Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 1/1/2006 8:43:21 AM EDT
After GW1 & 2 I have a hard time seeing the T-72 as anything but a joke when put up aganst the Abrams. Is there any conditions or any armys that could give the abrams a run for its money with the T-72? What about the T-80, is it any better? I read our troops were really concerned the Iraqis took delivery of some T-80s for GW2 but that turned out to be false.
Link Posted: 1/1/2006 8:46:10 AM EDT
I don't think that anyone with a T-72/80 will want to find out.. if they do, it's cause they're plain f'n craZy
Link Posted: 1/1/2006 8:47:08 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/1/2006 8:48:10 AM EDT by raven]
The T-80 can really haul ass for a tank. I dont know if it's as fast as an Abrahms.

It's the next-generation tank. I'm sure all its systems are a leap better than the T-72's. But the Chechens didn't seem to have much problem killing them in the streets of Grozny in 1994, probably with nothing fancier than IEDs and RPGs. Google T-80 Grozny and see what comes up.
Link Posted: 1/1/2006 8:49:33 AM EDT

Originally Posted By RED_5:
I don't think that anyone with a T-72/80 will want to find out.. if they do, it's cause they're plain f'n craZy



+1
Link Posted: 1/1/2006 8:51:49 AM EDT

Originally Posted By CookieCrisp: Is there any conditions or any armys that could give the abrams a run for its money with the T-72? What about the T-80, is it any better?
Sure. The bad guys could get our tank crews to hold still, so they can get behind them, get a clear shot at the hot engine bay, and fire at close range. Yep, those are the conditions that must be met.
Link Posted: 1/1/2006 8:53:32 AM EDT
Ask Rebel_Grey. Oh wait, that won't work either.
Link Posted: 1/1/2006 8:56:40 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/1/2006 9:02:23 AM EDT by ArmyAirborne]
The Abrams did so well becuase it was able to engage at long range outside of the range of a T-72. Had the terrain forced them to engage within the range of the T-72 the results would have been different. The Iraqis actually had a well planned defense with decently prepared tank bunkers and had we been forced to get in close it could have got ugly for us. As it was it ended up being a turkey shoot. Hard to argue with a 120mm DU Sabot fired from a range where you can't even see the tank without optics, now add to the fact it mostly took place at night. There's not too much that can withstand a direct hit from one of those DU Sabots. Hits so hard it sucks everything not nailed down out with it when it exits the other side of the target, tremendous heat, tremendous pressure, it actually melts a hole through the tank's armor. Our tanks can't even take a hit from one. There was a show on the History Channel about the Abrams and included lots of info about Desert Storm. We had only three tanks knocked out of action, not a single one destroyed and I'm pretty sure there were no KIAs of any American tankers. I'll poke around on the net and see if I can come up with a better cite than my memory of the show.

ETA www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m1.htm Says this about the Abrams in Desert Storm "During the Gulf War only 18 Abrams tanks were taken out of service due to battle damage: nine were permanent losses, and another nine suffered repairable damage, mostly from mines. Not a single Abrams crewman was lost in the conflict."
Link Posted: 1/1/2006 9:03:55 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ArmyAirborne:
Hits so hard it sucks everything not nailed down out with it when it exits the other side of the target, tremendous heat, tremendous pressure, it actually melts a hole through the tank's armor. Our tanks can't even take a hit from one.

From what I saw from GWI pictures, that is incorrect. An Abrams got stuck (or might have been a mobility kill from a lucky hit to the track), so the tankers were ordered to destroy it in place. Another Abrams pulled up about 100yds away and shot at the turret with a DU sabot. The penetrator stuck out of the turret like an arrow in a tree, no penetration of the interior at all. The crew would have survived that hit.

They ended up calling for a recovery vehicle, slapped a new turret on the tank and sent it back into battle a while later.

Kharn
Link Posted: 1/1/2006 9:27:17 AM EDT
Its my contention that had our boys been using the T-72 during GW1, we still would have scored a resounding victory in the armored battle. Technology goes a long way on the battlefield, but training makes the real difference. You simply cannot compare the training and discipline of a professional army to that of conscripts.
Link Posted: 1/1/2006 10:11:35 AM EDT
In my last unit, we hauled M1's and M2's and we recieved special HAZMAT classes before we deployed because the armor of the Abrams is DU encased in steel (just like the sabot round it fires). We had to be trained in the safety issues of coming across a downed tank with a hole blown in it with the DU exposed. I'm not sure how affective a sabot round would be against the armor of the tank. I suppose it would be like banging two hammers together.
Link Posted: 1/1/2006 11:32:42 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ArmyAirborne:
The Abrams did so well becuase it was able to engage at long range outside of the range of a T-72. Had the terrain forced them to engage within the range of the T-72 the results would have been different. The Iraqis actually had a well planned defense with decently prepared tank bunkers and had we been forced to get in close it could have got ugly for us.



i'm sure manic moran and the rest of our resident armor guys will be here shortly, but until then, i'll weigh in. during DS, several armor engagements took place at normal ranges, and m1 tankers reported receiving direct hits that simply bounced off the abrams' frontal armor.

while i believe that the m1 can defeat NATO 120 sabot over the frontal arc, friendly fire incidents have shown that 25mm apfsds will penetrate both sides of the tank, if i remember correctly. in OIF, i seem to recall a situation where an m1 was mobility killed, and a decision was made to destroy it in place. the rest of the platoon was unable to do so, and finally, air had to be called in.
Link Posted: 1/1/2006 11:35:26 AM EDT

Originally Posted By sirensong:

Originally Posted By ArmyAirborne:
The Abrams did so well becuase it was able to engage at long range outside of the range of a T-72. Had the terrain forced them to engage within the range of the T-72 the results would have been different. The Iraqis actually had a well planned defense with decently prepared tank bunkers and had we been forced to get in close it could have got ugly for us.



i'm sure manic moran and the rest of our resident armor guys will be here shortly, but until then, i'll weigh in. during DS, several armor engagements took place at normal ranges, and m1 tankers reported receiving direct hits that simply bounced off the abrams' frontal armor.

while i believe that the m1 can defeat NATO 120 sabot over the frontal arc, friendly fire incidents have shown that 25mm apfsds will penetrate both sides of the tank, if i remember correctly. in OIF, i seem to recall a situation where an m1 was mobility killed, and a decision was made to destroy it in place. the rest of the platoon was unable to do so, and finally, air had to be called in.



After Manic comes then the Russian apologists will come and say that "Oh the Iraquis were using ammo that the Russain army would only use for training" and such BS.

Funny how the Russians always have some excuse as to why their products suck.
Link Posted: 1/1/2006 11:45:52 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/1/2006 11:46:59 AM EDT by Max_Mike]

Originally Posted By ArmyAirborne:
The Abrams did so well becuase it was able to engage at long range outside of the range of a T-72. Had the terrain forced them to engage within the range of the T-72 the results would have been different.



That is not true. There were engagements in which the T-80 was well inside what had been considered ranges in which its gun could penetrate and knock out an Abrams... with the T-80s scoring hits with little effect.
Link Posted: 1/1/2006 11:52:11 AM EDT
The Abrams, Challenger, LeClerc, and Leopard series are all about on par with each other, on the Russian side the T-80 is about the only one that would have a chance on the western tanks.
Link Posted: 1/1/2006 11:52:30 AM EDT
At the time the USSR had the same advantage over us that we had on the Germans during WW2.

Numbers.
Link Posted: 1/1/2006 11:54:05 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/1/2006 12:06:27 PM EDT by ArmdLbrl]

Originally Posted By Gibby:
At the time the USSR had the same advantage over us that we had on the Germans during WW2.

Numbers.



Except we proved in the Korean War that numbers were no match for technology.

They Germans didn't lose the war because of numbers alone, they lost because of inferior technology and numbers.

Generally the US and UK- and in some areas even the Russians- had superior technology.

The German superiority in tanks was because the US, because of mismanagment, did not evenly spread its superiority across all areas of its military.

For example. The only reason there was no jet to jet combat in WWII was the accident of GE not being able to keep their copies of the Goblin engine compressor blades from coming apart. Because of that the P-80A Shooting Star was considered unsafe to fly unitll after VE day. But we could have used them in combat as early as September 1944 if that problem had not occured.

The Germans were lucky in that the BMW turbojets didnt have this problem- on the other hand they had to be rebuilt every 50 hours or so because of the lack of bearing and oil technology.

The RAF wouldn't let Meteor 1s and 2s fly over occupied territory because the Derwent turbine was technologically SUPERIOR to the BMW and they didn't want any to be shot down by ground fire and risk having the engines salvaged

Neither the US or UK had any trouble absorbing German technological advances once they were captured. But getting the bureacrats to authorize production of the new technology was increadably difficult. There was a severe disconnect, especally in the US Army, between procurement officers and combat officers. The feedback loop that was supposed to return lessons learned for modification of equipment was not functional.
Link Posted: 1/1/2006 12:03:38 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:

Originally Posted By Gibby:
At the time the USSR had the same advantage over us that we had on the Germans during WW2.

Numbers.



Except we proved in the Korean War that numbers were no match for technology.



True except the North Korean numbers were mostly infantry and the Soviet battle plans was a shitload of armor. Am I wrong on this point.
Link Posted: 1/1/2006 12:07:04 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Gibby:

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:

Originally Posted By Gibby:
At the time the USSR had the same advantage over us that we had on the Germans during WW2.

Numbers.



Except we proved in the Korean War that numbers were no match for technology.



True except the North Korean numbers were mostly infantry and the Soviet battle plans was a shitload of armor. Am I wrong on this point.



+1

Technology can only go so far when you're outnumbered 20 to 1.

But the 7-72/80 is still obsolete compared to the Abrams/Challenger/friends.
Link Posted: 1/1/2006 12:08:49 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/1/2006 12:20:28 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/1/2006 12:21:00 PM EDT by ArmdLbrl]

Originally Posted By Gibby:

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:

Originally Posted By Gibby:
At the time the USSR had the same advantage over us that we had on the Germans during WW2.

Numbers.



Except we proved in the Korean War that numbers were no match for technology.



True except the North Korean numbers were mostly infantry and the Soviet battle plans was a shitload of armor. Am I wrong on this point.



No the NKPA was a mechanized army, their invasion was spearheaded by armored divisions, in classic Soviet style.

China, when they intervened, did so with a all-infantry army.

It doesnt make a difference, hords of technologically inferior tanks will be slaughtered just like sending hords of unarmored infantry. Especally if their supporting arms are also as technologially backward as the tanks. Well into the 1970's that described the Soviet Union and WaPa armies.



Link Posted: 1/1/2006 12:22:46 PM EDT

Originally Posted By vito113:
Any Russian tank would have a short but very exciting war vs an M1.

As for the much vaunted T80, the Chechens defeated it by 'double tapping' them with RPG's One shot detonates the ERA, number two shoots through the gap, dead tank.

ANdy



Which is why the US and British armies don't like ERA. It was a good thing that helped extend the useful life of older vheicles but its not the solution for building new ones.

Yet the Russians keep persisting with it rather than develop 'real' armor.
Link Posted: 1/1/2006 12:23:13 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:

Originally Posted By Gibby:

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:

Originally Posted By Gibby:
At the time the USSR had the same advantage over us that we had on the Germans during WW2.

Numbers.



Except we proved in the Korean War that numbers were no match for technology.



True except the North Korean numbers were mostly infantry and the Soviet battle plans was a shitload of armor. Am I wrong on this point.



No the NKPA was a mechanized army, their invasion was spearheaded by armored divisions, in classic Soviet style.

China, when they intervened, did so with a all-infantry army.

It doesnt make a difference, hords of technologically inferior tanks will be slaughtered just like sending hords of unarmored infantry. Especally if their supporting arms are also as technologially backward as the tanks. Well into the 1970's that described the Soviet Union and WaPa armies.





Thanks!

Link Posted: 1/1/2006 12:24:58 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Gibby:
At the time the USSR had the same advantage over us that we had on the Germans during WW2.


Numbers.



+1

The Russians never intended to fight to the last tank. They planned on tying up the Leopards & M1's in battle and bypassing them with other units. The Russians wanted to put enough tanks on the battlefield to simply overwhelm Western forces, flood Western Europe with military units, then hold on to their gains with a million troops.

In Gulf War One, Saddam would have had a clear road into Saudi Arabia if he hadn't stopped in Kuwait. As soon as he stopped advancing, he went on the defensive. After that, he was a sitting duck, fighting on our terms.
Link Posted: 1/1/2006 12:25:12 PM EDT

Originally Posted By OBird:

Technology can only go so far when you're outnumbered 20 to 1.




Thats not true. Its possible to kill tanks fast enough to even out such numbers.
Link Posted: 1/1/2006 12:32:03 PM EDT
IIRC one of the weak points of the T-72 system is that it has an autoloader. You can actually see the barrel drop as it operates, and it is slow as heck compared to a well trained Abrams loader.

An Abrams against a T-72 will result in a dead T-72, on a purely technical level.
Link Posted: 1/1/2006 12:37:04 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/1/2006 12:43:28 PM EDT

Originally Posted By vito113:

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:

Originally Posted By OBird:

Technology can only go so far when you're outnumbered 20 to 1.




Thats not true. Its possible to kill tanks fast enough to even out such numbers.



+1,

12 shots a minute, start engaging at 2 miles, enemies speed of advance 30mph, easy math.

ANdy



Even beyond that. If you have to concentrate even a fraction of that 20 to 1 superiority to actually use it- think about how big a target that makes. Field Artillery and bombers could not miss such a large target even with dumb ordinance. Half or more of that 20 to 1 would never get within tank gun engagement range.

Plus how do you keep that many tanks fueled? Eventually you reach the point that winning by sheer mass winds up requiring a mass that you cant keep fed or fueled.

All the small army has to worry about is getting enough ammo on time.
Link Posted: 1/1/2006 12:47:58 PM EDT

Originally Posted By vito113:

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:

Originally Posted By OBird:

Technology can only go so far when you're outnumbered 20 to 1.




Thats not true. Its possible to kill tanks fast enough to even out such numbers.



+1,

12 shots a minute, start engaging at 2 miles, enemies speed of advance 30mph, easy math.

ANdy



But try getting those shots in the German country side... Not easy.
Link Posted: 1/1/2006 12:50:31 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/1/2006 12:50:34 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/1/2006 12:51:48 PM EDT by daemon734]
do a search on the battle of 73 easting and see just how effective t-72's are against our armor.

73 easting


"The 2nd ACR had advanced between two Iraqi divisions, the 12th Armored Division and the Tawakalna Division, becoming the only American unit so outnumbered and out-gunned during the ground campaign. The 2nd ACR alone destroyed approximately 85 tanks, 40 personnel carriers and more than 30 wheeled vehicles, along with several anti-aircraft artillery systems during the battle. The equivalent of an Iraqi brigade was destroyed at 73 Easting; it was the first ground defeat of the Republican Guards. Within 24 hours, most of the other Iraqi brigades were gone."
Link Posted: 1/1/2006 12:51:05 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Stottman:

Originally Posted By vito113:

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:

Originally Posted By OBird:

Technology can only go so far when you're outnumbered 20 to 1.




Thats not true. Its possible to kill tanks fast enough to even out such numbers.



+1,

12 shots a minute, start engaging at 2 miles, enemies speed of advance 30mph, easy math.

ANdy



But try getting those shots in the German country side... Not easy.



Then the odds are only better for the defender, since the attacker is channeled through narrow passages so they cant use their numbers.

Link Posted: 1/1/2006 12:55:38 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Stottman:

Originally Posted By vito113:

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:

Originally Posted By OBird:

Technology can only go so far when you're outnumbered 20 to 1.




Thats not true. Its possible to kill tanks fast enough to even out such numbers.



+1,

12 shots a minute, start engaging at 2 miles, enemies speed of advance 30mph, easy math.

ANdy



But try getting those shots in the German country side... Not easy.



Yeah, but if the big show would have really started during the 1980s, A-10s would have been hammering Russian Armored colums before they got into range of US forces. Not to mention it is likley that Pershing IRBMs would have likley struck the East German army bases before they had a chance to mobilize.
Link Posted: 1/1/2006 1:34:57 PM EDT

Originally Posted By vito113:

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:

Originally Posted By OBird:

Technology can only go so far when you're outnumbered 20 to 1.




Thats not true. Its possible to kill tanks fast enough to even out such numbers.



+1,

12 shots a minute, start engaging at 2 miles, enemies speed of advance 30mph, easy math.

ANdy



The Russian's may have had +50,000 tanks, but they only had 2,000 rail locomotives to move them to the front. Plus, they had to change from Russian-width rails to German-width rails in western Europe. This would have been "easy-pickin's", according to an old Boeing Operations Research buddy of mine in Seattle.

Merlin
Link Posted: 1/1/2006 2:05:50 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ArmyAirborne:
The Abrams did so well becuase it was able to engage at long range outside of the range of a T-72. Had the terrain forced them to engage within the range of the T-72 the results would have been different. The Iraqis actually had a well planned defense with decently prepared tank bunkers and had we been forced to get in close it could have got ugly for us. As it was it ended up being a turkey shoot. Hard to argue with a 120mm DU Sabot fired from a range where you can't even see the tank without optics, now add to the fact it mostly took place at night. There's not too much that can withstand a direct hit from one of those DU Sabots. Hits so hard it sucks everything not nailed down out with it when it exits the other side of the target, tremendous heat, tremendous pressure, it actually melts a hole through the tank's armor. Our tanks can't even take a hit from one. There was a show on the History Channel about the Abrams and included lots of info about Desert Storm. We had only three tanks knocked out of action, not a single one destroyed and I'm pretty sure there were no KIAs of any American tankers. I'll poke around on the net and see if I can come up with a better cite than my memory of the show.

ETA www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m1.htm Says this about the Abrams in Desert Storm "During the Gulf War only 18 Abrams tanks were taken out of service due to battle damage: nine were permanent losses, and another nine suffered repairable damage, mostly from mines. Not a single Abrams crewman was lost in the conflict."



I'll take the word of a former platoon sergeant on this one. He was a combat engineer in the 1st Armored, and his M113 was in the middle of the tank formations, in case there was an obstacle that needed breaching. At first the tankers opened up at far range, but after a few battles, they got cocky and got closer and closer to the Irakis. And a lot was done during the day.

The M2 Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle can take out a T72 with just it's 25mm cannon, not even using the TOWs it carries.
Link Posted: 1/1/2006 2:21:23 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/1/2006 2:24:26 PM EDT by HeavyMetal]
Top Top