - SuperTank17 (talk) 17:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


The quality of the COMMON T-72ammunition is poor ,not only of the monkey models and yes, it is well known but not correct that the iraqis werent well trained and competent tankers, source:"Tactical Evolution in the Iraqi Army: The Abadan Island and Fish Lake Campaigns of the Iran-Iraq War" and "Saddam Hussein's First War-An Assessment of Iraqi Operational Art in the Iran-Iraq War". The iran-iraq war shows how the iraqis developed themselfes, from their poor performance at the beginning of the war to a strong professional army in the last 4years, the iraqis had nearly no casualties compared to the iraniens in the last years, they were experienced and well trained after 8years of war(especially tactical) and in 1991 the tankers fought without numeral advantage,air support and equipment,which has any chance against the coalition.Sorry, but i have to edit! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.83.83.228 (talk) 18:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC) another source: "arab military effectiveness" The republican guard trained daily up to 13hours per day! and the Tankforces were the best forces of the iraqi military! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.83.83.228 (talk) 22:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

were are the sources that say that they were bad tankers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.83.83.228 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Philippines?

Someone keeps adding the Philippines to the list of operators and is asking me to prove they don't operate it. I think it would be better for that person to come forward with evidence that the Philippine Army actually does operate the T-72. --Edward Sandstig (talk) 15:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it would have been better if you would even care who reverted your edit. Also I wasn't the one who added Philippines to the operators list in the first place. It was added by an anonymous editor on 6 May 2008.
Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 17:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
So why did you revert my edit immediately when I clearly stated that they didn't operate it? The anonymous user didn't post a reference, and you would rather I try to prove a negative? Or do you have evidence that the Armed Forces of the Philippines operates the T-72? --Edward Sandstig (talk) 18:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't have the sources but I simple done my duty as wikipedian to revert any edits that might be considered vandalism (deletion of certain parts of the article in this case). You did say that Philippines don't operate T-72 MBTs but you didn't prove it. You can easily prove such statement by referring to reliable sources which in this case wouldn't list Philippines as a T-72 operator.
Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 20:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid the burden of proof is on those who wish to include the Phillipines. It would be extremely difficult to prove a negative, even with the method you suggest, as the list might be incomplete, or out of date, etc. It would be much easier to show an equipment list that has T-72s on it. Parsecboy (talk) 20:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, there are several IP editors who like to add nonsense about the Phillipino military to Wikipedia articles. This seems to be an example of that. More generally, the burden of proof for all material on Wikipedia rests with the editor who adds it, and other editors don't need to prove a negative if they remove particularly dubious looking stuff. Nick Dowling (talk) 03:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


Ultimately, a fact like this ought to be supported by a reference, but we also try to assume good faith on the part of other editors. Also, please don't make accusations of vandalism when you see a normal edit or disagree with someone.
Since no one seems to be saying that the Philippines do operate the T-72, I would support removing this statement until a reliable source appears which says yes or no. —Michael Z. 2008-06-09 14:27 z


As Nick Dowling pointed out, there seem to be a number of anonymous IPs (usually from New Zealand) that keep adding dubious tidbits about the Armed Forces of the Philippines. I try to do my part and track down changes they make after I see their edits in Philippine-related articles, but they usually make small, easy-to-miss edits in non-Philippine articles. It seems a bit funny now, that my removal of a highly questionable claim, from an anonymous editor, who didn't even bother to add an edit summary or source could have been misconstrued as vandalism. ;) --Edward Sandstig (talk) 19:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC) (just to make things clear, by "funny" I meant amusing, no malice intended)

[edit] Reversions by Roadscoastfordoor

Please stop removing valid "citation needed" tags. As for the rest of your edits, you should look at the section on this talk page about the supposed challenges of driving the tank. Then there's this section which discusses the alleged 110km speed on German autobahns. The bit about the T-90's autoloader is totally irrelevant to this article. Parsecboy (talk) 16:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


Explain to me how you on one hand can add uncited information yet demand that tags be left. And then show me the sources for your false and obvious misleading information for the false information that you add such as 1 "the 2A46 gun itself has a lower muzzle velocity compared to NATO 105mm and 120mm guns", 2"Penetration by Soviet kinetic energy weapons is considerably lower at 1 mile than smaller caliber NATO counterparts" where are the sources. And this part here is clearly twisted and propaganda driven A "in part due to the limiting factor of the small turret, which reduces breech-length and thus ammunition charge" And finally very interesting that you add fact tags to anything that says anything positive about the t-72 but do not demand the same for those things that say negative things that is the most interesting part Roadscoastfordoor (talk) 16:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I didn't add any of that, I'm just reverting your removal of it. As I pointed out above, there has been discussion on this talk page about some of your alleged "facts" about road speed. As for the fact tags, you don't get to remove them because you don't like them. If you want to replace unsourced material you can't do so with material that is also unsourced. Provide a source, or don't change text that has been stable for some time. Parsecboy (talk) 16:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
You just added it like 1 min ago, do you have no memory?. The information is clearly bias and false and written from an anti russo perspective, most likely by ip vandals, stop re adding it and I can compromise on the road speed Roadscoastfordoor (talk) 16:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


No, I reverted your removal of it a few minutes ago. The text had been there for quite some time previously. If you can prove the information is false, then remove it. If not, then don't.
This part, about the T-90's autoloader is completely irrelevant to this article:
"The T-90 autoloader (further modification of T-72) has a 'sequence' mode. When it is enabled, the loading mechanism continuously loads rounds of the same type without any gunner's intervention. This allows the loading operations to be performed in under 5 seconds. There are videos showing T-90 firing 3 shots in 13 seconds (4.3 sec per shot) while moving. This rate of fire is practically impossible for a human loader."
This article is about the T-72, not the T-90. As for this line:
"In the interest of fairness, the origin and true impact of this shortcoming should be noted. The common Western explanation is that..."
This is not an editorial, it's an encyclopedia. Phrases like "It should be noted" are generally prohibited. If there is contradicting information, state it, don't use peacock terms and weasel words to get the point across. Parsecboy (talk) 17:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
No no and no "If I can prove it is false" no no no read the wikipedia guide lines here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ref "Any material that is challenged, and for which no source is provided within a reasonable time (or immediately if it's about a living person), may be removed by any editor." Do you understand it is you who must prove that it is true not me that has to prove that it is false, otherwise everyone could write everything for example that the T-72 was built by FDR who traveled in a time machine to the 60s, see it is the person who adds the text that must provide that it is true not the one who wishes to remove itRoadscoastfordoor (talk) 18:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
And the loader can also go what I am talking about the the text about the gun, so if we cut the text about the gun which has no source then we can also remove the speed and the autoloader, ok? Roadscoastfordoor (talk) 18:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
The issue is not that you're removing information, it's that you replaced it with equally unsourced info (speaking about the comparison of the 125mm and western 105 and 120mm guns). Parsecboy (talk) 22:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok then, what about cutting the speed, the autoloader, and the text about the gun should be; The T-72 has a 125mm gun and the Soviets armed them with anti tank guided missiles, corresponding Nato Tanks of that time had a 105mm gun. What do you think? Roadscoastfordoor (talk) 18:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
That seems to be fine to me; it would probably be good to describe the various types of ammunition the gun can fire (HEAT, APFDS, ATGMs, etc.), which I hadn't realized the article doesn't yet do. I'll try out a rewording of the gun section in a bit. Actually, I'm no expert on the T-72, and I don't have any references with me at the moment, so I'll hold off on adding anything specific about the types of ammunition it can fire; perhaps Supertank17 (one of the more active and seemingly knowledgeable editors of this page) can lend some of his expertise? I'll just trim the comparison between Soviet and NATO guns for the time being. Parsecboy (talk) 00:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, I've gone ahead and reworded the paragraph about the main gun, and included a pretty generic description of the types of ammunition fired; if you or anyone else knows the specific types of ATGMs, or other types of ammunition, please go ahead and add them (and link them if they have articles, which is likely). Take a look and let me know what you think. Parsecboy (talk) 00:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)