Clancy and the T-72
Tom Clancy
Clancy reports as follows:
Thursday I had to go to Aberdeen Proving Grounds on book business, and
while there, by the gracious permission of the folks at that post, I drove
a Russian (via DDR - East Germany) T-72 main-battle tank. Herewith my
evaluation:
To call this beast a dog is an insult to Pluto. I'd heard many times, but
not really believed, that no one taller than 5'5" could fit in a Soviet
tank. Guess what, guys? It's no joke. With the driver's seat all the way
down my head AND shoulders were at or over the hatch rim. Leg room was
essentially nil.
Seven speeds forward. I never made it past #4. Standard shift. Clutch was
easy to engage and throttle response was actually pretty decent. Brakes
must have been left off, however. I jammed the pedal all the way down and
was rewarded with a gradual diminution of speed more from the soft ground
than the brakes.
Steering is by two handles or levers, pull left, steer left, etc. It took
me a lap to get the hang of it, and the tank was hard to line up on a
straight path. I'd call the steering coarse. The thing is driveable, and
in another few minutes I probably would have become more comfortable
maneuvering it. I did manage one steady turn (i.e., following the path)
with minimal corrections. The officers and NCOs there said I did fairly
well for a beginner.
Human engineering--NONE. The driver's compartment makes a coffin look
roomy (I'm tall but not especially bulky) and safe. Dials poorly arranged.
I didn't even think about folding myself into it and slapping the hatch
down for fear of being trapped inside for life. Getting in and out was
unusually awkward. Not a place for a guy who pumps iron. My shoulders just
about jammed in the hatch, and my name isn't Arnold. General impression of
the driver's space, confining in the extreme, poor visibility even by tank
standards, rather unpleasant to learn that fuel storage was on both sides
of the driver. The impression of the armor was--thin.
Then I got into the gunner's chair. I never even figured out where you
feet are supposed to go, even if you're a munchkin. Even less human
engineering, if that's possible. Lots of angly metal things to reach out
and rip your skin open. About the same shoulder room, but in this case
there's this gun next to you, and you really want to keep out of the way
of that puppy. The auto-loader, even unpowered and still, looks dangerous,
as if designed to reach out and grab you. This could be fixed by the
simple expedient of of slide-up metal shield (the M1 series has this),
which would weigh 3 pounds and cost $5.00. The Sovs never bothered. Again,
the armor protection was decidedly NOT impressive, and I remembered
reports on 120mm sabot rounds going in the front of the -72 and coming out
the back. They were not exaggerations. The ammo storage really is integral
with the aft fuel tank, just 18" from the gunner's back, and in plain
view.. No separation of combustibles from the crew as in the the M1. They
all go together when they go. Survivability of the crew was not a design
consideration.
I'd once thought the M1 was confining. The crew in the Abrams has
certainly double, more likely triple the interior space. Enough that the
crew can change places without exiting the vehicle. Not possible on the
T-72.
Fire-control system, simple, clunky, easy to use, and very easy to miss
with. Night-vision systems ala 1966. *Not* impressive. I was unable to
power-up the turret and evaluate the controls' functionality, but I wasn't
about to let somebody turn on the auto-loader while I was inside. It
simply looked dangerous and carnivorous.
General finish of the vehicle was very poor. Manufacturing generally
crude. Surprisingly, a few minutes later I was looking at Soviet artillery
pieces, and they were of a much higher manufacturing quality.
Overall comment: The T-72 is a deathtrap. The low silhouette may help one
dodge a round or two, but a hit will have catastrophic effects. The turret
is essentially a rotating bomb. The fire-control system looks to me to be
short-range-capable only, but by that time you're already dead. Driving
characteristics were adequate. I suppose it's nice for a parade in Red
Square.
TC
p.s. The T-80 is an evolutionary development of this worthless piece of
junk. The Russians briefly tried to mimic the M1's turbine-based
powerplant, but reverted to diesel when the system failed to work
properly.
Unknown
>
>Steering is by two handles or levers, pull left, steer left, etc. It took
>me a lap to get the hang of it, and the tank was hard to line up on a
>straight path. I'd call the steering coarse. The thing is driveable, and
>in another few minutes I probably would have become more comfortable
>maneuvering it. I did manage one steady turn (i.e., following the path)
>with minimal corrections. The officers and NCOs there said I did fairly
>well for a beginner.
From my understanding, Russian weaponry was supposed to be VERY simple and easy to operate. This probably was for the many conscripts in the army that they lost every six months. It also was nice for their allies.
>Human engineering--NONE. The driver's compartment makes a coffin look
>roomy (I'm tall but not especially bulky) and safe. Dials poorly arranged.
>I didn't even think about folding myself into it and slapping the hatch
>down for fear of being trapped inside for life. Getting in and out was
>unusually awkward. Not a place for a guy who pumps iron. My shoulders just
>about jammed in the hatch, and my name isn't Arnold. General impression of
>the driver's space, confining in the extreme, poor visibility even by tank
>standards, rather unpleasant to learn that fuel storage was on both sides
>of the driver. The impression of the armor was--thin.
This appears, in my opinion (from Armored Cav), to be part of the rationalization that went with a small and fast tank. It would be much harder to hit with an unguided round from a tank's main gun. Hence, part of the tank's armor came with its speed and small size (the damage a miss can do to your tank is somewhere between nil and zilch.
>Then I got into the gunner's chair. I never even figured out where you
>feet are supposed to go, even if you're a munchkin. Even less human
>engineering, if that's possible. Lots of angly metal things to reach out
>and rip your skin open. About the same shoulder room, but in this case
>there's this gun next to you, and you really want to keep out of the way
>of that puppy. The auto-loader, even unpowered and still, looks dangerous,
>as if designed to reach out and grab you. This could be fixed by the
>simple expedient of of slide-up metal shield (the M1 series has this),
>which would weigh 3 pounds and cost $5.00. The Sovs never bothered. Again,
>the armor protection was decidedly NOT impressive, and I remembered
>reports on 120mm sabot rounds going in the front of the -72 and coming out
>the back. They were not exaggerations. The ammo storage really is integral
>with the aft fuel tank, just 18" from the gunner's back, and in plain
>view.. No separation of combustibles from the crew as in the the M1. They
>all go together when they go. Survivability of the crew was not a design
>consideration.
Once again, I'd have to assume that this came as a tradeoff to the small size and speed. This was probably rationalized due to the presumption that the best anti-tank weapons on the other side (the other tanks), would have a great deal of difficulty achieving first-round hits on the T-72s that were coming towards them.
>I'd once thought the M1 was confining. The crew in the Abrams has
>certainly double, more likely triple the interior space. Enough that the
>crew can change places without exiting the vehicle. Not possible on the
>T-72.
With the Soviet (and current Russian) system, the people are only trained to take the one role in the tank. Hence, there is no need to have a tank where the crewmen could switch places.
>Fire-control system, simple, clunky, easy to use, and very easy to miss
>with. Night-vision systems ala 1966. *Not* impressive. I was unable to
>power-up the turret and evaluate the controls' functionality, but I wasn't
>about to let somebody turn on the auto-loader while I was inside. It
>simply looked dangerous and carnivorous.
I'd have to agree that this made the rest of the problems on the T-72 fatal. If it had a fire-control system on the order of the M1, it would have been at least an average tank. The whole purpose of the tanks' existence is to destroy other tanks. If you can't hit them, you can't kill them.
>General finish of the vehicle was very poor. Manufacturing generally
>crude. Surprisingly, a few minutes later I was looking at Soviet artillery
>pieces, and they were of a much higher manufacturing quality.
That's something I'm not surprised about. I got Inside the Soviet Army by Viktor Suvarov REAL cheap at a book sale my college library was having. The Russians LOVE artillery, including mortars (I got NO clue as to why they like `em. How do you AIM the things?). They seem to have adopted a strategy of pound them into the dust and send the tanks and infantry to pick up the pieces. No idea how well that would work, but I have my doubts about that.
>Overall comment: The T-72 is a deathtrap. The low silhouette may help one
>dodge a round or two, but a hit will have catastrophic effects. The turret
>is essentially a rotating bomb. The fire-control system looks to me to be
>short-range-capable only, but by that time you're already dead. Driving
>characteristics were adequate. I suppose it's nice for a parade in Red
>Square.
As is, the T-72 is a deathtrap. Give me a crew that has a year of solid training on it (real vehicle time, not classroom), get me a fire-control system on the order of the Abrams, and I'd bet the T-72 would be as improved as possible. Add in a few crew habitability mods (what we can cram in there), and it would be a marginally acceptable MBT. But I'll still take the Invincible Abrams any day of the week.
Joshua W. Burton
tomc...@aol.com (Tom Clancy) wrote:
> Overall comment: The T-72 is a deathtrap. The low silhouette may
> help one dodge a round or two, but a hit will have catastrophic
> effects. The turret is essentially a rotating bomb. The fire-control
> system looks to me to be short-range-capable only, but by that
> time you're already dead. Driving characteristics were adequate.
> I suppose it's nice for a parade in Red Square.
Two questions: (1) How would RSR have been different (both as a
novel and as an implicit set of 1985-era policy recommendations
for NATO) if you had known then what you know now about the T-72?
(2) Giving the T-72 a one and the M1A2 a ten on an arbitrary
scale, is there any non-American tank that is up in five-to-seven
territory? In particular, can the Merkava 4 give your Negev ACR
a reason to stay awake? Purely as a tank, I mean, stipulating
that the IDF crews must first absorb a few hard tactical lessons
from the hypothetical US OpFor.
There are two meanings for MS: one +------------------------------------+
slowly disables you and renders you | Joshua W Burton (847)677-3902 |
unable to type or use your computer, | jbu...@nwu.edu |
and the other is multiple sclerosis. +------------------------------------+
Niraj Agarwalla
On the fire-control system, I heard that the French installed better ones
in the Iraqi T-72s. Anybody no any details?
--
Niraj Agarwalla - University of Massachusetts Lowell - naga...@cs.uml.edu
Gunsl...@ok.corral
jbu...@nwu.edu (Joshua W. Burton) wrote:
>Two questions: (1) How would RSR have been different (both as a
>novel and as an implicit set of 1985-era policy recommendations
>for NATO) if you had known then what you know now about the T-72?
>(2) Giving the T-72 a one and the M1A2 a ten on an arbitrary
>scale, is there any non-American tank that is up in five-to-seven
>territory? In particular, can the Merkava 4 give your Negev ACR
>a reason to stay awake? Purely as a tank, I mean, stipulating
>that the IDF crews must first absorb a few hard tactical lessons
>from the hypothetical US OpFor.
From what i know about tanks, the British Challenger, I believe is the
next best thing as an Abrams.....They were used along side the Abrams
in desert storm and performed exceptionally well.....
To quote a British officer to the Press...."We have been extremely
pleased with the performance with our Challenger tanks. It's cobham
armor cannot be penetrated by a 120mm round.....however our 120mm
rounds cannot penetrate cobham armor!!!"
PHasby
Mr Clancy:
Thanks for posting the review of your T-72 test ride. It's interesting
to hear a "laypersons" view of driving a recently
state-of-the-(Russian)-art tank.
I suspect international weapons dealers are going to have a harder sell
for Russian goods this year. Anybody own stock in West European arms
manufacturers?
Ed De Ryder
Gunsl...@OK.Corral wrote:
> From what i know about tanks, the British Challenger, I believe is the
> next best thing as an Abrams.....They were used along side the Abrams
> in desert storm and performed exceptionally well.....
>
> To quote a British officer to the Press...."We have been extremely
> pleased with the performance with our Challenger tanks. It's cobham
> armor cannot be penetrated by a 120mm round.....however our 120mm
> rounds cannot penetrate cobham armor!!!"
I remember reading that a Challenger scored the longest range anti-tank
kill in Desert Storm with a sabot round fired at a target 5000 meters
away. From what I recall the tank crew did it for kicks, just to see if
they could do it.
As for 120mm rounds vs. Chobham armor, there are stories/facts/legends
that at least one US M1A1 Abrams had been disabled by an anti-tank mine
(Chobham treads, anyone? ;) ) and the other M1A1s with it were unable
to destroy it with head on shots to prevent any Iraqis from getting
their hands on it. Why they didn't fire a HEAT or sabot round into the
rear of the tank is lost to me at this time.
As a side note, the British 120mm gun on the Challenger is rifled, as
opposed to the 120mm Rheinmetall smoothbore cannon on the M1A1 Abrams
and German Leopard 2. Other than the obvious (rifled shells spin,
smoothbore weapons use fins to stabilize the flight of the shell) does
either weapon have an advantage over the other?
Ed
Mark Andrew Spence
On 6 Oct 1996, Joshua W. Burton wrote:
>
> Two questions: (1) How would RSR have been different (both as a
> novel and as an implicit set of 1985-era policy recommendations
> for NATO) if you had known then what you know now about the T-72?
> (2) Giving the T-72 a one and the M1A2 a ten on an arbitrary
> scale, is there any non-American tank that is up in five-to-seven
> territory? In particular, can the Merkava 4 give your Negev ACR
> a reason to stay awake? Purely as a tank, I mean, stipulating
> that the IDF crews must first absorb a few hard tactical lessons
> from the hypothetical US OpFor.
>
Does anyone have any info on the new French tank, the Leclerc? I heard
that GIAT had a contract to sell a few hundred--fitted with German
diesels--to one of the Gulf states.
M.S.
Zachary Babayco
In article <325B1D...@interaccess.com> the...@interaccess.com writes:
>Gunsl...@OK.Corral wrote:
>
>As for 120mm rounds vs. Chobham armor, there are stories/facts/legends
>that at least one US M1A1 Abrams had been disabled by an anti-tank mine
>(Chobham treads, anyone? ;) ) and the other M1A1s with it were unable
>to destroy it with head on shots to prevent any Iraqis from getting
>their hands on it. Why they didn't fire a HEAT or sabot round into the
>rear of the tank is lost to me at this time.
>
mud, and was attacked by three Iraqi tanks. The first one shot the M1,
but the round bounced off, and the M1 killed it. The second one did the
same, and the third one was destroyed when trying to hide. When some
recovery tanks came to pull it out and failed, they decided to abandon
and destroy it. When another M1 fired several shots at it, the first two
bounced off, and the third set off the ammo...but the fire was put out by
the onboard suppression system!
The tank was eventually returned, fixed, and is still in service AFAIK.
Perhaps this is another version of the one you heard?
--
Zach Babayco
za...@netcom.com <-------finger for PGP public key
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Park/4127
-----
If you need to know how to set up a mail filter or defend against
emailbombs, send me a message with the words "get helpfile" (without the
" marks) in the SUBJECT: header. I have several useful FAQ's and documents
available.
David
In article <537b8j$k...@news.acns.nwu.edu>, "Joshua W. Burton"
<jbu...@nwu.edu> writes
>tomc...@aol.com (Tom Clancy) wrote:
>
>> Overall comment: The T-72 is a deathtrap. The low silhouette may
>> help one dodge a round or two, but a hit will have catastrophic
>> effects. The turret is essentially a rotating bomb. The fire-control
>> system looks to me to be short-range-capable only, but by that
>> time you're already dead. Driving characteristics were adequate.
>> I suppose it's nice for a parade in Red Square.
>
>novel and as an implicit set of 1985-era policy recommendations
>for NATO) if you had known then what you know now about the T-72?
>(2) Giving the T-72 a one and the M1A2 a ten on an arbitrary
>scale, is there any non-American tank that is up in five-to-seven
>territory? In particular, can the Merkava 4 give your Negev ACR
>a reason to stay awake? Purely as a tank, I mean, stipulating
>that the IDF crews must first absorb a few hard tactical lessons
>from the hypothetical US OpFor.
>
>slowly disables you and renders you | Joshua W Burton (847)677-3902 |
>unable to type or use your computer, | jbu...@nwu.edu |
>and the other is multiple sclerosis. +------------------------------------+
Recedite Plebs!
Gero Rem IMPERIALEM!!
da...@moglwi.demon.co.uk
Smudger
Harold Hutchison (hhutc...@cornell-iowa.edu) wrote:
IMHO This all boils down to the fact that the Sov's doctrine has been
lots of kit, cheap to produce and fairly rugged. It was to be used by
untrained (to a Western Standard) conscripts who were fairly
expendable.
The minute the stakes became too expensive for the Sov's to make up
for theit technological deficiences with numbers, the game stopped.
It was either put their whole economy even further into bankruptcy or
drop out of the game.
The arms race wasn't a means to an end but an end in itself. Outprice
the opposition and bingo - no more cold war.
Ok guys Flame away
Mike
Anthony de Vries
Gunsl...@OK.Corral wrote:
<snip>
> To quote a British officer to the Press...."We have been extremely
> pleased with the performance with our Challenger tanks. It's cobham
> armor cannot be penetrated by a 120mm round.....however our 120mm
> rounds cannot penetrate cobham armor!!!"
Would that be, to make sure you can't make kills with friendly fire? ;-)
Anthony.
Markus Nybom BKF
Here are my 2 pennies worth of the T-72 discussion:
Don't be too harsh on the tanks capabilities. It's light
and pretty quick, which means it has a better chance in the swampy and
boggy terrain in Russia (and also her in Finland) than most western tanks.
(Maybe the reason for the design is that it may have been tested in a
very limited area? Like the one I just mentioned?)
The Russians have also been very fond of reactive armour and extra armour
plates. The extra armour plates will diminish the effects of a HEAT round,
but won't matter much for a sabot. The reactive armour is more effective,
but rather expensive.
OTOH, the company commander of my company (coastal jaeger anti-tank) once
showed me a picture taken of two T-72's that had stood parked side-to-side
as a target for an APILAS HEAT round. It had penetrated both tanks and
exited on the other side...
As far as crew space is concerned I couldn't even close the hatch in
the drivers seat (I'm 188cm's tall.) but I have a pal who drove these
tin cans, and he's taller than I am. I guess it's pretty much up to
training, then. After entering and, with some difficulty dismounting,
the T-72, I swore I'll never sit in one again. Glad you guys have more
room in yours!
Regards,
Markus Nybom
Markus Nybom BKF
Does anyone have any info on the T-80? All I know is that the
Russians call it T-74 and that it's basically a hunked up version of
the T-72.
Regards,
Markus
Markus Nybom BKF
Peter Mackay (pete...@netinfo.com.au) wrote:
: In article <53l2s6$l...@josie.abo.fi>,
: man...@news.abo.fi (Markus Nybom BKF) wrote:
:
: > As far as crew space is concerned I couldn't even close the hatch in
: > the drivers seat (I'm 188cm's tall.) but I have a pal who drove these
: > tin cans, and he's taller than I am. I guess it's pretty much up to
: > training, then. After entering and, with some difficulty dismounting,
: > the T-72, I swore I'll never sit in one again. Glad you guys have more
: > room in yours!
: Try it with a bottle of vodka under your belt. That should relax the
: muscles enough for you to slide in, start up, and motor through the car
: park feeling no pain, stress or discomfort whatsoever.
Personally, I'm more of a friend of Whiskey, myself.
But the problem over here, you see, is that you aren't allowed to drive drunk.
(Hey, off'seh, I'm-hic-schust pa'hking, y'know, pah'king-hic!)
: Either that, or the "Brute Force" approach to closing the hatch. 8^)
But that takes a LOT of vodka. :)
Regards,
Markus
Tero Narinen
In article <AE879120...@betty-p04.netinfo.com.au>, pete...@netinfo.com.au (Peter Mackay) wrote:
>In article <53l2s6$l...@josie.abo.fi>,
>man...@news.abo.fi (Markus Nybom BKF) wrote:
>
>> As far as crew space is concerned I couldn't even close the hatch in
>> the drivers seat (I'm 188cm's tall.) but I have a pal who drove these
>> tin cans, and he's taller than I am. I guess it's pretty much up to
>> training, then. After entering and, with some difficulty dismounting,
>> the T-72, I swore I'll never sit in one again. Glad you guys have more
>> room in yours!
>
>Try it with a bottle of vodka under your belt. That should relax the
>muscles enough for you to slide in, start up, and motor through the car
>park feeling no pain, stress or discomfort whatsoever.
>
This passenger/crew friendliness seems to be trademark in soviet
equipment. I spent a week in wargames during my armytime and we were acting as
"yellow" motorized infantry. Finnish wargames don't have "red" side. :)
Anyway, our military police platoon was acting as motorized infantry platoon
and we were issued in armored vehicles, BTR-60. I had heard many wild stories
about that particular piece of equipment, none of them telling just how awful
they were. My squad consisted many people over 180 cm ja some even about 190
cm (including myself). I don't know how many people BTR is supposed to carry
"confortably", but none of us got confortable sitting position. There was no
room for your legs, no room for your back and if you tried to sit straight
you'd hit your head to ceiling. After you managed to get yourself to
"seat", you found yourself in funny position looking like letter "S" After
sitting couple of hours in bumby roads inside BTR, I wished I could change
that to beeing overrun by BTR for couple of hours. There was no muscle in my
body without pain after that week. My deepest regrets to anyone who have to
spent whole service-time in BTR. That's hell on earth if you ask me...
'''Tero Narinen''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
'''Skinnarilankatu 28 F 17'''"BEWARE THE FURY OF A PATIENT MAN"''''
'''53850 Lappeenranta'''''''''''''''''''-John Dryden'''''''''''''''
'''tero.n...@lut.fi'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
'''p.05-4517579''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
'''http://www.lut.fi/~tnarinen'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
Markus Nybom BKF
On the subject of crew space in Russian military vehicles:
Perhaps the lack of space for the crew and the general uncomfort
of people over 180 cm stems from the average length of the Russian soldier.
No purpose in making the things too large, and according to functionalism
the average is what is used for construction of apartments, cars, etc.
In my experience Russians are rather short, despite the general belief that
they're big as bears. Walking in St. Petersburg I was a head taller than
nearly everyone in the street. At home I don't really notice any difference
although I belong to the taller end of the population.
Regards,
Markus
Markus Nybom BKF
Alex Pavloff (agp9...@bayou.uh.edu) wrote:
:
:
: Markus Nybom wrote:
: > In my experience Russians are rather short, despite the general belief
: that
: > they're big as bears. Walking in St. Petersburg I was a head taller than
: > nearly everyone in the street. At home I don't really notice any
: difference
: > although I belong to the taller end of the population.
: Gee. maybe all of us western nations should start starving our kids so we
: could build smaller tanks.... whaddya think? :)
Ugh, really bad joke. :P
Regards,
Markus
Jon Eckel
man...@news.abo.fi (Markus Nybom BKF) wrote:
> Here are my 2 pennies worth of the T-72 discussion:
> Don't be too harsh on the tanks capabilities. It's light
>and pretty quick, which means it has a better chance in the swampy and
>boggy terrain in Russia (and also her in Finland) than most western tanks.
>(Maybe the reason for the design is that it may have been tested in a
>very limited area? Like the one I just mentioned?)
I think we judge Soviet/Russian tanks too harshly, also. The West
assumes that their tank designs (the Abrahms, Challenger, and and
Leopard 2) are the way to go. We thought the Soviets would follow
suit. I have a copy of an old Defense Dept. annual publication on the
Soviet military, and there is an artists impression of the then newly
developed T-80, showing basically a Russian copy of the big, boxy
turrented Western tanks. But the T-80 turned out to be a typical
Soviet tank.
How many times have we heard "Ivan isn't dumb, son" or similar
comments. Well, most of the harsh criticism I've heard about Soviet
tanks assumes that Ivan is a complete idiot churning out mass
quantities of worthless junk for the arm of service that has
traditionally been the backbone of the Red Army's offensive power.
The Soviets designed the MiG-29 and Su-27 fighters, planes which are
radically different from the previous Soviet standby, the MiG-23.
These planes are considered to be equal (if not superior) to any plane
in the world. The Su-32FN fighter-bomber and Su-35 Super Flanker show
that the Russians remain commited to state of the art fighters.
Similar statements can be made about Russian advances in the area of
submarines.
So why haven't the Soviets/Russians built their own M1A1? The latest
tank, the T-90, is pretty much a T-80 that has a slightly smaller
silhouette, a little more armor, and some nifty electronic gadgets.
There is already a follow-up tank entering production that will have
an unmanned turrent mounting a 140mm main gun. I think that copying a
Western-style tank is certainly within Russia's capabilities,
especially since they no longer require the equipping of a huge army.
>The Russians have also been very fond of reactive armour and extra armour
>plates. The extra armour plates will diminish the effects of a HEAT round,
>but won't matter much for a sabot. The reactive armour is more effective,
>but rather expensive.
The T-90 uses some sort of second generation reactive armor that
supposedly offers improved protection against both sabot and HEAT.
>OTOH, the company commander of my company (coastal jaeger anti-tank) once
>showed me a picture taken of two T-72's that had stood parked side-to-side
>as a target for an APILAS HEAT round. It had penetrated both tanks and
>exited on the other side...
I believe the Finnish military fields the T-72G (export version of a
T-72A, called T-72M in the Warsaw Pact). It is widely believed that
the Soviets produce scaled-down versions of their equipment for
export. For example, any weapon sold to an Arab nation will probably
end up in Israeli (and American) hands, so it was prudent for them to
scale them down a bit. I read somewhere that an export T-72 could
have as little as a third of the effective armor protection as one in
Russian service, but that sounds a little too extreme. But I think
its safe to assume that the USSR did not provide Syria, Iraq, and
Libya with the latest and greatest stuff, especially electronics.
The Russians do use composite armor called Combination K that is
similar to Chobham armor. The T-64 was the first tank to have this.
The T-72, originally thought to be an export T-64, did not, though I
think more recent versions may use it. Curiously, the T-64 was never
exported. I think all versions of the T-80 and the new T-90 use
Combination K armor.
The current Russian version of the T-72 is the T-72B1V, which has
thicker turrent armor, additional bolt-on armor, and reactive armor.
It also has a thermal sight, where previous versions used only
starlight scopes.
The T-80B was the first mass-produced tank of that type. This tank
was the follow up to the T-64 (both of these representing the
"high-end" of Soviet tank production with the T-72 being the cheaper
"low-end". This trend dates back to the simple, low-end T-55 and its
more complex high-end cousin, the T-62). The T-80BV added reactive
armor. The T-80U is very different. It replaces the gas turbine
engine with the good ol' diesel, has a heavier armor package including
a combination of spaced and reactive armor, and a thermal sight.
T-80Us are starting to be offered for sale, and South Korea (that's
right, _South_ Korea) has ordered some. I don't know if these will be
export models or not.
The T-90 incorporates features of both the T-72 and T-80. The chassis
is similar to the T-72's, and the turrent looks similar to the T-80's
only with a new reactive-armor package that makes the turrent look a
little like a giant clam-shell. This tank is well-protected against
ATGMs, and fields a new system to decoy these missles.
Ukraine has produced their own T-84 which is a T-80U with this new
anti-missle system.
>As far as crew space is concerned I couldn't even close the hatch in
>the drivers seat (I'm 188cm's tall.) but I have a pal who drove these
>tin cans, and he's taller than I am. I guess it's pretty much up to
>training, then. After entering and, with some difficulty dismounting,
>the T-72, I swore I'll never sit in one again. Glad you guys have more
>room in yours!
I'm 6 feet tall and stand a head taller than nearly half the people
I've met from the USSR. There are many Russians that just aren't that
tall. This goes double for the Central Asians that made up a large
part of the Soviet conscript force. If the cramped conditions of
Soviet tanks were a serious problem for them, they'd fix it (notice
the BMP-3 has more room than the BMP-1/2). Carey Schofield wrote an
excellent book, _Inside the Soviet Military_, in which she says most
Soviet tankers love riding around in their machines (unlike infantry
in BMPs).
>Regards,
>Markus Nybom
Thanks for the post, Markus. The T-72s used by the Finnish Army, the
DDR one TC described, and the ones that performed so poorly in Iraqi
service are, in fact, export models of the T-72A, a tank built in the
mid to late 1970's and slated for lower-readiness units that were not
going to be equipped with the T-64 or T-80.
Many Iraqi T-72s, in fact, are their own locally built version, the
"Lion of Babylon". Also, the Allies used depleted uranium ammunition.
The Iraqis, on the other hand, used depleted...aluminum? I'm pretty
sure the Russian Army has been using DU rounds (or at least tungsten)
for some time now.
If the Russians thought their tanks were useless, they would address
the problem. They obviously do not not plan for their tanks to
survive having their armor penetrated by sabot rounds. But do we
seriously expect an Abrahms to survive a similar situation? A T-72
would go KA-BOOM, the Abrahms would just have its crew killed or badly
wounded by bits of shrapnel ricocheting everywhere. The end result is
the same, though.
One final thought. The poor ratings Soviet tanks get when compared to
their NATO counterparts remind me of what someone might say 50 years
ago when comparing a well armored Panther tank to a crude little T-34.
The T-64/72/80 series are, tank for tank, inferior to their western
counterparts. The Russians must know this. But they also seem to
think that their tanks, when properly used, will have a fair chance of
defeating a Western-equipped force, and the Russians aren't dumb. So
while the M1A1 is an excellent tank, this does not mean that
contempary Soviet designs are not adequate tanks.
Thanks for reading.
Jon Eckel
David A. Pickerell
u...@kaiwan.com (Jon Eckel) wrote:
> If the Russians thought their tanks were useless, they would address
>the problem. They obviously do not not plan for their tanks to
>survive having their armor penetrated by sabot rounds. But do we
>seriously expect an Abrahms to survive a similar situation? A T-72
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Depending on the angle of the shot, and area that it hits, an M1 or an
M1A1 will easily survive this shot. No penetration and little damage
to internal systems.
>would go KA-BOOM, the Abrahms would just have its crew killed or badly
>wounded by bits of shrapnel ricocheting everywhere. The end result is
>the same, though.
David A. Pickerell
Alex Clark
I also agree that the modern Russian MBTs are oftern overly criticised.
The Russians do seem to often go for quantity over quality but as
mentioned, the latest T-80 variants (T-80UD and T-80UM) ant the T-90
aren't bad at all.
> The Russians do use composite armor called Combination K that is
>similar to Chobham armor. The T-64 was the first tank to have this.
>The T-72, originally thought to be an export T-64, did not, though I
>think more recent versions may use it. Curiously, the T-64 was never
>exported. I think all versions of the T-80 and the new T-90 use
>Combination K armor.
> The current Russian version of the T-72 is the T-72B1V, which >has
>thicker turrent armor, additional bolt-on armor, and reactive armor.
>It also has a thermal sight, where previous versions used only
>starlight scopes.
The more recent T-72 versions do use combination K. The additional "pot
belly armour" on the turret (B, B1 and BM variants) has ceramic
inserts.(The T-72BM is actually the current version of the T-72). This
version is also known as the T-90E (I think). It has the Kontact 5
reactive armour so I'm not sure whether the T-90 and the T-72BM are one
and the same.
--
Alex
e-mail: al...@mi.leeds.ac.uk
Jon Eckel
firef...@centuryinter.net (David A. Pickerell) wrote:
>u...@kaiwan.com (Jon Eckel) wrote:
>> If the Russians thought their tanks were useless, they would address
>>the problem. They obviously do not not plan for their tanks to
>>survive having their armor penetrated by sabot rounds. But do we
>>seriously expect an Abrahms to survive a similar situation? A T-72
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Depending on the angle of the shot, and area that it hits, an M1 or an
>M1A1 will easily survive this shot. No penetration and little damage
^^^^^^^^^^^^
I wasn't trying to compare the armor of the T-72 to the M1A1. Its
just been stated many times that a big weakness of Soviet tanks is the
fact that a round penetrating their armor is likely to ignite the
ammunition and blow the turrent off. My response is "Gee, does this
happen before or after the tank crew is reduced to a bloody mess by
the same round." Agree with you though that the M1A1 is better
armored than Soviet tanks.
Jon Eckel
Mattias Bankel
Markus Nybom BKF wrote:
>
> On the subject of crew space in Russian military vehicles:
>
> Perhaps the lack of space for the crew and the general uncomfort
> of people over 180 cm stems from the average length of the Russian soldier.
> No purpose in making the things too large, and according to functionalism
> the average is what is used for construction of apartments, cars, etc.
>
> nearly everyone in the street. At home I don't really notice any difference
> although I belong to the taller end of the population.
>
> Markus
I tried out, not the T-72 mind you, but a BMD-70 when I served in Bosnia
and I can tell you they are small! I also had the opportunity to talk to
some Russian and Ukrainian officers and they told me that tank and APC
crews were chosen from length (among other things). The Russians do have
quite a lot of conscripts to choose from.
/Mattias
Markus Nybom BKF
Mattias Bankel (hgu...@hgus.gu.se) wrote:
: Markus Nybom BKF wrote:
: >
: > On the subject of crew space in Russian military vehicles:
: >
: > Perhaps the lack of space for the crew and the general uncomfort
: > of people over 180 cm stems from the average length of the Russian soldier.
: > No purpose in making the things too large, and according to functionalism
: > the average is what is used for construction of apartments, cars, etc.
(snip)
: I tried out, not the T-72 mind you, but a BMD-70 when I served in Bosnia
: and I can tell you they are small! I also had the opportunity to talk to
: some Russian and Ukrainian officers and they told me that tank and APC
: crews were chosen from length (among other things). The Russians do have
: quite a lot of conscripts to choose from.
Yes, they certainly do! As I said, the tanks were probably designed
using average lengths an so. This means there will be people who won't fit
the tanks as well.
Regards,
Markus
Micheal Kim
Since we're on the subject of small soviet tanks, does anybody
recognize the tank used in "Goldeneye"? The reason I'm asking is
that Pierce Brosnan (Bond) was able to drive it while sittind down
inside and while standing up. This implies that the steering
mechanism is mounted quite high in the compartment. Kinda puts
a perspective on the tanks in this thread...
Alex Sorokopud
I think i read in Bond artical that it was a T-55.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Sorokopud
Carleton University
Ottawa, Canada
Email address: asor...@chat.carleton.ca
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Markus Nybom BKF
Alex Sorokopud (asor...@chat.carleton.ca) wrote:
: Micheal Kim (m2...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca) wrote:
: > Since we're on the subject of small soviet tanks, does anybody
: > recognize the tank used in "Goldeneye"? The reason I'm asking is
: > that Pierce Brosnan (Bond) was able to drive it while sittind down
: > inside and while standing up. This implies that the steering
: > mechanism is mounted quite high in the compartment. Kinda puts
: > a perspective on the tanks in this thread...
:
: I think i read in Bond artical that it was a T-55.
I don't remember what tank they used, but the driver seat is
located in front of the turret, and isn't much larger than that of the
T-72 (I don't know if there is any real difference in size of this compartment)
Markus
Loren Cain
Alex Sorokopud wrote:
>
> Micheal Kim (m2...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca) wrote:
> > Since we're on the subject of small soviet tanks, does anybody
> > recognize the tank used in "Goldeneye"? The reason I'm asking is
> > that Pierce Brosnan (Bond) was able to drive it while sittind down
> > inside and while standing up. This implies that the steering
> > mechanism is mounted quite high in the compartment. Kinda puts
> > a perspective on the tanks in this thread...
>
> I think i read in Bond artical that it was a T-55.
>
When Bond first jumps out of the window into that courtyard area
and lands amid a bunch of tanks and military vehicles, I'm pretty
sure those tanks were not the same as the one later shown cruising
down the city streets. I didn't get a really close look at them
but they appeared more angular. I seem to remember reading that the
escape scenes were filmed "somewhere in England", so I would imagine
the first tanks seen were British models made up to resemble the
Russian tank seen later.
Loren Cain
Loren Cain
had an article about Goldeneye. They specifically referred to the
tank as a T-72 and also mentioned that the filmmakers had a bit of
trouble getting permission to drive the beast at full speed down
city streets in St. Petersburg. It seems there was some concern
that the streets would collapse into the sewers below! The article
also mentioned that the camera speed was varied from time to time to
make the tank appear to be moving faster than it actually was.
Loren Cain
Mattias Bankel
There is an easy way of checking whether it is a T-55 or a T-72. The
T-55 has a wider gap between wheel 1 and 2 than between the other ones.
See the movie again and check...
Stew
Alex
I've been to the `Petting Zoo' at Nellis AFB. It looks like a T-80 to me.
Stew
On 25 Oct 1996, Alex Sorokopud wrote:
> Micheal Kim (m2...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca) wrote:
> > Since we're on the subject of small soviet tanks, does anybody
> > recognize the tank used in "Goldeneye"? The reason I'm asking is
> > that Pierce Brosnan (Bond) was able to drive it while sittind down
> > inside and while standing up. This implies that the steering
> > mechanism is mounted quite high in the compartment. Kinda puts
> > a perspective on the tanks in this thread...
>
> I think i read in Bond artical that it was a T-55.
>
>
Tom Clancy
Clancy on the tank.
It was a T-54/55. You can tell by the extra space between the two front
road wheels, and by the evacuator on the main gun.
TC
Loren Cain
Stew wrote:
>
> Alex
>
> I've been to the `Petting Zoo' at Nellis AFB. It looks like a T-80 to me.
>
> Stew
> On 25 Oct 1996, Alex Sorokopud wrote:
>
> > Micheal Kim (m2...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca) wrote:
> > > Since we're on the subject of small soviet tanks, does anybody
> > > recognize the tank used in "Goldeneye"? The reason I'm asking is
> > > that Pierce Brosnan (Bond) was able to drive it while sittind down
> > > inside and while standing up. This implies that the steering
> > > mechanism is mounted quite high in the compartment. Kinda puts
> > > a perspective on the tanks in this thread...
> >
> > I think i read in Bond artical that it was a T-55.
> >
In the December 1995 issue of American Cinematographer, there is an
article on Goldeneye which specifically refers to the tank as a
"42 ton T-72 battle tank". However, close inspection of the one
photograph of the vehicle in the article leads me to believe that
it is not a T-72. The photo shows only the front of the turret and
hull, with no details whatsoever of the running gear, but what
details are visible resemble a T-54/T-55 more than a T-72 or T-80.
For one thing, the turret is rather tall and narrow, with some sort
of elongated opening immediately to the right of the gun (a sight?).
The gun itself appears to be a small caliber weapon (relatively
speaking) and the tube is smooth. Also, the front slope of the
hull appears very much steeper than a T-72, and there appears to
be ample room to sit down inside it. I could not tell from the
photo whether the driver's position is located in the center or
to the side, unfortunately. I think it's a T-55.
Loren Cain
Alex Clark
> I think i read in Bond artical that it was a T-55.
The tank used was a T-54/55 with various add on bits (such as large
snorkel at rear of turret) to make it look like a T-80B.
>I seem to remember reading that the
>escape scenes were filmed "somewhere in England", so I would imagine
>the first tanks seen were British models made up to resemble the
>Russian tank seen later.
I also heard this--a mock battle was performed at a tank show in the UK
using some British vehicles as Russian tanks. Apparently someone
connected with the film saw this and was impressed enough to ask to
borrow them!
--
Alex
e-mail: al...@mi.leeds.ac.uk
Eddie H. Snell
Loren Cain wrote:
>
> Stew wrote:
> >
> > Alex
> >
> > I've been to the `Petting Zoo' at Nellis AFB. It looks like a T-80 to me.
> >
> > Stew
> > On 25 Oct 1996, Alex Sorokopud wrote:
filming of Goldeneye. It changes from scene to scene.
--
Eddie H. Snell Email eddie...@msfc.nasa.gov
NASA, Code ES76, Bldg 4464, Phone (205) 544 5570
Marshall Space Flight Center, Fax (205) 544 9305
Huntsville, Al 35812. USA.
Heisenberg was probably here.
Markus Nybom BKF
Mattias Bankel (hgu...@hgus.gu.se) wrote:
: There is an easy way of checking whether it is a T-55 or a T-72. The
: T-55 has a wider gap between wheel 1 and 2 than between the other ones.
: See the movie again and check...
T-72's also have a "V" formation upon the front armour, i figure
it should be easy to see. And the turret is much more sleek than that of
the T-55. But that requires comparision.
Good Luck,
Markus
Alex Clark
>Clancy on the tank.
>It was a T-54/55. You can tell by the extra space between the two front
>road wheels, and by the evacuator on the main gun.
Whilst on the subject of wheels, a better way to spot the difference is
not so much the gap between them but the fact that T-72s and T-80s have
six road wheels whilst the T-55 family have only 5!!
Stew wrote:
>I've been to the `Petting Zoo' at Nellis AFB. It looks like a T-80 to >me.
Do they have a T-80 there?? If so I'll catch the first flight there.
Alex
Stew
I have since watched the movie again and I think the fake reactive armour
on the tank made me think it was a T-80. It looks more like a T-72
actually(the aux. fuel tank above the engine deck.)
On Thu, 31 Oct 1996, Eddie H. Snell wrote:
> Loren Cain wrote:
> >
> > Stew wrote:
> > >
> > > Alex
> > >
> > > I've been to the `Petting Zoo' at Nellis AFB. It looks like a T-80 to me.
> > >
J. Adam Jurkowski
In article <Pine.HPP.3.95.96110...@helios.usq.edu.au>,
Stew <q932...@helios.usq.edu.au> wrote:
>
>I have since watched the movie again and I think the fake reactive armour
>on the tank made me think it was a T-80. It looks more like a T-72
>actually(the aux. fuel tank above the engine deck.)
From the pictures of T-80's I've seen, they can have the auxiliary fuel tanks
back there also. However, IMHO it's a T-72 in the movie. I don't have anything
concrete in front of me, but the turret and body shape are subtly different on
the two tanks... If anybody has any hard info on this, I'd appreciate it.
Adam
Mattias
The wheels, always the wheels. Check the space between wheel one and two
and you will see that there is a greater gap between those than between the
others. Therefore: a T-55, probably reshaped to look like something newer,
but still an olden goldie...
Mattias
J. Adam Jurkowski <jurk...@pilot.msu.edu> wrote in article
<562pnm$15...@msunews.cl.msu.edu>...
Stew
On Mon, 4 Nov 1996, Alex Clark wrote:
> >Clancy on the tank.
>
> >It was a T-54/55. You can tell by the extra space between the two front
> >road wheels, and by the evacuator on the main gun.
>
>
>
> Whilst on the subject of wheels, a better way to spot the difference is
> not so much the gap between them but the fact that T-72s and T-80s have
> six road wheels whilst the T-55 family have only 5!!
>
> Stew wrote:
>
> >I've been to the `Petting Zoo' at Nellis AFB. It looks like a T-80 to >me.
>
> Do they have a T-80 there?? If so I'll catch the first flight there.
Yup. Along with all kind of AAA, SAM's(incuding a SA-12 and Patriot
system), tanks and APC's. Undercover there is a MiG-21, -17, and a Su-7.
Interestingly no-one is allowed into the cockpit of the -21 because the
dial illumination coatings are to radioactive and therefore hazardous to
health!!). I would hate to dogfight let allow fly ground attack sorties in
the Su-7, or even land, as the only direction you can clearly see is up!
They also have some ex-Soviet small-arms elsewhere in the section.
I don't know what it's like to get in their as I was on a exchange
tour with the Australian equivalent of the Civil Air Patrol, the Air
Training Corps.
Stew
Alex Clark
Stew <q932...@helios.usq.edu.au> wrote:
>>
>>I have since watched the movie again and I think the fake reactive armour
>>on the tank made me think it was a T-80. It looks more like a T-72
>>actually(the aux. fuel tank above the engine deck.)
The T-72 can also be fitted with reactive armour.
>From the pictures of T-80's I've seen, they can have the auxiliary fuel >tanks
>back there also. However, IMHO it's a T-72 in the movie. I don't have >anything
>concrete in front of me, but the turret and body shape are subtly >different on
>the two tanks... If anybody has any hard info on this, I'd appreciate >it.
>Adam
The T-80 pictures I've seen also show 2 fuel tanks at the rear. It was a
while since I saw the film but as I recall there were 2 rubber
reinforced fabric panels hanging vertically from the front of the glacis
plate. These are only observed on later versions of the T-80 (eg T-80BV
and T-80U). I guess too much could be read into this discussion
though--basically an old T-55 was cosmetically done up to look like a
more modern Russian tank and it appears to be a hybrid T-72/T-80!!
Alex
e-mail: al...@mi.leeds.ac.uk
Danny Lee
In article <562pnm$15...@msunews.cl.msu.edu>,
jurk...@pilot.msu.edu (J. Adam Jurkowski) wrote:
>In article <Pine.HPP.3.95.96110...@helios.usq.edu.au>,
> Stew <q932...@helios.usq.edu.au> wrote:
>>
>>I have since watched the movie again and I think the fake reactive armour
>>on the tank made me think it was a T-80. It looks more like a T-72
>>actually(the aux. fuel tank above the engine deck.)
>
>back there also. However, IMHO it's a T-72 in the movie. I don't have anything
>concrete in front of me, but the turret and body shape are subtly different on
>the two tanks... If anybody has any hard info on this, I'd appreciate it.
>
>Adam
>
>
>
>
>
I don't vouch for the accuracy of this because movie types can be incorrect and
ignorant at times. (I still chuckle over Francis Ford Coppola's attempt to borrow
B-52s from Australia for Apocalypse Now)
Dan
Marko Cunningham
The tank in the movie is a souped-up T-55. It has a fume extractor on the
muzzle end of the gun tube and road wheels without support rollers. The
T-72 has its fume extractor one-third down the gun tube and has support
rollers above the road wheels.
The -55 in the movie looks almost like a dangerous battle tank with the
fake reactive armor, though. =)
--Marko Cunningham
Peter Mackay
In article <56n80v$5...@news.canscape.com>,
dbd...@terraport.net (Danny Lee) wrote:
> In the book, the "Making of Goldeneye", the tank is a upgraded T-55.
> I don't vouch for the accuracy of this because movie types can be incorrect and
> ignorant at times. (I still chuckle over Francis Ford Coppola's attempt to
> borrow
> B-52s from Australia for Apocalypse Now)
Those Aussie B-52Ns are a closely guarded secret. How did FFC find out?
~ m
u U Cheers!
\|
|> -Peter Mackay
/ \ pete...@netinfo.com.au
_\ /_
David Wei
In message <AEB84183...@betty-p02.netinfo.com.au> -
pete...@netinfo.com.au (Peter Mackay)Wed, 20 Nov 1996 05:02:59 +1000 writes:
:>Those Aussie B-52Ns are a closely guarded secret. How did FFC find out?
The all powerful <insert your religious GOD here> told that guy in his
dream.... :)
===========================================================
David Wei E-Mail Address: davi...@uvic.ca
lead...@lords.com
NEW!!! WWW Page: http://gulf.uvic.ca/~swei
Running under am486DX4-120 with the POWER of OS/2 Warp.
PGP Public Key Block available on my WWW page.
========================Team OS/2=========================
F-22's note to fighters on the "other" side:
You can hide, but you can't run.... :)
===========================================================