T-80

I am on a search for some battle accounts by T-72/80 crewman if anyone could direct me to that resource I would greatly enjoy reading such info. If you dont want to post it on the board please feel free to email me at [email protected] thanks in advance. ute

Gollevainen said:

???? Im this forum's supermoderator and been here from the begining and begining of the ezboard forum so when i say that somebody will shut up, then they better keep their mouth shut!! ...

Click to expand...

Or what Mr. Supermoderator ? :china:

Well keep ip the additue and you'll see...or just ask those who didn't shut up when it was best thing to do so...

utelore said:

The T-72/80 is fundamentally a bad design. In tank engagements from Lebanon to Iraq the T-72/80 base design has proven itself to be a “bad†tank especially in terms of crew survivability. Even the most modern Russian version have been successfully killed by Chechen terrorist using older ATGW like saggers. The kills by Chechen terrorist have not just mission killed these T-80’s but actually popped the top using older ATGW. If you look at tank to tank engagements by the Israeli vs. Syria I do not believe there has been a tank to tank kill by a T-72 vs. a Israeli M-60A3 or Merkava. If someone could bring to light a account of a T-72/80 doing well in battle I would love to see it……….cheers ute.

Click to expand...

Hum hum Utelore maybe not but I still posses a propaganda record of the egyptian army showing a m48/m60 shaped tank being lit up by a t-62 (not even a t-72).

Then doeing well in battle? bring me the situation I bring the stuff.

You can't just say that. While the t-72 is clearly inferior to 4th and 5th gen tanks like Chally and Abe (not mentioning LEO2 Ax) it has nothing to fear from third gen tanks like M60 and Israeli Magach. During the Yom Kippour war the t-72 scored the best moves against fresh M60 and m48's and even had serious head ons with slightly better Centurions and even Chieftains* according to pro-arab western media (*this remains dubious since even the brits were reluctant to expose their babies on a tank fight).

During the Yom Kippour war the t-72 scored the best moves against fresh M60 and m48's.

RED NOT DEAD there were no T-72 used in Yom kippour war of 1973. Hell, the russians did not have that many of them in 1973

utelore said:

During the Yom Kippour war the t-72 scored the best moves against fresh M60 and m48's.

RED NOT DEAD there were no T-72 used in Yom kippour war of 1973. Hell, the russians did not have that many of them in 1973

Click to expand...

Russians had aready 450 t-64 (that was superior to the cheaper/clumsier/less complex t-72) and t-72 had already been produced to extended numbers. But you're right It were t-62's and saggers (malyutka's that screwed the israelis at the beginning...

I will conceed that the T-62 is a better tank that the M-48 and on par with first versions of the M-60. However there has been a paradime shift and the T-72/80/90 is now a flawed design when compared to modern western design as far as whats on the market NOW. Look at what happened to the Syrian T-72 in the Bekka vally. At the time the T-72 still had the stigma of being the beast from the east and its 125mm gun was feared even in the U.S but when it finaly was engaged in battle it has proven to be a flop. The russians need to just do away with their current designs and go to a western design. I mean really we could debate this all day but the facts are staring us right in the face. You can put the blaime on training or monky export versions but that is just a copout.

The T-72/80/90 has failed in bringing victory on the battle field to the country that it serves.

utelore said:

I will conceed that the T-62 is a better tank that the M-48 and on par with first versions of the M-60. However there has been a paradime shift and the T-72/80/90 is now a flawed design when compared to modern western design as far as whats on the market NOW. Look at what happened to the Syrian T-72 in the Bekka vally. At the time the T-72 still had the stigma of being the beast from the east and its 125mm gun was feared even in the U.S but when it finaly was engaged in battle it has proven to be a flop. The russians need to just do away with their current designs and go to a western design. I mean really we could debate this all day but the facts are staring us right in the face. You can put the blaime on training or monky export versions but that is just a copout.

The T-72/80/90 has failed in bringing victory on the battle field to the country that it serves.

Click to expand...

the m1 has failed to bring a end to the war in iraq. the point is, the t-72 was an exellent, vesatile design capable of many upgrades., a ground version of the mig 21. it was one of the most feared tanks in the world befor 1991. but everything has an expiration dates.

Just my $0.02 unprofessional opinion:

The recent combat record for T-72 MBT's sucks, because nations that deployed them used earlier or downgraded export variants. In case of Iraq, the "Assad Babyl" was assembled from parts to sneak past the arms embargo from Iran-Iraq war, the finished product was no where near the same level as Russian front-line units with better composite & reactive armour.

Also, the T-72 is a medium tank at 41 tons, comparred to the M1A1 heavy tank at 70 tons. It doesn't need to be said that the M1A1 is better protected with more armour. =/

Yes the T-72 has some flaws. Due to its smaller size, everything is packed in closer. Its auto-loader is inferior to a well-trained manual loader, and ammo is stored with minimal protection everywhere from space next to the fuel tank, up to the turret itself. It's said that approx. 70%-75% of all tank kills are at the turret (utelore can prolly correct me on this), so one hit and it's "jack in the box".

But that doesn't mean the tank is useless. You can improve the tank's survivability by removing ammo stored in the turret & near the turret-ring (at the cost of fewer rounds carried) & add protection to storage areas. If I'm not mistaken the German Leopards also have this issue and store some spare ammo in the turret. The armor can, of course, be upgraded, as well as any electronics system.

Not all nations require M1A1 for their national defense needs. In 2003 Malaysia announced their selection of new MBT, the Polish PT-91M. If we look at Malaysia's neighbors, such as Thailand, the Royal Thai Army is equipped with M-48A5, Type 69 (from China), and M60A3 MBT's. Burma's Army is equipped with T-69-II and T-63 tanks from PRC and some used T-72's from Ukraine. In combat the PT-91M, assuming if the crew is properly trained and not taking a nap (Malaysians love naps), will prolly cream their neighbor's tanks.

(In Chinese)
Google translated page:

I am talking in a battle. not a war. The T-72/80 has never won a battalion size battle against a opposing force of western Tanks. NEVER... This garbage blaiming the training and what tactic is used when using the T-72/80 in battle is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. when you build a tank you build it to win......meaning after the battle you drive away and the enemy tank is dead along with its crew. If you are talking about the T-72/80 this is not the case.......cheers ute. PS: please dont get me wrong the russians do make some good stuff that I have seen. BUT with hands on experience, talking to others and reading The T-72/80/90 is a Death trap that is NOT effective on the battle field.

This is what i read about why the russians design their tanks like this.

Their theory was that anything that hit a tank was going to go through. so they designed a tank with decent armour which could at least last some time and be produced in large numbers.

THey didn't think about crew comfort or protection so they designed a tank for ease of production.


The russians designed the T-72/64 when their anti-tank missles and guns were a lot more powerful than any armour they could think of making. So thats why they thought that anything that hits will go through


Just my 2cents