Abrams/T-72

Is there really any chance that a T-72 would be able to take on a Abrams.....and not in ridiculously uneven situations

(like the Abrams is out of fuel and bright pink on a giant floating platform in the middle of the ocean with futuristic flying T-72's shooting lasers and nukes at it)

__________________

Zitat:

---

Originally posted by 9K32 Strela
Before you ask, yes, I am batshiat crazy.
This is for you:

---

Post last edited by shinpah1 on 22.01.2008, 02:15.

Well, back in Iraq the Iraqi Army used a modified T-72 (not nearly as updated as the Russian one) against M1A1 Abrams, and mostly the T-72s got hammered. But this could be due to crew inefficiency.

The Abrams is a strong tank, I think the chance of a T-72 winning against an Abrams is like 2:1 or even maybe 3:1

__________________

Hmm, wasn't there some difference between the doctrine of Soviet and US tanks? I guess the tank-killer Abrams would and could easily destroy the support T-72. But, who knows.

__________________
When you're pushed, modding is as easy as breathing.

Hall of Fame Polls Open Soon!

There's no real way of knowing which tank would be superior because the only nation that had competently fielded the T-72 (supposedly anyway) and had a good chance of brining it to bear against an Abrams, the Soviet Union, no longer exists.

The T-72 will probably never be properly matched against Western tanks because it's in the service of incompetent military forces, unless Russia decides to move Westward, which of course they're in no shape to do now, or anytime in the future.

__________________
"While the State exists there can be no freedom; When there is freedom there will be no State." - Vladimir Lenin

As Hexman correctly pointed out, the doctrinal differences between Soviet and NATO planners meant that, if the Cold war went hot and the Soviets initiated the "deep strike" battleplan, and it all went as it should, no Soviet tanks should ever get into direct conflict with NATO tanks in any number great enough to cause a problem.

If anyone wants me to give a more detailed description of "deep strike" in regard to the useage of tanks, just ask , otherwise, just take my word for it.

Yes, i want to hear more about the plan.

And what exactly was the plan of the NATO to stop the Soviet tanks. I hope you do not mean tactical nukes.

Sorry, I don't know much about NATO tactics, you'kll have to ask someone else.

"Deep strike" was a doctrine, devised by the Soviets and can be seen in almost every facet of their military. It basically entailed getting to the atlantic ocean as quickly as possible, in the event of NATO declaring war and invading them first, of course. For this purpose, there was no area of the military that was not mechanised, no light infantry, all logistics were designed to be fast-moving, even their air assault forces had their own air-droppable APCs.

In terms of tank warfare, the role of tank units were to move fast and to outflank and encircle enemy formations. Once these formations were surrounded, they would suffer an enormous air and artillary bombardment (possibly with the use of chemical, biological or tactical nuclear weapons, if it was deemed necessary) followed by a massed mechanised infantry and tank attack. The role of the infantry would be to protect tanks from entrenched infantry positions, and for that purpose, they would dismount, wipe out enemy forces, mount back into their sealed APCs, and move on quickly. Tanks were to take out fortified bunkers and other positions, as it was assumed that the majority of NATO tanks would have been destroyed in the previous (heavy, to the extreme) artillary attack.

While this was going on in some parts of the advancing front line, other tank divisions and armies would be penetrating behind the enemy line to mess with logistics and communication, as well as to better fascilitate encirclement. In this role, as in the combined assault previousley mentioned, Soviet tanks were more expected to face trucks, bunkers and infantry positions, with the possibility of light armoured vehicals, not masses of NATO MBTs. For this pupose, Soviet built tanks are usually lighter in armour weight (but made better use of sloping armour, so had far stronger armour for their weight class) had a low sillouette, were faster than most NATO tanks and carried much more HE and dual-purpose HEAT than dedicated anti-tank shells. It is because of the Soviet's desire to increase armour effectiveness without a great increase in weight (and subsequent loss to mobility) that Soviet tanks made a far greater use and retro-fitting of Explosive Reactive Armour, which was relatively light. The downside was that Soviet tanks worked alot more in combined operations than western forces, and ERA is often dangerous to surrounding exposed infantry, but this was of little concern because of the fact that infantry would be inside the armoured BMP APC for most of the time.


Sorry if you got bored half-way through, but just to give you an idea of why it didn't really matter to the USSR as to who was better in tank-on tank battles. Plus the fact that the USSR had far far more tanks than NATO in active use, so sheer number of armour should win out in any unforeseen tank battle.

Note: I would be delighted to be corrected or proven wrong with a given source, please check over what I have said if any of it sounds misguided.

First of all, T-72 and M1 Abrams are tanks of different generation. T-72 is a second generation tank, same generation as M60 and Leopard 1. M1 is third generation tank, comparable opponent would be T-80.

And yes, T-72 would be able to knock out Abrams. It's just who shoots first.

__________________
Tankers of the world, unite!

Okay...thanks for the info (I got into some dumb argument at school over this)

Zitat:

---

Originally posted by Krasnyi Finni
And yes, T-72 would be able to knock out Abrams. It's just who shoots first.

---

__________________

Zitat:

---

Originally posted by 9K32 Strela
Before you ask, yes, I am batshiat crazy.
This is for you:

---

I assume, it was reported that (outdated) T-72s fired customized Sabot shells at M1 Abrams and only minor damage was taken.

But like I said, the T-72 used by the Iraqi's was an outdated version, Russia owned the updated T-72 with all the advanced armour and equipment, so the odds were in favour of the advanced M1 Abrams.

__________________

Post last edited by Robok on 24.01.2008, 00:41.

While I believe it possible for a T-72 to knock out an M1 Abrams, I believe it in the same way that I believe and M-60 can knock out a T-90 or Leopard 2. It would take a skilled crew, superior tactics and some luck or incompetence on the part of the opposing tank crew but it is possible. But if I was a Russian tank crewman in 1989 I would insist on going into battle in a T-80 if I knew I was facing the Abrams. This is not to say the Russians are incapable of designing a tank that is as good or better then the Abrams, Russian tank designers have always faced the burden of having to design a tank simple enough for conscript tankers to operate and simple enough for conscript repairmen to fix.

__________________
I'll die when I'm done kill'in
Avenge Mr. Teasdale!
Cadet Staff Sergeant in US Army JROTC

The T-72s we hear about the most are the downgraded export models.I believe that the Russian/Soviet Version had ERA Armour and better weapondry.

The T-90 is actually nothing but a upgraded version of the T-72(Rumored to be able to destroy the Abrams very easily).


The T-80 was in the same generation as the abrams.But the T-80 didn't thermal imaging like the abrams did(Which was a serious disadvantage in Night Operations.The T-72 was in the same generation as the M-60 Patton

Some countries have do upgraded T-72 models that can kill the Abrams.(But most of them are neutral)

The Export T-72s,if used in mass number and experience crews who knew where to hit an abrams.Would kill one very easily.

Here is a example of an other country's T-72 Model(T-72M4 CZ) , it is a Czech Republic model

*** EIDTED BY STAFF ***

6. Large images: Don't post large images. Images bigger than 700pix in width and 300pix in height or bigger than 300 KB are considered large. Huge pics make the Threads unreadable and very confusing and sometimes even screw the layout. In case you want to show such a huge pic use a link to it instead of posting the pic directly in the post.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/co...4CZ_moderna.jpg

The only true way to say which tank is the best would be to pit the Russian Federation against the USA in a direct war, and personally, I think Russian Tanks can win for sure. The russian army gots 23k Tanks, Of them 6000 are T-80s, 9000 T-72s, and they are now producing the newest T-90, of which they expect to have around 1500 by the next years, the USA only has circa 400 Abrahams, and all western nations only have a few hundred of their main battle tanks, I think, that Russian Tanks, the current versions manned with russian crews would eat the western armies. Usually Tank battles are not one in one, and coalition forces faced mostly T62s and a few of the badly outdated, maintaniend and badly outfitted T-72s, with desilusionated and dismotivated badly trained Iraqui Tankers.

Zitat:

---

Originally posted by (2142)Gen.Reaper
The T-80 was in the same generation as the abrams.But the T-80 didn't thermal imaging like the abrams did(Which was a serious disadvantage in Night Operations.The T-72 was in the same generation as the M-60 Patton

---

__________________
Tankers of the world, unite!

Zitat:

---

Originally posted by Edruken the USA only has circa 400 Abrahams

---

__________________

Zitat:

---

Originally posted by 9K32 Strela
Before you ask, yes, I am batshiat crazy.
This is for you:

---

Actually 1000 or so M1A2, 4000 M1A1 and the rest on reserve, even that way, the Russian Tanks have a massive advantage.

Zitat:

---

Originally posted by FiReFTW
The T-72's in Iraq were T-72M that was aproximetly of 1980 release that used 3BM22 Shells that were released in 1975!!!
Against M1A2 of newer version with NEW shells for example M829A3.
There is NO CHANCE in hell that those T-72 could even penetrate M1's in POINT BLANK range giving aside everything else the lack of recoinasanse and training in iraq army , they had no chance to do any damage with those outdated tanks and shells.

Lets compare just for fun , in 1985 what do we have then

At USA the best M1A1 just starts to be manufactured. Its М1 the first series with weak gun М68Е1 105mm.
Protection against CE, RHA equivalents: - 510-800.
Shells - the best M833 (power 440mm) - but very few of them which are not enough for a big war. The main was M774 (power 340mm).

At USSR the best T-72BV, T-80BV starts to be manufactured. They had T-72A and T-80B.
Protection against CE, RHA equivalents:
T-72A: 540-750.
T-80B: 510-810.
Shells - the best 3BM32 (power 510mm), but few of them and not ready for a big war. The basic shells - 3BM26 (power 420mm) and 3BM29 (power 450mm)


Now you tell me a essential difference and how come your M1 is/was superior to russian tanks?

---

Zitat:

---

So the answer is yes , the russian T-72's can destroy an abrams, but its much easyer to do so 1 vs 1 than at battalion levels, that is due to M1A2's advanced electronics , communication and battle awarness , the M1A2 company is linked together and know exactly where the other are and communicate very fast , the T-72 in the meanwhile has much more problems.

---

and for those who dont know what downgrades of weaponry is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_model

Zitat:

---

Originally posted by SuperTimo
[quote]
are you implying that the soviet union's armour constisted of tanks that didnt work toghether? and its the M1A1 not A2 this is 1985 we are talking about not 1991 or 2003

---