T-72 - what's the verdict?

[Damian90]

Andrei Tarasenko fantasy. :lol:

And reality:

Sorry I could not resist seeing another copied fantasy of this little manipulator. :sonic:

BTW, thickness of turret armor in all Leopard 2 variants is more or less same.

[DrDevice]

The moderator in me weeps at how far off track this thread has become.

If you want to argue Leopard armor....please, start a thread. If you want to discuss the implementation of the T-72M1, then this thread is the place for you.

There is a big 'ol case of this:

[oscar19681]

The moderator in me weeps at how far off track this thread has become.

If you want to argue Leopard armor....please, start a thread. If you want to discuss the implementation of the T-72M1, then this thread is the place for you.

There is a big 'ol case of this:

I couldnt agree more. Stay on topic please or start your own thread please!

[LtGeorge]

When playing the T-72, I have to get used to the smoke grenade pattern. It is waaayyyyy out there, and has a narrow angle, too. A couple days ago I spotted a T-55 who seemed a fair distance away and was trained on me. So I promptly popped smoke - and the smoke screen fell BEHIND the T-55, who was probably laughing when he blasted me.

I prefer the Western smoke pattern - short range and wide angle dispersion. I'm curious why the Russians insisted on such a smoke pattern.

[Jippo]

I believe because it is more useful when advancing. Remember that the T-72 engine exhaust smoke system that you can use too. That works when you are in firing position and you want to get out.

[Zipuli]

Western thinking: Create a smoke screen around the vehicle - to protect it from AT weapons and to get away from the harm's way.

Russian thinking: Blind the enemy defensive positions with smoke right after the artillery barrage and just before you storm your battalion in them - to protect your vehicle from AT weapons.

[Companion]

Like what Zipuli said, Soviet smoke grenades are more oriented towards offense.

Artillery smoke preparation cannot perfectly mask the advancing unit's frontage (not to mention that it also can land too short or too far) and battlefield factors like crosswinds can interfere with smokescreen.

So Soviet smoke grenades are designed to supplement smoke obscuration in conjunction with aforementioned engine smoke.

i.e.) A company assault line launches smoke volley just as it emerges from artillery smoke screen - it now can advance 200-300m more under smoke cover and start direct fire engagement at close ranges, mitigating defenders' accuracy advantage (esp. ATGMs) and possibly surprising them.

Of course most blue kits in SB have thermals that never degrade in quality but now that we have multispectral smoke option for Russian kits, it could make some interesting situations.

[SeanPatrick]

Wow, combine the above with the aforementioned lack of reverse speed and you really get a picture of how the Soviet strategy was "enforced."

[Eisenschwein]

Or try to defend from static Positions, like the Irakies did.......

[enigma6584]

Wow, combine the above with the aforementioned lack of reverse speed and you really get a picture of how the Soviet strategy was "enforced."

I'm currently reading an OPFOR manual which is quite interesting and helping me in my design of AI waypoints for a scenario I'm working on...in reading the manual, you can't but help see the stress on movement, movement, movement, envelope, double envelope...just keep moving and hitting the enemy until you overwhelm him. A massive rolling hammer of armor.

[Marko]

I'm currently reading an OPFOR manual which is quite interesting and helping me in my design of AI waypoints for a scenario I'm working on...in reading the manual, you can't but help see the stress on movement, movement, movement, envelope, double envelope...just keep moving and hitting the enemy until you overwhelm him. A massive rolling hammer of armor.

Those tactics worked well in WW2.not so sure they would have worked as well if WW3.had started. my personal thoughts are the soviets and WP. had the advantage and may have overwhelmed Nato. in a conventional war up on till the Early eighties. then the technological gap really widened. the east could Not keep up the west simply out smarted and out spent the east.

[enigma6584]

Those tactics worked well in WW2.not so sure they would have worked as well if WW3.had started. my personal thoughts are the soviets and WP. had the advantage and may have overwhelmed Nato. in a conventional war up on till the Early eighties. then the technological gap really widened. the east could Not keep up the west simply out smarted and out spent the east.

I'm guessing the manual I'm reading is indeed written for understanding Warsaw Pact ops. I wouldn't go so far to say the west has been smarter financially than the east...particularly in light of what has happened the last three years and what is about to happen further.

[Marko]

I'm guessing the manual I'm reading is indeed written for understanding Warsaw Pact ops. I wouldn't go so far to say the west has been smarter financially than the east...particularly in light of what has happened the last three years and what is about to happen further.

I was not saying they were smarter financially. just technically.

I have heard a few commentator's say the US star wars program.

Was the final straw. the soviets could not keep up.

[Jippo]

I'm guessing the manual I'm reading is indeed written for understanding Warsaw Pact ops. I wouldn't go so far to say the west has been smarter financially than the east...particularly in light of what has happened the last three years and what is about to happen further.

I think understanding is the key. Many western soldiers think that their tactics are crude or innefficient because there is very little junior commanders can decide in the Soviet/Russian combat doctrine. Western school relies in skilled and responsible NCO corps or might be even fully committed to Auftragstaktik(mission/goal tactics). Compared to that Russian junior officers and NCO's skillset and methodology might indeed be seen as limited as there is so little they can, or are allowed to do.

What people here forget is the fact that what they do, they actually do well. There is no time wasted in formulating a low level plan or tasking as everything is "scripted" even up to batallion level. Platoons and companies train only few solutions to given problems so they will procecute it well in all situations. Western unit might be more innovative or sophisticated, but if it is also slow to react it has lost.

They have couple of gameplans which they do well. If they loose a platoon/company here or there they will also win somewhere, and when they do they will be very quick to exploit that as it is part of their bag of tricks. And when they get their break through, it is most likely to be difficult to contain as they will be feeding the following troops right in. They will be also very quick in replacing their losses as every time company is stopped there will be others following in the same formation. Russian formations are attack machines which are designed to advance until they are destroyed or they reach their mission objectives. And when they reach the objective they already have the next machine to take the battle in their hands while the first one is replenished.

If you are about to loose youre footing and enemy notices it you can be sure you are going to be in even deeper in it within 12-24 hours.

It might be crude in low level but it is effective and that is what matters in big picture.

[SeanPatrick]

Okay, I just started really checking this thing out and let me say...I love it! Crude beast that it is. Really makes you think about what your next move should be. I think it will serve as an excellent tool to sharpen my skills as a tanker. After all, if I can kill 9 M1-A1s with one T72 (which I can't...yet), then I should become much more deadly with a modern MBT, no?

[Tango29]

After all, if I cankill 9 M1-A1s with one T72 (which I can't...yet), then I should become much more deadly with a modern MBT, no?

Nice mod to the Tanks scenario, SP. This really underlines the requirement for patience in a T72. I'm getting hits, but no kills, unless you count the times I've been killed... slow tank, slower reverse, elderly gunnery system and sub-par ammo: what more could anyone want??

[Ssnake]

Even less armor, as in the Leopard 1?

[SeanPatrick]

Even less armor, as in the Leopard 1?

Funny you say that. My next upload will pit Leo 1A5s against T-72M1s!

[SeanPatrick]

Nice mod to the Tanks scenario, SP.

Thanks. Almost all of the work of converting it was done by someone else. (They didn't list their handle on the download, but it's still available.)

... slow tank, slower reverse, elderly gunnery system and sub-par ammo: what more could anyone want??

IIRC, a former T72 crewman here mentioned that the procedure was not to load a round until contact had been made (or assumed imminent.) I've been playing it that way and so far I've managed 3 kills in probably 15 tries.

Edit: Found it here.

Edited December 26, 2011 by SeanPatrick
Found it

[RogueSnake79]

Well, the Leo1A5 DK preforms very well against the T-72 in several aspects. It has of course trouble when it gets hit. But it still maintains HUGE tactical advantages. It is fast and maneuverable, and can strike at long ranges. As long as you can keep the T-72's at a little better than arms length, you can beat the hell out of them.

This is where tanks like the M1A0, and then the latter tanks really show their dominance. They are able to absorb punishment at closer ranges, giving them the ability to stay, and fight longer. Were as a Leo 1 would need to give ground much sooner to keep the T-72's at a range in which they still have an advantage.

What I've found, as others on the beta team, is that when trying to predict the success of the of the T-72 in a given scenario, terrain is often THE major deciding factor. Because the Western tanks (all of them) have a substantial advantage in optics, it is much more important for T-72 crews to mask their movements, and get in as close as possible before engaging the enemy. Depending on the terrain, this may or may not be possible.

The other side of the coin of course(when referring to the Leo 1) is how affective its gun is at these long ranges against the T-72. And while its performance isn't ideal, it certainly is able to kill a T-72 at ranges beyond 3000 meters. Depending on gunnery skill, and luck level, it could take as many as 3 or 4 shots to finish just 1 T-72. It then becomes a question of how much ground do you have to give, and how much ammo do you have.

At close to medium range, the T-72 has the advantage, longer range, the Leo 1. It really is amazing to consider the Huge advantage a thermal imager gives a tank over one without it. To me it is the T-72's greatest shortcoming. You still have to respect that a tank that was designed in much they same way as a disposable camera, is still as good as it is.

[Vati]

The other side of the coin of course(when referring to the Leo 1) is how affective its gun is at these long ranges against the T-72. And while its performance isn't ideal, it certainly is able to kill a T-72 at ranges beyond 3000 meters. Depending on gunnery skill, and luck level, it could take as many as 3 or 4 shots to finish just 1 T-72. It then becomes a question of how much ground do you have to give, and how much ammo do you have.

What ammo do you use in Leo? If you use period ammo, T72 should have laughed at Leo1.

[Eisenschwein]

Why do you think that ?

[dejawolf]

1979 105mm ammunition is 370-390mm@ muzzle.

[12Alfa]

1979 105mm ammunition is 370-390mm@ muzzle.

This may be true,:frown: however if its a hit on target there will damage, the more hits the more damage, sometimes making the AFV non combat effective. So Leo 1 fires out of the max range at T-72 numerous times and causing damage, so when said T-72 comes into its max firing range to engage the Leo nothing works on the T-72:biggrin:.

Penetration is good:remybussi:, damaging shit is sometimes just as good:shocked:.

Don't get wrapped around the idler wheel on whether the round goes through the armour!!:cul:

[RogueSnake79]

What ammo do you use in Leo? If you use period ammo, T72 should have laughed at Leo1.

Well that's really what it comes down to isn't it. If the T-72 is not judged in the context of the Red horde in the fulda gap, in the VERY early 80's, its not fair. Perhaps, but the fact still remains that the Leo 1, AND the T-72 remained in service for 20 years beyond that. The 1A5 DK represented in Steelbeasts stayed in front line Danish service well into the mid 1990's. So, context is important. I should have been more clear. If you give the Leo 1 1979 ammo, then it performance against the T-72 is poor.

I'll still take that 1979 ammo Leo over the T-72 any day of the week, I will just hide, and only fight at night!