T-72: Still Useful or Not?

[Bobithy]

So, gentlemen (and ladies of course), I bring forth the question of “is the T-72 still useful as a combat tank in terms of main battle tanks”. Now, to be clear, I am not talking about the Soviet or even Russian Federation export versions, Im talking about the Russian Armies variants, by far better then the export versions.

It seemed to have a nice combat record in the 2008 South Ossetia War, but is that a real test?

 

[Cailet]

Define 'useful'.

If you mean 'can it match the current models of Abrams, Challenger, Leopard etc. in a straight fight?' then the answer is no but the former Soviet (and presumably current Russian, though I admit my ignorance here) doctrine did not call for it to do so, the place and use of the MBT in their doctrine was not the same as in NATO thinking,

But as you say, it has proven effective enough in the kinds of regional conflicts that Russia currently anticipates fighting, by which standard it clearly isn't useless.

The professionals on here will doubtless be able to go into greater detail on the subject but I would say your question is probably too broadly phrased to be particularly useful.

 

[Bobithy]

Ok, I restate:
Im talking about in a modern war regional war against somebody more powerful then Georgia. Say, Ukraine or even China. A war that the Russians could possibly fight within the next couple years without starting World War III

Does that help at all?

 

[OPSSG]

Ok, I restate:
Im talking about in a modern war regional war against somebody more powerful then Georgia. Say, Ukraine or even China. A war that the Russians could possibly fight within the next couple years without starting World War III

Does that help at all?

Your reformulation is of no help at all. A rethink is necessary.

An army fights with its existing TO&E and in the case of the Indian army (in terms of manpower the 2nd largest in the world), they are still using T-72s and there are potential plans to update some of the subsystems. In the Indian threat matrix - China is a consideration. They will use what they have, hence their T-72s and T-90s are useful. The same would apply to the Russians.

 

[Waylander]

It is going to be usefull especially by giving Russia the needed numbers for a heavy and prolonged fight.

Even the modernized T-72BM might not be state of the art anymore. But with more and more T-90s forming the frontline units and a doctrine which heavily counts on alot of additional other assets to kill and surpress enemy forces it is still deadly. As always crew training is more than important. A well trained and led russian combined arms force is going to be a hard nut to crack, even with T-72s.

And it's not as if most Ukrainian or Chinese units have better tanks in their TO&E.

 

[dragonfire]

I think for the current scenario and for the next 15 years (almost) the T-72 will still be "useful", if it can be made contemporary. You can take a look at the Indian Army's program of updating its large fleet of T-72's IIRC its called the Combat Improved Ajeya (Ajeya meaning invincible standing for the indian version).

If the tank has the following capabilities then it can still be used in the time frame mentioned above

Night fighting capabilities including night vision and thermal imaging
Contemporary FCS,
Fire detection and suppression systems.

These are some of the upgrades being done for the IA's tanks and I think they are also upgrading the engines and the tanks already have ERA protection

 

[Chrom]

Even most advanced and rich of NATO members (USA, Germany, France) - still use outdated versions of they tanks like M1A1 or LeoA4. Thats not even speak about "lesser" NATO members like Italy or, god forbid, East EU.
These tanks are not scrapped still, so you can be sure they are useful. If they are, then upgraded T-72's are no less useful.

 

[dragonfire]

I think it has to do also with highly trained motivated crew operating with good intel and situational awareness, which was not the case of the Iraqi T-72's.

Also in a tank vs tank battle the ratio also matters amongst other things

 

[Waylander]

Even most advanced and rich of NATO members (USA, Germany, France) - still use outdated versions of they tanks like M1A1 or LeoA4. Thats not even speak about "lesser" NATO members like Italy or, god forbid, East EU.
These tanks are not scrapped still, so you can be sure they are useful. If they are, then upgraded T-72's are no less useful.

The M1A1 versions in use with the US are defenitely more capable than even the modernized T-72s Russia is fielding. In Germany the Leopard 2A4 is only in use for training purposes.


When it comes to extensive upgrades for older T-72s I am in doubt about the effectiveness of it.
Especially in Indias case one has to remember that they use T-72M1s. This T-72 version is less capable from the beginning than a T-72B. Putting modern optics, TIs and electronics into them as well as a new engine and zeroes transmission is not cheap.
One might about purchasing new tanks not only in order to get a overall more modern vehicle but also to reduce maintenance costs.

 

[Chrom]

The M1A1 versions in use with the US are defenitely more capable than even the modernized T-72s Russia is fielding. In Germany the Leopard 2A4 is only in use for training purposes.

Doubt it.
Lets see.
1. Armor. Upgraded T-72 have it better.

2. Gun. About the same, may be M1A1 will be slightly better against tanks, but T-72 is a lot better against anything else - good HE shells, AirBurst, etc.

3. FCS/Thermals. At very least T-72 is not worse. As much i know, M1A1 have older and worse TI than upgraded T-72 (Thales).

4. Mobility. About the same in the field, but strategically (weight) - T-72 is much better. Fuel supply is also much more favorable for T-72 (diesel vs old ineffecient turbine).

When it comes to extensive upgrades for older T-72s I am in doubt about the effectiveness of it.
Especially in Indias case one has to remember that they use T-72M1s. This T-72 version is less capable from the beginning than a T-72B. Putting modern optics, TIs and electronics into them as well as a new engine and zeroes transmission is not cheap.
One might about purchasing new tanks note only in order to get a overall more modern vehicle but also to reduce maintenance costs.

Of course, i said about "ultimate" T-72 upgrade for russian army - with "Relict", modern FCS, etc. In fact, it is better than serial T-90. ~100 T-72 upgraded every year to that standard. Rest (several hundreds every year) recive just cosmetical upgrade/overhaul. That version is of course not as good, especeally lacking thermals - but for day operation or defencive night fights it is still very capable tank.

Btw, about cost. Upgraded T-72 is rumored to cost 50 mil. rub (~1.7 mil $), new T- 90 ~75 mil rub.(~2.6 $).

Althought export T-72M1 were worse than original russian tanks, but they can be upgraded to same standard. Basic hull dimensions are same after all - so the same upgrade procedures could be applied. Engine, gun, FCS, armor filling... of course, it will be not cheap - but still cheaper and easer than to build new tank.

 

[luccloud]

Your reformulation is of no help at all. A rethink is necessary.

An army fights with its existing TO&E and in the case of the Indian army (in terms of manpower the 2nd largest in the world), they are still using T-72s and there are potential plans to update some of the subsystems. In the Indian threat matrix - China is a consideration. They will use what they have, hence their T-72s and T-90s are useful. The same would apply to the Russians.

Given the terrain they share, is it even possible to have a tank battle?

 

[OPSSG]

Given the terrain they share, is it even possible to have a tank battle?

A failure to use tanks is a failure of a war planner's imagination and no self respecting war planner would want to do without tanks in a theatre of war. Let me state it as simply as I can, with four main ideas (my apologies for the gross over-simplification below):

(i) Tanks can be used offensively and defensively as part of a larger combined arms system - be it in 'tank country' or not. Tanks and armoured personnel carriers have been used in the cities and even in the jungles of Vietnam - which are traditionally terrain not thought of as good 'tank country'. Which is why countries like Thailand (M-60s), Malaysia (PT-91Ms) and Singapore (Leopard 2A4s) all operate MBTs as part of an armoured formation (with the necessary supporting engineer elements to deal with obstacles) even though our terrain we operate in is not traditional 'tank country'. In fact, during the Malayan Campaign during WWII, the Imperial Japanese Army effectively used light tanks to defeat the British led defenders - that is why today, all three countries: Singapore, Malaysia and Thailand, have tanks.

(ii) Corps level and above reserves are almost always mechanized (which means tanks are often part of the mix). And even at division level and below, tanks are useful - an armoured brigade acting as a reserve in a division sector, in defence, would make a huge difference to the capabilities of that division. Let me remind you that Taiwan has M-60s as part of their mobile reserves in the event of an amphibious landing by the PLA. And the Taiwanese mobile armour reserves will be used to push any landing force back to the sea.

(iii) The PLA was a infantry centric army in the 1962 Sino-Indian War (which meant that they would pick a fight at a location where tanks can't get to). This is no longer the case today, as China has substantially 'transformed' the PLA (the largest army in the world) with significant mechanized elements for combined arms warfare (this would include amongst others, the Type 96 and the Type 99A2) - click to see this 2006 Backgrounder. You would want to use armoured forces to deal with armoured forces because the mobility would compress time and space in war planning (terrain permitting).

(iv) Indian war planners have to assume the worse case scenario. Further, the frontage and depth of the battlespace is much bigger than you think. This would include the possibility that PLA would advance into Indian territory via Pakistan or some other state's territory (eg. India and Pakistan fought a large scale tank battle in 1965, at the Battle of Asal Uttar). In the common borders between India, China and Pakistan, there's plenty of suitable 'tank country'.

Below is a video of Singaporean armoured infantry in Bionix IFVs training with Indian T-72s:
[nomedia]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeo9jghCm4s[/nomedia]


BTW, it is legitimate to ask question(s) but you are requested not to post further one-line replies as this is against forum rules. Kindly read the rules. Many thanks and have fun posting in DT.

 

[Waylander]

Doubt it.
Lets see.
1. Armor. Upgraded T-72 have it better.

2. Gun. About the same, may be M1A1 will be slightly better against tanks, but T-72 is a lot better against anything else - good HE shells, AirBurst, etc.

3. FCS/Thermals. At very least T-72 is not worse. As much i know, M1A1 have older and worse TI than upgraded T-72 (Thales).

4. Mobility. About the same in the field, but strategically (weight) - T-72 is much better. Fuel supply is also much more favorable for T-72 (diesel vs old ineffecient turbine).

Without wanting to get into a this vs that contest I want to adress some points you made. IIRC correctly the US Army is only going to retain M1A1HA in service which should provide at least equall protection like a T-72 BM with Rogotka upgrade even if it fields Relikt. But as always with armor protection it comes down to the lack of sources one can post due to them being confidential. Nevertheless even an upgraded T-72 still remains behind when it comes to crew survivability and the possibility to repair and bring back a tank after a penetration.

Regarding the TI. I always thought that the Catherine TI has roughly the same performance as the TIS of the M1A1. But as I am not sure about it I would appreciate any correction.

Fire on the move capabilities of a T-72 are always going to be problematic as the low angle of depression and not a deficient FCS is a main source for innacuracies .

And while the US to their shame still isn't able to field a modern HE (Or even a classic HE...) they still have some other interesting ammo options. Canister and MPAT are in service and there are several other 120mm munitions available and integrated which only need to get procured (Like APAM, DM-11, PELE,...). IIRC there are no programmable 125mm HE rounds available. The Ts use plain normal KE, HEAT and HE-FRAG.

The Rogotka upgrade also doesn't adresses the problem of the limits the autoloader imposes on the length of KE penetrators.

The problems of ergonomics in the T-72 also remain the same.

Of course, i said about "ultimate" T-72 upgrade for russian army - with "Relict", modern FCS, etc. In fact, it is better than serial T-90. ~100 T-72 upgraded every year to that standard. Rest (several hundreds every year) recive just cosmetical upgrade/overhaul. That version is of course not as good, especeally lacking thermals - but for day operation or defencive night fights it is still very capable tank.

Btw, about cost. Upgraded T-72 is rumored to cost 50 mil. rub (~1.7 mil $), new T- 90 ~75 mil rub.(~2.6 $).

Althought export T-72M1 were worse than original russian tanks, but they can be upgraded to same standard. Basic hull dimensions are same after all - so the same upgrade procedures could be applied. Engine, gun, FCS, armor filling... of course, it will be not cheap - but still cheaper and easer than to build new tank.

The turret of the T-72M1 in contrast to the T-72B is not modular and has no fillings to replace. So if one uses a T-72M1 as a base for an extensive upgrade one gets a tank which is not much more survivable but now carries tons of expensive modern stuff in it.

 

[Chrom]

Regarding the TI. I always thought that the Catherine TI has roughly the same performance as the TIS of the M1A1. But as I am not sure about it I would appreciate any correction.

No, Catherine TI is about same level as TIS on M1A2 / M1A2SEP. TIS on M1A1 is much older. Moreover, its FCS have another quite big disadvantage - lacking commander sight. No TI, rudimental sight stabilization...
Only M1A2 got it right.
TIS integration level on T-72/T-90 is slightly worse than on M1A2SEP. The later as much as i know have 2 independent TIS, while T-90 have only 1, shared between gunner and commander.

 

[Feanor]

I will correct you guys on the facts here. As of right now the Rogatka program has not activated with line units, if you have a source stating otherwise, I'd appreciate it Chrom. At the current rates of T-90 production, in the next 10 years the T-72 and T-80 will be phased out completely with line units. So it's relevance in the 15 year timeframe is irrelevant. The upgrades that until recently have been implemented on large scale (recently modernization and repair has been cut back in favor of outright replacement) was more the cosmetic. It typically included full repairs (a much necessary measure), K-5, FCS upgrades, and typically engine replacement. I'm not sure if this replacement is an upgrade.

I don't think any commentary is necessary on the original question, it's been addressed in depth. Within the doctrinal requirements it's quite relevant.

A much more interesting question would be how relevant are T-72 derivatives on the modern arms market? In other words how successfully can the design be adapted to other doctrines, other operating conditions, etc. So far the T-90 has been a bestseller with India, Algeria, and Cyprus, as well as domestically, making it one of the most produced tanks in the last 10 years. (if not the most produced)

Now that Venezuela is ordering T-72s, and the MoD announced that withdrawn from service tanks will be sold off if customers are found, the issue is more then appropriate.

 

[Chrom]

I will correct you guys on the facts here. As of right now the Rogatka program has not activated with line units, if you have a source stating otherwise, I'd appreciate it Chrom.

Some of interviews with russian officials. Net outcome was something like "100 T-72 are upgraded to most modern standard (every year, begining from 2010), several hundred are just overhauled/cosmetical upgrade.

At the current rates of T-90 production, in the next 10 years the T-72 and T-80 will be phased out completely with line units. So it's relevance in the 15 year timeframe is irrelevant. The upgrades that until recently have been implemented on large scale (recently modernization and repair has been cut back in favor of outright replacement) was more the cosmetic. It typically included full repairs (a much necessary measure), K-5, FCS upgrades, and typically engine replacement. I'm not sure if this replacement is an upgrade.

Current production rate is 100-200 per year, plus export contracts. Rumors are last year russian army got more than 200 due to lack of export contracts, but it is not certain. Either way, by all accounts T-90 dont have much advantages vs upgraded T-72 (Rogatka), so i'm quite sure russian MoD will define both types as "modern" and "new".

I don't think any commentary is necessary on the original question, it's been addressed in depth. Within the doctrinal requirements it's quite relevant.

A much more interesting question would be how relevant are T-72 derivatives on the modern arms market? In other words how successfully can the design be adapted to other doctrines, other operating conditions, etc. So far the T-90 has been a bestseller with India, Algeria, and Cyprus, as well as domestically, making it one of the most produced tanks in the last 10 years. (if not the most produced)

Now that Venezuela is ordering T-72s, and the MoD announced that withdrawn from service tanks will be sold off if customers are found, the issue is more then appropriate.

What doctrines and operating conditions? T-90 sure have (relative) weak points, but so every tank also. I can imagine many situations where T-90 will be somewhat worse than "insert here any tank you like" , but no situation where it will be so much worse what it would require to change doctrines or operating conditions.

P.S. Instead of T-90 you can place "upgraded T-72". The question is only how much any particular buyer agree to pay for upgrade...

 

[Waylander]

I also thought that a limited amount of Rogotka upgrades found it's way into the Russian army. But don't ask me were I got this from.

As for modernized T-72s. The newer T-90s feature a welded turret which is an advantage that T-72s will never get.

I for one doubt the export potential of heavily modernized T-72s. But vanilla T-72s as well as modestly modernized ones might very well be interesting for several countries for example to replace a number of T-55s.

 

[Non_Sequitor]

Good day gents,

After reviewing the responses to this thread, I have a few questions.

If the T-72M1 is a potential sale for those countries looking to upgrade to the T-90 or upgraded T-72, which countries would be looking to acquire them? I assume you speak of countries in SW Asia and Africa; particularly with regards to replacing a fleet of ageing T-55s.

Secondly, what impact would you foresee to the upgraded T-55 market? Many Eastern European and Middle East countries have made significant investment into modernizing the T-55 particularly for export markets. If a current operator of T-55s has an oppurtunity to upgrade to T-72M1s, but they also have an opportunity to upgrade a familiar weapon system, which would they choose?

I know there a multitude of variables here, but is the T-72M1 that much more superior to some of the upgraded T-55s?

Please bear with me! I'm an Airman by trade, so I'm not that well versed with armor!

 

[Feanor]

Some of interviews with russian officials. Net outcome was something like "100 T-72 are upgraded to most modern standard (every year, begining from 2010), several hundred are just overhauled/cosmetical upgrade.
Current production rate is 100-200 per year, plus export contracts. Rumors are last year russian army got more than 200 due to lack of export contracts, but it is not certain. Either way, by all accounts T-90 dont have much advantages vs upgraded T-72 (Rogatka), so i'm quite sure russian MoD will define both types as "modern" and "new".

From what I know, the Rogatka program was intentionally put on hold, as the priority shifted from modernization to replacement. Last year the army got over 200 T-90s. This year they're getting 260. There is no limit in terms of the production facilities. UVZ has facilities to put out 1500 tanks annually. Last year it only produced ~350. So regardless of how large export orders are the army orders will depend on budgets.

What doctrines and operating conditions? T-90 sure have (relative) weak points, but so every tank also. I can imagine many situations where T-90 will be somewhat worse than "insert here any tank you like" , but no situation where it will be so much worse what it would require to change doctrines or operating conditions.

P.S. Instead of T-90 you can place "upgraded T-72". The question is only how much any particular buyer agree to pay for upgrade...

What I mean is that other countries have other military doctrines and operating conditions. How well suited would the T-90 and T-72 be to those doctrines and operating conditions?

Waylander your point about vanilla T-72s is an interesting one, especially given that Ukraine and a few other East European countries have been exporting their stock of those tanks for quite some time, with a relatively high degree of success.

 

[Firn]

Waylander your point about vanilla T-72s is an interesting one, especially given that Ukraine and a few other East European countries have been exporting their stock of those tanks for quite some time, with a relatively high degree of success.

Not surprisingly. War is not about absolutes but relatives (no pun is intended). Such a tank can still offer excellent service for many poorer nations if used and integrated well. In the worst case it beats no armored and mobile support cannon aka Tank by a long shot.


Firn