Hello all, here is today's article posted on TheArmoryLife.com. It is titled “Russian T-72: Most Destroyed Modern Tank in History?” and can be found at https://www.thearmorylife.com/russian-t-72-tank/.
Russian T-72: Most Destroyed Modern Tank in History?
- Thread starter Mike H.
- Start date
KillerFord1977
SAINT
I actually think the distinction to the tank model that has been destroyed the most is the Russian T-34 in WW2
Tank losses of the T-72 -T90 is just a drop in the bucket to the T-34
Tank losses of the T-72 -T90 is just a drop in the bucket to the T-34
@KillerFord1977, you are absolutely right, and good catch! We meant to title this "modern tank" in the title and let it slip by. We have corrected that now. Hope you all are enjoying the article!
youngolddude
Professional
How many tanks have been destroyed in Ukraine? How many per day, month or year. I just read an article today that said they are building 20 tanks per month. So are they being destroyed as quickly as they are built?
HansGruber
Ronin
I’m kinda thinking the MkIII or MkIV Panzer might hold that record.
Bemused Berserker
Elite
The Stalin philosophy that soldiers are just expendable Cannon Fodder still exists within the military and government leadership it appears, and applies to their Mech. Cav. not just the Infantry.
Adhering to an Ammo Storage Fatal design flaw across multiple generations of MBTS is just flat out crazy. Either that or Russian leadership enjoys watching the Jack in the Box effect.
Adhering to an Ammo Storage Fatal design flaw across multiple generations of MBTS is just flat out crazy. Either that or Russian leadership enjoys watching the Jack in the Box effect.
I used to be a T72 Commander 2 years (conscript) in Russian Army. I had experience with Leopard too a bit. I can tell you few things. The most destroyed tank, as it is most used one and most inexpensive (almost 10x less than Leopard).
It has abt 0.5m height less and has 3 crew, instead of 4 in Leopard.
T72 starts firing at minimum 2, but mostly 3-4 km distance from target in the open field encounter. Would you know when Leopard will see T72 and shot the first round?
The weight of Leopard is 20-30tn more depend on configuration. It means Leopard is useless in any East European theater. 125mm T72 vs 120 Leopard ...
I can continue long way. But I lived in T72 for 2 years and I know what I am talking about.
Did Leopard had any active engagements anywhere? No, except passive "battles" w insurgency in Afghanistan? ...Not even close to reality. Ukraine will be the first time and the reason Leopards are not there - 60tn peace of iron that will sink in any Ukr roads and killed eventually easy.
T72 is a baseline for further Russian developments for MBT - versatile, fast, easy to use, cheap killing machine. I love it. It is the same as to compare M16 and AK.
And I disliked Leopard 2 - too bulky coffin. Shooter is stuck in the middle - no way to survive.
The only bad abt T72 is the engine change in the field. Leopard is winning here in time probably 3 times faster. Not sure about the latest generations and T80 turbo - can't tell.
It has abt 0.5m height less and has 3 crew, instead of 4 in Leopard.
T72 starts firing at minimum 2, but mostly 3-4 km distance from target in the open field encounter. Would you know when Leopard will see T72 and shot the first round?
The weight of Leopard is 20-30tn more depend on configuration. It means Leopard is useless in any East European theater. 125mm T72 vs 120 Leopard ...
I can continue long way. But I lived in T72 for 2 years and I know what I am talking about.
Did Leopard had any active engagements anywhere? No, except passive "battles" w insurgency in Afghanistan? ...Not even close to reality. Ukraine will be the first time and the reason Leopards are not there - 60tn peace of iron that will sink in any Ukr roads and killed eventually easy.
T72 is a baseline for further Russian developments for MBT - versatile, fast, easy to use, cheap killing machine. I love it. It is the same as to compare M16 and AK.
And I disliked Leopard 2 - too bulky coffin. Shooter is stuck in the middle - no way to survive.
The only bad abt T72 is the engine change in the field. Leopard is winning here in time probably 3 times faster. Not sure about the latest generations and T80 turbo - can't tell.
Last edited:
Cedric
Custom
Ale267 may back me up on this, but we forget what the T-72 was initially designed for and that is a breakthrough tank in the tank battalion as part of a motorized rifle regiment under Soviet doctrine and organization. The T-72 had an auto-loader coupled with a device which automatically decreased the super elevation of the gun as it approached the estimated NATO battle position. Incorporating the regimental assault formation with T-72s in the lead, would put constant HE frag rounds on the defensive positions until the regiment was almost on the battle positions when the infantry could conduct the final assault. Then, T-64 equipped operational maneuver groups would exploit the breakthrough.
IOW, initially the T-72 was not a multi-role tank; i.e., what we call an MBT. However, improvements led to the T-72 being able to somewhat perform the MBT role. As with all these discussions, we tend to focus on the technical capabilities rather than crew training, unit proficiency and so forth. If one is looking for why T-72s get knocked out a lot I would start with the soft skill aspects. The T-72 is a good tank, and I know the poor performance of the vehicle in the Gulf War can be laid directly at the feet of poor Iraqi tank crews and poor unit leadership.
IOW, initially the T-72 was not a multi-role tank; i.e., what we call an MBT. However, improvements led to the T-72 being able to somewhat perform the MBT role. As with all these discussions, we tend to focus on the technical capabilities rather than crew training, unit proficiency and so forth. If one is looking for why T-72s get knocked out a lot I would start with the soft skill aspects. The T-72 is a good tank, and I know the poor performance of the vehicle in the Gulf War can be laid directly at the feet of poor Iraqi tank crews and poor unit leadership.
KillerFord1977
SAINT
most inexpensive isnt always a good thing. So you’re saying in a round about way its a cheap piece of crap
It might be a general misconception, but appreciate your opinion, as I see you know the subject quite well. T64 was initially produced to mislead NATO on the next gen Russian MBT, and Russians succeeded: Leopards came with 120mm gun, same as T65 and relatively weaker construct than T72. If I am not mistaken, Russian intel deliberately leaked project info with purpose of Leopard would be weaker that T72. Leopard1 was expensive and weaker. Leopard is a defencive concept tank, while T72 and its following developments - offensive always. The tactics developed were fake too, cause T64 never could be better than T72 again. Look at the misery of T64 nowadays on the battlefield in Ukraine - you will notice how they struggle in firefight w T72. I am watching closely the tank offensives there. Same for the battles in Syria. So far, Israely Merkava only can be compared with ultimate Russian tanks.
Completely agree: Iraquies were overall inefficient initially. 7 days war identified it very clearly. I would say, they just not a warriors as the regime made them too comfortable in thier society that the main profession for them was not important. Discipline and obedience - always lacked there.
Last edited:
You got me wrong: I said it is effective, efficient, if you know what it means, and versatile killing machine. It is not a public money wasting project, like NATO does, but completely otherwise, cause it is a different world and different mentality. You won't understand it.
Cedric
Custom
I'm not sure what the misconception is. I'm just saying how the T-72 and T-64 were supposed to function under then-Soviet doctrine and organization. I also think that it is dubious that the Soviets would devote a lot of steel, electronics, and engineering development just to produce a deception. Sounds too smart by half to me.
Under misconception, I mean the believe that T64 was a solid final version of the Russian MBT, but it has never been. T64 is very similar, but not T72 yet. Loading Mechanism vs Loading automation in T72, suspension is completely different, tracks, engine, armour, but similar. Basically T72 is development of T64. T64 was intended be "under developed" intentionally.
They did not wasted efforts and production. T64 suspension is used in other machines till now. Soviets did not produce much of them, but enough to fill East Germany bases, so it will be obvious and visible to NATO what Soviets had. I saw many, many of T62, T55 still in conservation. Russians have just started to pull them to Ukraine, and not as a Battle Tank, but in rolle of "self-propelled" howitzer. They are still quite efficient as such, sertainly not against Ukr T64. Artillery plays crucial role in offensive advancement. Those old machines will do their role very well.
Cedric
Custom
OK, I understand - I think. I do agree the T-64 was touted as the higher technology tank, but never lived up to its potential.
KillerFord1977
SAINT
Oh I do, inexpensive semi quality build Soviet machine
Russian Tank Critic
Alpha
LOL! Then how do you explain Russia's terrible performance with their non-export tanks? The Ukrainians have been doing better with their T-64s. The Russians have lost nearly 2000 T-72s, T-80s, and T-90s in a little over a year of conflict against a country with far fewer T-64s and their derivatives.
Search ∙ Russia ∙ Destroyed ∙ WarSpotting
Visually confirmed destroyed Russian tanks in Russian war in Ukraine
ukr.warspotting.net
The Leopard 1 tanks still had superior optics and were much more accurate. Still not a rolling death trap like the Russian tanks that are small enough that any penetration will likely hit the ammo that the crew surround. It's consistently been a flaw that many tankers have paid for with their lives.
You want to talk about tanks fighting insurgencies not being 'real combat?' Then why did the Syrians lose nearly 1000 T-72s in under a decade, fighting insurgencies in conditions similar to what the Abrams tanks faced in US, Iraqi, and Saudi service for an even longer period of time with FAR fewer losses? Even the Russian biased LostArmour site claims to have visually verified 101 Abrams of all variants as destroyed, even though many of them look like they might have been damaged or disabled. Keep in mind this is counting the losses from Desert Storm up until now. Whereas there are THOUSANDS of verified, violent destructions of Russian tanks since 2013. One decade, over 20 times the losses compared to the Abrams dating back over 30 years now.
Nine Years of War — Documenting Syrian Arab Army's Armored Vehicles Losses - bellingcat
Translations:English (UK)Русский (Россия)Over the course of nine years of war, the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) has engaged in armed conflict against various opposition forces composed of domestic rebels and foreign volunteers, often equipped with light weapons. Given the sheer amount of open source...
www.bellingcat.com
You ask us not to believe our lying eyes, but the evidence shows that the T-72 it's derivatives are rolling death traps. They haven't performed well against any adversary with tanks from the same generation. When against American armor, they get smoked. You blame the Iraqis. When against insurgencies, which claim isn't real combat, they get smoked. When piloted by actual Russians, in non-export Russian service models, they get smoked. Wholesale. You can lie, make all the excuses and mental gymnastics you want. Reality says Russian tanks have major vulnerabilities, aside from their other inherent design flaws. Terrible quality transmissions that break down and result in low reverse speeds, terrible gun elevation and depression capabilities, inadequate and obsoletes optics and FCS, reactive armor that doesn't actually stop the ATGMs it claims to...
The Ukrainians are soldiering with what they have to make do with, and are still smoking Russians with their T-64 and T-80 derivatives. Good luck once they get actual NATO armor.
First of all, thank you for the interest in discussion. With all my respect, your references are doubtful. Articles of media is a fairy tales for crowd. Evidences you can get only yourself from battlefields. The rest - assumptions, often subjective, operating media as only source of information. I see this idea of complete reliance and belief on Western version of information. I am not trying to prove who's dick is bigger. Well, good luck with these assumptions and let's see how T72s and T90s will enter Berlin again in some time in the future. The main reason for that - too much reliance on NATO that depleting its capacity to even defend themselves, while helping Ukr. Some NATO countries has no ammo left and had to buy it from third party providers IOT "help" Ukr and Russians kill each other more. This "help" is just to burn both conflicting countries resources and test own wpn system. Guess what, not all reach frontline as Ukr re-sell EU and US help to third world countries, making some pocket money out public innocence.LOL! Then how do you explain Russia's terrible performance with their non-export tanks? The Ukrainians have been doing better with their T-64s. The Russians have lost nearly 2000 T-72s, T-80s, and T-90s in a little over a year of conflict against a country with far fewer T-64s and their derivatives.
Search ∙ Russia ∙ Destroyed ∙ WarSpotting
Visually confirmed destroyed Russian tanks in Russian war in Ukraine
The Leopard 1 tanks still had superior optics and were much more accurate. Still not a rolling death trap like the Russian tanks that are small enough that any penetration will likely hit the ammo that the crew surround. It's consistently been a flaw that many tankers have paid for with their lives.
You want to talk about tanks fighting insurgencies not being 'real combat?' Then why did the Syrians lose nearly 1000 T-72s in under a decade, fighting insurgencies in conditions similar to what the Abrams tanks faced in US, Iraqi, and Saudi service for an even longer period of time with FAR fewer losses? Even the Russian biased LostArmour site claims to have visually verified 101 Abrams of all variants as destroyed, even though many of them look like they might have been damaged or disabled. Keep in mind this is counting the losses from Desert Storm up until now. Whereas there are THOUSANDS of verified, violent destructions of Russian tanks since 2013. One decade, over 20 times the losses compared to the Abrams dating back over 30 years now.
Again, Syria has shown that the T-72 suffers even when fighting insurgents. Syria managed to lose even more T-72s than T-55s! ...and now the Russians are losing more tanks than the enemy can even field, to dated T-64s that you keep trying to insist aren't capable in comparison! Russian tanks and their crews leave much to be desired. Russian workmanship is generally terrible, and you can't ignore the evidence.Nine Years of War — Documenting Syrian Arab Army's Armored Vehicles Losses - bellingcat
Translations:English (UK)Русский (Россия)Over the course of nine years of war, the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) has engaged in armed conflict against various opposition forces composed of domestic rebels and foreign volunteers, often equipped with light weapons. Given the sheer amount of open source...
You ask us not to believe our lying eyes, but the evidence shows that the T-72 it's derivatives are rolling death traps. They haven't performed well against any adversary with tanks from the same generation. When against American armor, they get smoked. You blame the Iraqis. When against insurgencies, which claim isn't real combat, they get smoked. When piloted by actual Russians, in non-export Russian service models, they get smoked. Wholesale. You can lie, make all the excuses and mental gymnastics you want. Reality says Russian tanks have major vulnerabilities, aside from their other inherent design flaws. Terrible quality transmissions that break down and result in low reverse speeds, terrible gun elevation and depression capabilities, inadequate and obsoletes optics and FCS, reactive armor that doesn't actually stop the ATGMs it claims to...
The Ukrainians are soldiering with what they have to make do with, and are still smoking Russians with their T-64 and T-80 derivatives. Good luck once they get actual NATO armor.
T64 just cannot outperform T72 in any way, just it is technically impossible, whatever your media says. All your articles are just misleading concepts for people to believe their tax money gone "for good". You operate with brands, but you barely understand what is behind it. I mentioned, Arab countries were always loosely prepared to any battle at all in any fields, not only in tanks. They just were too cozy in their homes with bunch of wives and kids within quite reach society, Saddam built for them. They should be stupid enough not to take care of the country IOT loose everything and make disaster forever. That tells me a lot. While, to destroy USSR from inside, it took decades.
I don't count any Middle East wars even close indicator of reality, nor Kuwait nor Iraqi wars. Let's not take them in to account, as a very little number of crews were really able to do anything. Then T72 is not equipped for a city combats, same as T90 and its variants. But we do not take latest versions of T72 in to account now.
I don't argue Leopard has great optics, that would be stupid to do: the best optics in the world country, producing Zeiss optics would definitely build it for their tanks. But Leopard has never been in a real battle. It is not an offensive tank and never will be. It waits for summer, to try fight, cause cannot do it in other seasons in Eastern Europe; even in new "members" countries such as Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia - that is proven fact. Abrams - same thing, good for deserts, but nothing can do in Europe. So incapacity of NATO tanks in Eastern Europe is obvious. Marders and Bradleys might do something against T72s still, but small caliber and armor make them vulnerable.
You can criticize T72 as you wish, but you cannot counter post anything against in Europe. As I mentioned, Merkava only can compete, as it was developed based on requirements to fight T72 and its "descendants". But Merkava cannot fight in Eastern Europe either.
Let's get back to this topic after Ukr Summer campaign, when they suppose to use Leopards, and see.
BTW, some of the pictures in the article represents old T62 as T72 - that is already fake.
Last edited:
Russian Tank Critic
Alpha
If you have any evidence to support why the previous sources aren't legitimate, please post them. The burden of proof is on you. There is photographic and video evidence of THOUSANDS of T-72s being destroyed in Europe and the Middle East, despite your denial.
You don't call the Middle East insurgencies 'real combat' yet thousands of Russian tanks have been destroyed in the same conditions the Abrams dealt with for decades. The Abrams has survived hits from RPG-29s. Seen videos of T-72s doing what they do best and blowing off their turrets when hit with the same weapons.
When the Abrams met T-72s, it destroyed them with little difficulties. No Abrams has been destroyed by a T-72.
You claim these tanks can't work in Europe, for whatever reason. I wonder how you will deny Russian losses once they are destroyed by NATO tanks.
HayesGreener
Ronin
T72-isn't that the nomenclature for A-10 target?