Full Tusk 2 kit including hull belly armor puts it in a 72 short ton weight class, Tusk 1 would put it up around 73 short ton.
T-72: Still Useful or Not?
- Thread starter Bobithy
- Start date
And some more news, apparently an Italian armored car is currently being considered for a replacement to the BRDM niche of vehicles. Russian domestic alternatives, including the Dozor and Tigr armored cars were neglected, which raised significant questions granted their comparable level of protection (especially in the case of the Tigr) and the lower price.
I'm curious what you guys think about the new change taking place right now, of transforming the 6 MDs into 4 strategic commands, with Leningrad and Moscow MD forming West SC, North-Caucus MD forming South SC, Volga-Ural and western half of Siberian MD forming Central SC, and eastern half of Siberian MD and the Far Eastern MD forming East SC.
Each one will have command of VVS, VDV, VMF, and land forces assets on their territory.
ÀÐÌÑ-ÒÀÑÑ
Each one will have command of VVS, VDV, VMF, and land forces assets on their territory.
ÀÐÌÑ-ÒÀÑÑ
i think the russians are trying to make their army more flexible and less unwieldy and centralized
also to gf10012 aust
"the lion of babylon" was a t72m aka the monkey model it was a downgraded t72 they also has stripped down t72bs and some standard t72ms
these are watered down completely
and ask any DA if the iraqi army was motivated and they well tell you they weren't and weren't exactly well trained especially by western standards
also to gf10012 aust
"the lion of babylon" was a t72m aka the monkey model it was a downgraded t72 they also has stripped down t72bs and some standard t72ms
these are watered down completely
and ask any DA if the iraqi army was motivated and they well tell you they weren't and weren't exactly well trained especially by western standards
in case you actually haven't worked it out by now, I do actually deal with people in this space. I know a number of US master gunners who came up against elements of the RGuards and rated them as worthy foes. Some of them gave no quarter, - the Medinas being a good example.
the issue is not a comparison against western standards, but whether their own standards were sufficient to do the job tasked asked of them. The RG's were definitely better than the vanilla iraqi soldiers.
trivialising the iraqi force competency just because they lost against a force that was technologically, doctrinally, electronically, training superior is how hubris leads to defeat....
no what i was saying was the t72 is more effective than the t72m
you said that wasn't true you said the republican guard where well equipped well they obviously wasn't the t72m is an inferior version of the t72 (lion of Babylon is practically a kit tank t72m)
i said that the t72 is still useful and that the t72s that where hammered in gw1 and 2 where watered down variants with troops with poor moral you said that isn't true
so how isnt it true?
you said that wasn't true you said the republican guard where well equipped well they obviously wasn't the t72m is an inferior version of the t72 (lion of Babylon is practically a kit tank t72m)
i said that the t72 is still useful and that the t72s that where hammered in gw1 and 2 where watered down variants with troops with poor moral you said that isn't true
so how isnt it true?
Carefully re-read the post above yours.
See this bit: "I know a number of US master gunners who came up against elements of the RGuards and rated them as worthy foes. Some of them gave no quarter, - the Medinas being a good example."
What GF is saying is that he knows (as in has met, talked with at length) a number of US (United States) master gunners (which, I'm guessing is what the best gunners are called in the M1 Abrams tanks the the US fielded in both Gulf War I and II). They were saying to GF that the Republican Guards (an elite Iraqi unit supposedly very loyal to Saddam) were worthy foes, and that some gave no quarter. In other words they faught well and bravely, some to the death depite being in inferior equipment. GF goes on to mention an Iraqi unit of the Republican Guard for special mention, the Medina's.
Now we have dissected that paragraph in depth, can you see where it is that GF draws the opinion that not all of the Iraqi army was poorly motivated, led and trained. He's based the advice he has provided on example provided by the gunners of US tanks who were there and actually engaging the Iraqi tanks. Now, to me as an observer of this conversation, I'd take that as pretty good evidence that you cannot make a blanket statement that: "motivated and they well [sic] tell you they weren't and weren't exactly well trained especially by western standards "
How much more obvious does GF have to make it? Incidentally, he made a similar point 6 days ago.
Do you require this level of assistance to interpret the rest of GF's posts?
It seems to me that they're talking past each other. Toby is right in that a T-72M is inferior to a T-72B. He is also correct that average Iraqi Army training was inferior to average US Army training. I don't see that he is making the deeper implication, that GF seems to interpret from his posts. The Republican Guard in particular was not a regular part of the Iraqi Army, hence why the level of resistance, and quality of equipment, was higher.
It depends on the perspective and in the past I've also spoken in support of the position taken by gf0012-aust in this case. In particular the differing context and validity of holding certain assumptions. To some extent, I'm concerned about the constant over simplification of the threat presented by Iraqi armour.
Last edited:
I think the level of threat, depends on the vantage point one takes. In the strategic context, the entire Iraqi military never had a chance at victory to begin with. They were outnumbered and outmatched. However on the tactical level individual units certainly could deal painful amounts of damage.
I think that some members are simply tired of the killer argument "less training, low moral". This thread is about evaluating if the T-72 is worthy of involving it in a modern combat system and therefore IMO it is helpful to learn how it was deployed in the past and what were the shortcomings of the platform so we can evaluate it as a part of a system. And it doesn't help at all if everytime some hurt soul can't take it and cries low training, low moral- there's an eastern German tanker guy, ex-GDR army T-55, who is somewhat famous in the scene for constantly claiming that the T-55 is unbeaten in battle until today. Everytime he is confronted with occasions where these tanks were butchered he answers "low training, low moral".
Just doesn't help and as gf very acurately stated, it is " how hubris leads to defeat".
When armies fight they don't draw the distinction of whether they are regular army or elite units except in the context of competency.
we don't say UK forces and the SAS and SBS. we don't say Polish regulars and Grom etc...
a tank is a threat irrespective of the unit badge, irrespective of who's command it comes under.
I agree with the assumption that the Iraqis were not as bad as they are sometimes described. But I also think that it is not fair how Toby is attacked here. IMO he is right when stating that the Iraqi Army was not as well trained as the coalition forces and that their moral was low. After days of hammering by air and arty, albeit with disputable physical effect, and a Division which starts to plink my comrades tanks from 4 klicks while I cannot even identify the foe would hurt my morale, too.
As for equipment, one should stop talking about watered down monkey models. The T-72M is just an earlier model which also got fielded by some WarPac countries. In a cold war turned hot NATO would have faced them, too. And it would by a fair margin not have been the worst tank the east fielded in numbers.
Drawing conclusions from the Gulf War of 91 is somewhat difficult because the Iraqis were so overmatched in every expect.
And one shouldn't forget that their army was equipped with the best equipment they could afford and that somebody was willing to sell them. And within a regional context their armed forces were fearsome.
As for equipment, one should stop talking about watered down monkey models. The T-72M is just an earlier model which also got fielded by some WarPac countries. In a cold war turned hot NATO would have faced them, too. And it would by a fair margin not have been the worst tank the east fielded in numbers.
Drawing conclusions from the Gulf War of 91 is somewhat difficult because the Iraqis were so overmatched in every expect.
And one shouldn't forget that their army was equipped with the best equipment they could afford and that somebody was willing to sell them. And within a regional context their armed forces were fearsome.
I wouldn't say that he's getting attacked at all. broad comments always need to be fine tuned otherwise people respond in kind.
at that point a lack of specificity means that a factual debate becomes one based on opinions. There's no shortage of commentary that we've all seen based on opinion - and usually unsubstantiated opinions.
i think we have missed the point me and aust.
What i was trying to say was the t72 is still a usefull tank and explain that the reason the t72 was so ineffective in gw1 wasnt due to the tank itself per se. I probably should have mentioned tactics and other variables because the iraqi forces where so overwhelmed but i kept it to the type of tank which was watered down with poorly trained crews with low moral ( your always going to get brave units but i wasn't under opinion that was the pattern) and the rg where well trained compared to their peers but i thought that sill wasnt exactly well trained.
when you said not true and mentioned the gear well it wasnt realy the best gear. better than the rest of their army but still not to great.
and il agree my last paragraph wasnt greatly written sorry
What i was trying to say was the t72 is still a usefull tank and explain that the reason the t72 was so ineffective in gw1 wasnt due to the tank itself per se. I probably should have mentioned tactics and other variables because the iraqi forces where so overwhelmed but i kept it to the type of tank which was watered down with poorly trained crews with low moral ( your always going to get brave units but i wasn't under opinion that was the pattern) and the rg where well trained compared to their peers but i thought that sill wasnt exactly well trained.
when you said not true and mentioned the gear well it wasnt realy the best gear. better than the rest of their army but still not to great.
and il agree my last paragraph wasnt greatly written sorry
Again I'm not disagreeing, I'm just pointing out that it seems like you guys were talking past each other. Your statements were not directly contradictory, yet you were acting like they were. Maybe I'm just misunderstanding things now.
Well, I do kind of disagree, it doesn't have much to do with the basic discussion of this thread. But if armies clash, of course they draw a distinction of whom exactly they are fighting at a given time. It's elementary to the commanding officer to asses who he's up against. And if the opposing formation is known to be extremely willing to fight or having received a more thorough training than similar enemy formations this can have a deep impact on the tactic used to engage it.
So it's entirely comprehensible to draw a distinction between Republican Guard and Iraqi Army units if discussing Iraq's military performance during the wars.
So it's entirely comprehensible to draw a distinction between Republican Guard and Iraqi Army units if discussing Iraq's military performance during the wars.
and they make the distinction based on competency etc.... they don't say - this is the RG therefore its not Iraqi regular army. They see red force and make a determination on whats needed to engage. not on whether they have better kit. training beats technology as a baseline matrix assuming that the latter is not disproportionate.. there's lots of military history examples where smaller less "geared" forces have smacked a larger seemingly superior force.
ie proceed with caution rather than engage because the hardware is less likely to be competitive on a given battlefield
T-72 could be useful if upgraded
The reason why I said during the Desert Storm I saw alot of the T-72s hull blown apart must have been some kind of defect in this. With a good upgrade with more armed that protect it hull from being blown apart. Plus put electronic equipment in the T-72 I think it could be still useful that my opinion. I dont understand why the Russian didnt upgrade some of the T-72 after finding out what happen to there tank in Gulf War. Or did they just said let made another kind of tank? Good militaries always improve the mistake of the first models that they put in production. I dont see the improvement on T-72 after 1991. I seen some army who still have the T-72 and added some of armed protection on them. Still dont know if that will work
The reason why I said during the Desert Storm I saw alot of the T-72s hull blown apart must have been some kind of defect in this. With a good upgrade with more armed that protect it hull from being blown apart. Plus put electronic equipment in the T-72 I think it could be still useful that my opinion. I dont understand why the Russian didnt upgrade some of the T-72 after finding out what happen to there tank in Gulf War. Or did they just said let made another kind of tank? Good militaries always improve the mistake of the first models that they put in production. I dont see the improvement on T-72 after 1991. I seen some army who still have the T-72 and added some of armed protection on them. Still dont know if that will work
I'm no blackhat, but the T series tanks from the T54-T72 had an armoury problem where if a round entered the cabin it would blow the crap and turret off due to whats commonly referred to as "an assisted shot"
it has been fixed, but I don't know enough about the T72's in general to make a further qualified comment.
be that as it may, crap tanks still do effective violence when used appropriately.
battle and by rote war, isn't a spec sheet. things happen and it usually falls down to effective training and doctrine when all else is equal.
effectiveness is never just about technology superiority