Post by bazooka on Nov 29, 2019 22:51:19 GMT
Is the T-72 a deathtrap?
The T-72 refers to many versions of the tank line, and they are not all equal. The reason why some people refer to the T-72 as a deathtrap is because they base their view of it on memes or a cherry picked example of the Gulf war. But let’s go through some of these misconceptions.
The first meme related to the T-72 is that its turret pops off when hit. This is true, sometimes. This happens when the ammunition detonates under the turret. However, this does not always happen; some crews stock more ammunition than they should. It should also be noted that this jack-in-the-box effect is not at all limited to the T-72, but to any tank where its hull ammunition explodes. The prevalence of this is determined by the amount of ammo carried, and also the weight of the turret. This might not happen as much with heavy western tanks like the Leopard 2, because their turret is nearly twice the weight of the T-72, making it much harder to lift up. You are however, equally dead sitting inside if the hull ammo explodes.
Furthermore, while the ammo exploding in the T-72 of course is bad, it should be noted, that no tank had a turret bustle when the T-72 was made, so it’s not more a death trap than say an M60A1 Patton. In fact, it was considered much safer, you see the T-72 doesn’t carry ammo in the turret, which means shooting at the turret from the front (the most common place to be hit in a large scale war) would not ever be able to hit ammunition, unlike in other conventional tanks at the time. It’s only a problem, because T-72s are often used against insurgents in situations where the side hull is exposed, which was never the way the T-72 was meant to be used. Even then newer versions of the T-72 more or less fixed this by adding reactive armour to the sides of the T-72 where the ammunition is located.
The first meme related to the T-72 is that its turret pops off when hit. This is true, sometimes. This happens when the ammunition detonates under the turret. However, this does not always happen; some crews stock more ammunition than they should. It should also be noted that this jack-in-the-box effect is not at all limited to the T-72, but to any tank where its hull ammunition explodes. The prevalence of this is determined by the amount of ammo carried, and also the weight of the turret. This might not happen as much with heavy western tanks like the Leopard 2, because their turret is nearly twice the weight of the T-72, making it much harder to lift up. You are however, equally dead sitting inside if the hull ammo explodes.
Furthermore, while the ammo exploding in the T-72 of course is bad, it should be noted, that no tank had a turret bustle when the T-72 was made, so it’s not more a death trap than say an M60A1 Patton. In fact, it was considered much safer, you see the T-72 doesn’t carry ammo in the turret, which means shooting at the turret from the front (the most common place to be hit in a large scale war) would not ever be able to hit ammunition, unlike in other conventional tanks at the time. It’s only a problem, because T-72s are often used against insurgents in situations where the side hull is exposed, which was never the way the T-72 was meant to be used. Even then newer versions of the T-72 more or less fixed this by adding reactive armour to the sides of the T-72 where the ammunition is located.
In the gulf war, Iraqi T-72Ms from 1980 with downgraded ammo and armour, were facing American Abrams with the newest ammunition as well as all kinds of modern support. The coalition forces also outnumbered the Iraqis by 50%. Many Type-69 tanks were destroyed, but were called T-72s in the operation. And generally this war was between a totally depleted Iraqi military, and a state of the art American one. The T-72s the Iraq had were jokes in comparison to the ones the Russians fielded, and somehow this is taken as an example of how bad the T-72 is.
People also follow the meme that the Soviets didn’t care about crew safety, but when the T-72 was made, originally it featured advanced composite armour and was multiple better in every way than what the standard tanks of the time were, which were M60s, Leopard 1s, T-55s, T-62s, Chieftains or Centurions. While the M1 Abrams, Challenger and Leopard 2 may have been better from the beginning, the T-72B offers tactical possibilities none of these tanks have, for example, gun fired anti tank guided missiles, capable of accurately hitting tanks at 5 km, well beyond the effective range of standard gun shells, which is typically effective only at 2 km.
So in all, the T-72 is not a deathtrap, and even the downgraded T-72s were superior to any tank exported to the third world at the time when Iraq purchased them.
People also follow the meme that the Soviets didn’t care about crew safety, but when the T-72 was made, originally it featured advanced composite armour and was multiple better in every way than what the standard tanks of the time were, which were M60s, Leopard 1s, T-55s, T-62s, Chieftains or Centurions. While the M1 Abrams, Challenger and Leopard 2 may have been better from the beginning, the T-72B offers tactical possibilities none of these tanks have, for example, gun fired anti tank guided missiles, capable of accurately hitting tanks at 5 km, well beyond the effective range of standard gun shells, which is typically effective only at 2 km.
So in all, the T-72 is not a deathtrap, and even the downgraded T-72s were superior to any tank exported to the third world at the time when Iraq purchased them.
