Wars and Conflicts permalink
Abrams v T-72
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Â
Posted by Glen_Morangie (U6702145) on Monday, 31st March 2008
Evening all,
I recently seen a programme (think it was called 'Battlefield Weapons') about the American Abrams tank. Later on in the prog it said how in the 1st Gulf War the Russian made T-72 was no match for the Abrams in battle.
As an aside to this it stated that as the T-72 was the Russians main battle tank if they decided to invade Western Europe in the Cold War it would have came up against the Abrams, & that because of future events in the Gulf if they had invaded the Sovs may not have got too far.
Just wondering what anyone elses opinion on this is because though I am no expert I would not have thought the Warsaw Pact would have tried to invade the West with an inferior tank - was it that the Iraqi tank drivers were not as well trained, or was as the programme suggests the Abrams so much better than the T-72?
Cheers,
GM -
Message 2
Posted by Volgadon (U10843893) on Monday, 31st March 2008
IIRC, the Abrams was a generation younger than the T-72.
-
Message 3
Posted by SONICBOOMER (U3688838) on Monday, 31st March 2008
That's right, M-1 was a full generation ahead of T-72, as was Challenger and other Western tanks of the same period, like the Leopard 2.
Technologically, they totally outclassed the T-72, even if the Soviet vehicle had a bigger gun, the Western rivals had far better target aquistion systems, night fighting sensors etc.
T-72 was really a simplified, more practical T-64.
The T-64 was an over-ambitious technical failure, with systems like Auto-loading, (dangerous to the crew).
T-72 deleted these and other advanced features, to make a workable replacement for older tanks in the same basic hull and gun.
A NATO counterpart to T-64, the MBT-70, was a similar ambitious, complex project, luckily it was cancelled before production. -
Message 4
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Monday, 31st March 2008
But, if the Russians had invaded, trhey would have done what was done in 1944. The German tanks were better than the likes of the Sherman, but the where just swamped by numbers. In terms of numbers, the Russians outnumbered N A T O, so we would have been over run.
-
Message 5
Posted by VF (U5759986) on Tuesday, 1st April 2008
SONICBOOMER
The T-72 still has auto-loading for its main weapon,apparently its a different system to the T-64,but its an auto system none the less.
In my youth I used to play a tank simulator called "M1 Tank Platoon"(micropose).A great,comprehensive game,the manual Im sure mentioned that the T-72's low turret profile was in part down to the fact that an auto loader was used.
If the simulator was to be believed
then the T-72 would be outclassed.However the anti tank missiles it fired were a pain!(My standard tactic was to hide on the reverse side of a hill crest with my platton and pick them off!
. Always had problems with the T-80,although I suspect that the game designers overestimated the T-80's capabiltity,understandable as the Cold War was only just coming to an end....
GrumpyFred, Im with you on this,I think that the Russians would use sheer weight of numbers...Nuclear armageddon stopped them trying
Heres a link for the tank :
Vf -
Message 6
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Tuesday, 1st April 2008
Grumpyfred,
IMO the Soviet tanks would have been obliterated.
As be proved in the First gulf war - we took out every single one of their tanks before they even got in range. That was armour Vs Armour, never mind the Air to ground capability.
The gap in performance was far more than anything the Germans had against the soviets.
I honestly believe it would have been a 'Turkey shoot'. -
Message 7
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Tuesday, 1st April 2008
Mani. In the F G, we controlled the air. The Russians would have swamped us with them as well. Not as good as ours, but again, shear numbers.
GF -
Message 8
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Tuesday, 1st April 2008
Hi Fred,
"The Russians would have swamped us with them as well"
A Huge assumption!!! -
Message 9
Posted by TrailApe (U1701496) on Tuesday, 1st April 2008
A factor to be brought to this discussion is that the T-72's used in Iraq and elswhere were export models, and not as effective as the 'real' T-72's that the Soviets would have deployed.
Main differences being armour, (plain steel vs reaktive) FCS and ammunition. To put this into perspective, the deciscion to seriously consider the smooth bore 120mm tank gun by us Brits is because we are losing out in the ammunition race - nobody else but us uses a rifled cannon, so ammunition is a very important (if ignored by the ordinary bloke) factor.
As an aside, NATO wasn't that badly outnumbered by the Warsaw pact, only problem being that the bulk of NATO was sitting in the US. Bit of a problem that. -
Message 10
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Tuesday, 1st April 2008
Hi TrailApe,
I read that on Wiki, It's b****ks!
They weren't export, most were Soviet domestic products sold directly to Saddam as funds were 'tight' back home...
The T-72 wouldn't have got near firing range of any Abrams, Leopard, Challenger 2 before the turret being blown off (A common problem!). -
Message 11
Posted by TrailApe (U1701496) on Tuesday, 1st April 2008
Well I didn't get it from Wiki, but there again there's so much misinformation out there that it's hard to tell what's urban myth and whats truth.
Turret going off is due to the bad layout of ammunition storage. One of the oft quoted good points of the T-72 is its low profile, however since its not a TARDIS its small size has some negative consequences, one of them being that ammo is stashed away in places that we would normally stuff doss bags, mars bars and 'literature' (a good soldier always has his pamphlets to hand).
On the other hand, I have heard that the Tread-Head Finns are reasonably happy with their T-72s. -
Message 12
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Tuesday, 1st April 2008
Hi TrailApe,
You there is far too much nonesense on t'internet... But that's what happens when everyone has a voice!
"literature"? Wish we had the space!!! Filthy playing cards were far more practical for us!
Well the Finns haven't been in battle since the continuation war! I don't think anyone expected the T-72 to perform so badly in a combat situation... But they were so outclassed in every department. If I remember rightly, not one allied casualty down to enemy fire... -
Message 13
Posted by VF (U5759986) on Tuesday, 1st April 2008
Mani
Do you think that the allies over-estimated the T-72 in the first place,or do you think that the Iraqi's didnt know how to use them?
Or was simply the fact that compared to the Abrahams M1 and challenger 2 (+ the fact that the allies had complete air superiority) the T- 72 was simply old and out classed?
Vf -
Message 14
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Tuesday, 1st April 2008
Most of the damage to the 72s was done by air power. The ammount of armour destroyed by armour was very few.
-
Message 15
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Wednesday, 2nd April 2008
VirtualF
Fred’s comments are right, most of the Iraqi armour was destroyed by air, but when we met on the ground, we were rarely not outnumbered and as I said before, we never had one casualty.
I don’t think the allies in a military sense over estimated it – we knew it’s capabilities, we had the advantage in ever department, it was more a relief to see the ‘paper’ superiority shown in the field. -
Message 16
Posted by Hasse (U1882612) on Wednesday, 2nd April 2008
Virtual and Mani
When Sweden started to test for our new main battle tank,had I the fortune to bee somewhat involved.
We did chose the Leopard and are currently using a upsoaped model of Leopard II.
Our findings was that the western ones could at least take on two T-72,with very good odds of winning.
Whats in the T-72 favour was that you could buy three for the price of one,they where cheaper to maintain and was on the whole a bit sturdier with less breakdowns by wear and tear and not proper service,mostly because they where of simpler design.A bit like like a new and old car,I can mostly fix the later but a modern one can you only open the hood a shake your head.
Wich one you chose is essential down to if you accept high casualities and the education standard of your troops and maintainance.
Personaly do I prefer the Leopard much saver for my own precious skin.
Hasse -
Message 17
Posted by Colquhoun (U3935535) on Friday, 23rd May 2008
Wasn't there an engagement between 13 T72s and about the same number of British Challengers in Gulf War 2? From my recollection the Challengers destroyed all of the T72s without loss.
-
Message 18
Posted by Triceratops (U3420301) on Friday, 23rd May 2008
Colquhoun,
I think the incident you mean was a fight between 14 Challengers and 14 T-55s that took place on the 27th March 2003.
All the Iraqi tanks were destroyed without loss to the Challengers.
Only two Challengers have been lost in combat, one to fire from another Challenger and one to a road bomb.
Trike. -
Message 19
Posted by Colquhoun (U3935535) on Friday, 23rd May 2008
Close but are you sure that the Iraqi tanks were T55s, T55s would have been very old in 2003 and Iraq used to have quite a few T72s.
-
Message 20
Posted by Triceratops (U3420301) on Friday, 23rd May 2008
Col,
The wiki entry just says "Iraqi tanks"
29
The only other article I could find was this;
-
Message 21
Posted by Colquhoun (U3935535) on Friday, 23rd May 2008
Thanks,
If they were T55s then as one of the posters on your link says one Challenger 2 on its own should have been able to destroy 14 of them. -
Message 22
Posted by -OOPSIE- (U248494) on Tuesday, 27th May 2008
You can't just compare T-72s vs M1s. There is a massive difference in the capabilities of different versions of both tanks!
Iraq used downgraded export versions of early T-72s. This meant it had considerably weaker armour, fire-control and sensors.
If Iraq had a better version, they wouldn't have been killable at 4km range, because their armour would have been thicker. And they would have been able to fire back and hit targets on the move at a similar range to what the M1 could. -
Message 23
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Tuesday, 27th May 2008
OOPSIE,
In the first gulf war the Iraqi's had the same version as the Soviets. Which the Iraqi's then 'improved', they called it the 'Lion of Babylon'.
It had an identical gun to the soviets version, but improved sighting and even laser guiding (in some cases!)
It's a bit of a myth about the export version - although the tanks used by Iraq in the Iran war were 72M's, by the late 80's the soviets were offloading their armour to anyone that would buy it due to their eccomic crisis.
" And they would have been able to fire back and hit targets on the move at a similar range to what the M1 could."
They did fire back, there were exchanges at hundreds of yards, the T-72's were still beaten. But the standard soviet weapon and sighting systems could havbe done nothing against the M1 or Challenger 2's. Their design concepts were nothing like each other. -
Message 24
Posted by -OOPSIE- (U248494) on Tuesday, 27th May 2008
I can't find any information that says anything other than Iraq had T-72M's which are T-72A's missing a few things and with turret armour thinner.
Or T-72 Lion of Babylon, which is a T-72M uprgraded with 30mm armour plates and a few other minor details.
If you could link to your source, it'd be greatly appreciated. -
Message 25
Posted by Steelers708 (U1831340) on Tuesday, 27th May 2008
It's obvious that the M1 Abrams and Challenger I were better tanks than the T-72 they are of differant generations.
The T-72 was designed in the 60's and came into service in 1971, the M1 & Challenger I are next generation tanks that came into service in the 1980's, with the Challenger II being yet a later generation still.
When the T-72 entered service it's main US and British opposition would have been the M60 series and Chieftain.
If I said to you which would come out out on top between a Tiger I or Panther and a Russian BT-7 you'd laugh at me and say don't be daft, so stop trying to compare chalk and cheese and expecting them both to perform equally. -
Message 26
Posted by englishvote (U5473482) on Tuesday, 27th May 2008
I totally agree Steelers.
To compare the T72 with an M1 or Challenger is a bit unfair on the T72.
Even the top of the range up-armoured T72B1 with all the gadgets added such as explosive reactive armour, image intensifiers and ATGW for the main gun is no match for even a basic M1 or Challenger.
The T80 is not much better even though it is a comparable era to the M1 and Challenger.
Most important of all is that American crews of M1’s and British crews of Challengers were vastly superior to the Iraqi crews in their inferior T72’s.
I think it was the US General Freddy Franks who said that the coalition would have won even if the Iraqi’s had been in M1’s and the US had only had T55’s and T72’s, simple because the coalition troops were so much better trained and motivated than the unfortunate Iraqi’s. -
Message 27
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Tuesday, 27th May 2008
-OOPSIE
I will look, my main source is me - I was there!!! -
Message 28
Posted by Steelers708 (U1831340) on Tuesday, 27th May 2008
The T-72 used by Iraq was the T-72M, which was the Russian export version, but was also built by Poland and Czechoslavakia. The T-72M was one of the so called 'monkey' models sold to non Russian customers as they did not have all the modern upto date features of the Russian T-72A version, derivatives of the T-72M are the T-72M1 and M2 models.
It was stated in 1979 that the T-72A had "at least first generation advanced armour" including spaced armour and new metallurgical techniques called "combined armour" by the Russians, but the T-72M export versions had a different composite insert in the turret cavity which granted it less protection against HEAT and armour-piercing (AP) munitions.
T-72M: Original Polish and former-Czechoslovakian T-72-series tank from which Polish/Czechoslovakian T-72M1 was derived. T-72M differs from T-72 in replacing the right-side coincident rangefinder with a centerline-mounted TPDK-1 LRF.
T-72M1: Russian export version and Polish/Czechoslovakian counterparts. Versions with Kontact ERA are known as T-72AV /T-72 M1V. Some countries have inventories of T-72, T-72M and T-72M1, with different versions of each variant. Also, many variants were upgraded or modified. Some T-72M1s do not have smoke grenade launchers or track skirts. Some T-72s/T-72Ms have smoke grenade launchers. More reliable discriminators are armor and rangefinder/FCS. They also have a front glacis plate 16mm thicker than the T-72A.
As to the Iraqi T-72's it is widely reported that they were equipped with inferior quality main rounds and often used only half charges. As their was an arms embargo’s against Iraq after the Iran & Iraq war in the 1980's, they were only able to buy up spare parts for the T-72M and use these to build their version of the T-72 called the 'Lion of Babylon' based on the T-72M at a steel plant in Taji with some parts provided by a Polish contractor, apparently there was also a model known as the 'Saddam' which was altered to suit the local conditions by removing the suspension shock absorbers and a searchlight was added on the right-hand-side of the main armament. -
Message 29
Posted by hambi22 (U2309395) on Sunday, 1st June 2008
Hello,
I think that tha Abrams weights about 60 ton, whilst the T 72 "only" 40 tons. T72 is less resistant but has better manoeuvrability, this advantage was probably in the desert useless.
Other factor are the abilities of the users.
For examble the soviets fighter Migs were not an adversary for the Izraeli jets, but the Vitnamese manage to cause to the americans with the same jets bigger trouble.
regards -
Message 30
Posted by RSS_643_IKWIG (U13662597) on Friday, 14th November 2008
A word to the wise; in WESTERN EUROPE the maximum range in BATTLE as far as TANK perticular is concerned: 30 miles at first instance, is 'meat and drink' to a rifled barrel. Some would say 22 / (4) miles or 27 / (9) miles at first instance. A horizontal straight shot from a hull down position at THE GAP was standard BAOR (BRITISH ARMY 'on the' RHINE) DETAIL. Or at least it was to 'the' 17th/21st LANCER in 1970/1. A CHEIFTAIN MK III MBT (Main Battle Tank) armed with a 120mm L7/56 rifled barrel; 'laid' inline with FLIGHT, 'gunnery computing' and a SUBMARINE PERISCOPE, was a proper response to the threat of the SOVIET T72: in 1972.
ps. As for the 'smooth bore' barrel; in whatever type of TANK you build: 7.5 miles 'in lenght', is not good enough, if your life depends on it. As for me and mine; YOU WILL HAVE TO CONSCRIPT ME TO MAKE ME USE THE SCRAP YOU BUY: GORDON. -
Message 31
Posted by Northern_Andy (U2943874) on Monday, 17th November 2008
Do you have a problem with your 'Caps Lock' button as it seems to be going on and off at random?
-
Message 32
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Tuesday, 18th November 2008
Weren't Iraqi T-72s dug into fixed defenses in both Gulf Wars? If so, it'd be a bit silly to extrapolate from this any battlefield performance in a theoretical Warsaw Pact attack on NATO circa 1980.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or  to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Â鶹ԼÅÄ iD
Â鶹ԼÅÄ navigation
Â鶹ԼÅÄ links
Â鶹ԼÅÄ Â© 2014 The Â鶹ԼÅÄ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.