T-72 - what's the verdict?

[Ssnake]

...unfortunately, in 1979 that Leo 1 won't have thermal sights, and if you were in the Bundeswehr, you wouldn't even have been issued NVGs. The Russians, on the other hand, had them. All that you would have had would've been a "low light level TV" type of NVG, and searchlights in IR and white light.

Good luck with that.

[RogueSnake79]

I'm am talking about the Leo1a5 dk. That fact that you guys seem set on spinning this into an earlier tank, just re-enforces my argument. Leo1a5 dk vs T-72m1(export).

[dejawolf]

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:

where the T-72 is hit, makes a huge difference whether there is damage or not.

mostly a penetration on a T-72 is a kill, because of all the exposed ammunition inside.

for example the thinner front turret armour around the coax port, a penetration there will break off a large portion of the backside of the armour, and cause a large cone of molten spall behind it, which will inevitably hit the propellant charge under the commanders legs, or the propellant charges behind the TC.

but on the parts where the the turret is impervous, there shouldn't be any other damages than a 390mm deep cavity.

[dpabrams]

And let's not forget that there is a big difference in the T-72 models in the sim. The T-72/T-72M is the lightest and thinnest T-72 and can be killed at long ranges by the better 105's. However the T-72M1 (T-72A) gets a little tougher and the B model T-72 is a tough one to crack even with "Silver bullets" at ranges of 1500m and beyond.

[Companion]

...unfortunately, in 1979 that Leo 1 won't have thermal sights, and if you were in the Bundeswehr, you wouldn't even have been issued NVGs. The Russians, on the other hand, had them. All that you would have had would've been a "low light level TV" type of NVG, and searchlights in IR and white light.

Good luck with that.

Were soviet tankers issued with NVGs? If so, since when?

Will it be historically plausible to set NVG option to soviet side in cold war themed missions?

[Ssnake]

Were soviet tankers issued with NVGs?

Well, after the reunification of Germany I managed to buy a Soviet type tanker's cap with an image intensifier mounted on it (...through rather ... shady sources). A friend of mine then modified it so that I could connect it in to the 24V plug in the Leo 2, so I could take advantage of it during night exercises (and yes, it was a great help especially in the near-field navigation).

So, I'm pretty certain that these devices existed. What I can't say is how prevalent they were. What I do know however (sadly, from first hand experience) was that they were easily destroyed by bright light (had no overload protection).

[enigma6584]

Well, after the reunification of Germany I managed to buy a Soviet type tanker's cap with an image intensifier mounted on it (...through rather ... shady sources). A friend of mine then modified it so that I could connect it in to the 24V plug in the Leo 2, so I could take advantage of it during night exercises (and yes, it was a great help especially in the near-field navigation).

So, I'm pretty certain that these devices existed. What I can't say is how prevalent they were. What I do know however (sadly, from first hand experience) was that they were easily destroyed by bright light (had no overload protection).

Were the visuals actually good Ssnake? What I mean is we've hear so much about poor quality of Soviet optics etc...could you actually see pretty well at night with those things?

[Ssnake]

It definitely beat NOT having them. I'm not sure I could have shot with a hand weapon, and it had a very limited magnification effect (1.5x? 2x?), but in one of my more crazy moments I also used it in my private car with lights off on a moonless night on a not quite public road (not entirely private either; 'twas at o'dark thirty and I didn't expect to meet anybody, and I wasn't caught, and you can't prove anything, anyway).

So yeah, it worked. I think the intensification wasn't quite near the factor 40,000 that you got with army sights at the time (mid 1990s), I'd guess it to be somewhere in the 15,000...20,000 range.

The only problem with them, as far as I am concerned, was the fact that they had no overload protection. They were fine, as long as they worked.

[rump]

...unfortunately, in 1979 that Leo 1 won't have thermal sights

For the Dutch it was even worse. The Leo 1v was never fitted with thermal sights. Only when it was sold to Chile they were fitted with the PZB 200.

On this picture of the Chile Leopard 1 you can see the PZB 200 on the right top side of the turret. (left for the viewer). On the left top side you can see a cupola like structure, this is where the thermal sight was planned for the Leopard 1v (NL)

[Stratos]

Finally exams are over and I was able to purchase it, only tried the T72 and I really love it, worth the wait for sure!!

[Climber]

He could not see far away and died.

[enigma6584]

Finally exams are over and I was able to purchase it, only tried the T72 and I really love it, worth the wait for sure!!

I like your banner Stratos. I remember the one you had for years..."patiently waiting for a T-72" which I believe had a skeleton rotting away with cobb webs on it. It was a classic.:biggrin:

[Scrapper_511]

I like your banner Stratos. I remember the one you had for years..."patiently waiting for a T-72" which I believe had a skeleton rotting away with cobb webs on it. It was a classic.:biggrin:

Hahah, my sentiments exactly. That old banner always had me thinkin..."that poor sonuvagun". Wipe those cobwebs away, your day has come dude!

[Scrapper_511]

...but in one of my more crazy moments I also used it in my private car with lights off on a moonless night on a not quite public road (not entirely private either; 'twas at o'dark thirty and I didn't expect to meet anybody, and I wasn't caught, and you can't prove anything, anyway).

So yeah, it worked.

Would I be able to accomplish this, to a lesser extent of course, with an old U.S. Army crookneck flashlight with the red filter?

[Captain_Colossus]

Finally exams are over and I was able to purchase it, only tried the T72 and I really love it, worth the wait for sure!!

Just don't think of yourself or your crews as human beings. You are soley fighting machines without regard for rest, relaxation, life or limb, your own humanity. Your chances have already been calculated and simply might mean that you soak up bullets so that another unit can perform its role. From your perspective it may be grim, but according to Soviet military science, it's all predetermined and part of the plan.

[Vikingo]

happy new year!! here enjoying three work-off-days with the crewable T-72M1 :diable:

question from wiki , I can`t find this lever:

http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/index.php/Image:T-72_GNR_GPS_mirror_lever.jpg

GPS mirror switch, on the left side of the GPS housing

:confused:

is still there?

4. After 2 minutes, unlock the GPS head mirror gyro by flipping the lever to the right side of the entire GPS housing (to access it, place mouse pointer over the GPS sight and press N), or you can flip the lever by pressing the . key. Check that the middle light in the upper row of control lamps lights up.

I press the "." and the light turn on/off but I dont see any lever moving...

:shocked:

Well have to hunt 9 M1A1s @ "Tanks Pro PE (T72) 2.640" mission... mmm.... piece of metal cake!

but... if all fails, I have something hidding in my turret just in case the M1A1s...

:nukem:

update: nuclear warhead used just 5 minutes after the mission starts... :decu:

[Ssnake]

Would I be able to accomplish this, to a lesser extent of course, with an old U.S. Army crookneck flashlight with the red filter?

No, I seriously doubt that. If you really want to illuminate a road with red light for somewhat safe driving at, say, 15 miles per hour you'd need a honkin' big battery of bright lights with a red filter or some sort of a laser based illumination system. Plus, you could only see where the lights are pointing. With an NVG, even a comparatively crappy one of Soviet origin, you can look around while driving (even though the instruments in the car even at lowest settings will still bloom so much that you can't really look at them).

[Hedgehog]

No, I seriously doubt that. If you really want to illuminate a road with red light for somewhat safe driving at, say, 15 miles per hour you'd need a honkin' big battery of bright lights with a red filter or some sort of a laser based illumination system. Plus, you could only see where the lights are pointing. With an NVG, even a comparatively crappy one of Soviet origin, you can look around while driving (even though the instruments in the car even at lowest settings will still bloom so much that you can't really look at them).

So did you use the Headlights with red filters then?

That seems........dodgy (well on a public road anyway)

[Alicatt]

I have some 920nm red filters, totaly opaque to the human eye but works great with my cameras, and with 350W of IR light behind it, it works quite well out to about 100m. I have used that for driving a few times. It is only good as long as your quarry dosn't have IR/ SIT to monitor you back. Have also used scanning thermal imaging, not the same type as shown on SBproPE, for tracking movements and seeing which vehicles have been used.

[Ssnake]

So did you use the Headlights with red filters then?

That seems........dodgy (well on a public road anyway)

You didn't read what I wrote, did you?

Legal Disclaimer: I am making this up. I would never do such an irresponsible thing. Nevernever. Ever. Don't try this at home.

If I had done it (which I didn't) I would have used NVGs of Soviet manufacture adapted with a battery pack. No light would have been necessary. And it would have been attempted on a service road in a rural area, not really a public road. At o'dark thirty.

And you can't prove that I ever did it. Because I didn't. Hrm-hm.

[Captain_Colossus]

Heh. Disclaimers are used to anticipate potential civil liabilities and damages. If you're talking yourself into a criminal investigation, and some law enforcement type actually thinks it's worth pursuing, you're not going to stop them with a disclaimer.

On "we reserve the right..."

Well, if you owned such rights, it's a bit redundant to 'reserve' them, although it may serve to clarify something to obviate expensive litigation just to find that out. On the other hand, if you're not entitled to such rights, you can't really 'reserve' them.

[Guest Killjoy]

*cough*WeWantAT90*cough* :biggrin:

[Captain_Colossus]

You might someday as a computer controlled unit at least- I wouldn't rule out a model sitting on someone's hard disk, coding its behavior and armor profiles are bottleneck it until some time is found to include it. A few years ago eSim Games gave away a poster as part of a contest with some tank models on it, I might be mistaken, but I think a T-90 was shown. At the time, several models were shown that were then not included in Steel Beasts, but since then, many have made it in. So that's a good sign.

[Captain_Colossus]

As I don't speak for eSim, I also don't want to give the impression that it's a sure thing either as it's pure speculation on the part of a normal user, but many nice things have come about, a turning point seems to have been reached where updates come faster with more content.

[RIPper]

Just finished reading Zaloga's "M1 Abrams vs T-72 Ural". It's actually quite decent for a brief and more popularly oriented book. There's a description of usage of the T-72M1's FCS, and a few things struck me as odd:

- he writes that the lased range had to be entered manually into the FCS. So the gunner would need to look at the small range display to the right of the GPS and turn the range wheel to set the distance. In SB it's simulated that the FCS enters the range automatically - which I feel is correct. Maybe he means a somewhat older version of T-72

- in the picture of the sight there's 2 LRF "small red circles" - one as usual, second one near the stadia recicle...This seems obviously wrong, there would have to be 2 LRF beams

- as a "minor" side note he states that the FCS can calculate lead, and doesn't seem to notice the power of such feature (which is absent in the FCS in reality)