Replacement for the T-72?

[shin_getter]

The recent war really invalidated the design of the T-72, put future supportability in question and show cased unimpressive performance in general

The demonstrated Performance rhetoric (actual performance is fixed, the discussion surround it changes):
1. Graphic videos of losses is available to all. There isn't even the "monkey model" cope to work with. The prestige of Russia and its equipment just goes down. Can dictators even impress subjects with these tanks now?
2. There is lack of visible battlefield success in contrast to losses. The best OSINT showing of these vehicle in action is being used as an assault gun shelling random structures.
3. The so called "immunity to ATGM" rhetoric of the 2014 conflict evaporated with a generation of upgraded weapons. The 2014 so called "only a tank can survive artillery" rhetoric just translated to just fire more shells with better accuracy and everything dies.
4. The ability to transverse mud is shown overrated as videos of stuck tanks abound. The ability to ford rivers is shown to be rather impractical with multiple crossings destroyed without utilizing this capability.

Design is shown to be questionable even within the context of tanks:
1. Low profile design that took a number of sacrifices to achieve is shown to be of low value. "Cope Cages" that adds a tiny amount of top attack protection is considered acceptable for giving up low profile.
2. Hull ammo storage explosions is now public knowledge to layman
3. In an long range precision strike regime, heavily front biased armor is questionable as artillery induced losses grow.

Support for long term ownership is looking shaky:
1. Russia is sanctioned and will remain so for a while.
2. East Europe is quickly moving into NATO standards and will not fund upgrade packages.
3. No workable APS system is expected in the near future.

----------------------
The thing to think about is that a military vehicle does not retire when it can not longer performance its claimed function. It is retired when people think it can't, and most politicians don't decide on rational calculus of national military capability.

In any case:
The T-72 is at a low point in attractiveness. What will be done in future by all the foreign owners of the tank?

Retire and replaced with some other MBT
Retire and replaced with some other AFV with supposedly same capability
Retire without replacement
Retained without changes (T-72 in 2072~~~)
Some kind of upgrade to deal with the worst features of the tank
Retained but with reduced priority

 

[Fluff]

As far as Russia goes, it cant afford to get the T14 Armata into production in any meaningful numbers, and it couldnt afford them, even pre- sanctions.

For the other users, really someone needs to step into the void. Sadly The Brazilian tank didnt come to fruition, and neither did the indiginous indian tank in terms of anyone outside india wanting one. Korea is making some inroads into heavy armaments, but I dont think anyone has bought their heavy tank, just the IFV based one.

So that leaves China. Who seem to have several models available.

Upgrading the t72 in terms of new production, is probably what will have to happen, but its only going to be Russia & pariah states, or very very poor states that buy them.

T72 users would probably be better to wait for Tier 1 armies to retire their Leo2/Abrams, Chally 2/3, etc. Which is exactly what happened when we went from Leo1 to Leo2 etc. All the Leo1 are in South America etc.

 

[riggerrob]

"The recent war really invalidated the design of the T-72, put future supportability in question and show-cased unimpressive performance in general
... Some kind of upgrade to deal with the worst features of the tank ..."

Ammunition fires have proven a major weakness.
As far back as the Chechin Wars, mere Molotov cocktails have wrecked Soviet tanks when dropped down hatches. More recently, Ukrainians have used simple, civilian drones to drop small grenades down tank hatches, sparking spectacular ammo fires that blow off turrets.
What if they did a radical modification, like welding on an armored turret bustle to contain ammo? I am thinking of something similar to American M1 Abrams with automatic blast-doors separating ammo from the crew. Abrams also has blow-out doors in the roof of the turret bustle to dissipate damage caused by exploding ammo.
Does anyone have pictures of Abrams that were hit in the turret bustle?

 

[BullpupRafale]

1st paragraph 1st point:
There are graphic losses of M1 Abrams in Middle East and we don't see people like you talking about prestige going down for American equipment nor subjects of dictators not being impressed anymore with that tank.

1st paragraph 2nd point:
OSINT is OSINT and because of that it is not reliable due to fact that relies on information that participants of the war are willing to release and on top of that very susceptible to propaganda and manipulation such as arbitrary standards that are changed to favor one or other side.

Same destroyed vehicle can be counted as several by having images and videos taken from several angles released sporadically and at different times of day. After all it is fog of war along parties directly or indirectly having stake in it hence information war.

Complaining about a main battle tank shooting "random" structure is nonsense as it is purpose of MBT to be versatile as it replaced light, medium, heavy, assault guns and what not as universal tank that is design of main battle tank.

1st paragraph 3rd point:
You discredit your own rhetoric involving ATGM rhetoric of 2014 is that it is about 2014 and not 2022 when there were changes in meantime thus you in present have benefit of hindsight. As for artillery, there is factor of armor fatigue when repeatedly struck kn same area and that can be exploited by dense and continuous artillery that can versus opposite of that would only destroy something lesser like APC, IFV and light AFV.

1st paragraph 4th point:
Ukrainians released massive amount of water from dams and even destroyed dams when retreating to flood area where Russian forces advanced hence it would not be surprising that good portion or even majority of footage of Russian tanks being stuck were from those areas that made earth there worse than usual during that time of year.

2nd paragraph 1st point:
This as an supposed argument doesn't make any sense as any MBT has same "weakness" because roof armor is never going to be thick nor complex enough to protect from such including M1 Abrams.

Anyone using "cope cages" to refer to slat armor can't be taken seriously and that term comes from section of OSINT aligned to Ukraine/NATO that among other things has made dubious claims about Russian loses by counting single tank several times, counting destroyed Ukrainian tanks as Russian despite obvious and some remains of tank where there are not enough remains to identify from which side it is, even if its MBT or AFV.

Also Javelin proper top attack and NLAW isn't as it needs to overfly a tank versus Javelin coming down directly at it thus those roof bar slated spaced armor is considerable obstacle for NL

Anyone that has watched CNN recently probably saw gaffe of story about destroyed Russian collumn of tanks only to show in each shot tanks with no Z V or other symbol, instead Ukrainian digital camo pattern on them.

2nd paragraph 2nd point:
Yes and if there was another Korean war we would have seen K1's being blown due to ammo being in hull.

 

[shin_getter]

Does anyone have pictures of Abrams that were hit in the turret bustle?

Well, just recently stumbled upon this:

https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/usapqa

View: https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/usapqa/m1_abrams_hit_by_atgm_in_ramadi_2015/

There are also videos of an Abrams hit in the turret rear by ATGM and another on the side that I've seen.

Looks ugly, but not fatal as you can see one bailing.
----

1st paragraph 1st point:
There are graphic losses of M1 Abrams in Middle East and we don't see people like you talking about prestige going down for American equipment nor subjects of dictators not being impressed anymore with that tank.

Well, I've been there to rolleyes at most proposed new MBT expenditures. This is different however, this is about everyone else:

All tanks are vulnerable in this day and era but perception is shaped by media. Isis or Houthis media have little influence while the combined western gov/media is pushing the current conflict. Much of the world looks at previous conflict and think "lol, Arabs at war" and dismiss it completely.

It is also a far bigger war involving the leading powers and orders of magnitude larger vehicle losses, in a "proper" state on state warfare, and Russia is not really offering a counter narrative on tank performance as both sides use soviet stock and military industrial marketing is the last of its problems.

The character of the losses is different, as the M1 or Merkava crews generally gets to walk away from the disabled vehicles like after ill planned attack against Hezbollah.

Changes in Geopolitical considerations is quite real, regardless of equipment performance as realignment is happening.

The T-72 series just have a poor upgrade path ahead of it due to being a compact vehicle with less volume and mass to work with. To improve capability significantly one needs a new tank. The T-14 is a tacit admission of the platform limits.

 

[jeffb]

I think the current conflict has really highlighted the need for more and better active protection systems. Such systems offer better protection against both ATGM and artillery fire and because they can be largely "bolted-on", they offer a simple (and relatively cheap) way to improve the survivability of older designs like the T-72 (T-72B Design dates from the mid-80s although later updates are from the twenty teens).

The T-72 series just have a poor upgrade path ahead of it due to being a compact vehicle with less volume and mass to work with. To improve capability significantly one needs a new tank. The T-14 is a tacit admission of the platform limits.

Size difference between the M1 and a T-72 is substantial (4-man versus 3-man crew) but you'll notice the T-14 (at bottom) is roughly the size of a T-72/80/90 anyway (caveat - not sure that bottom image is scaled correctly):



Handy guide to Russian armour below

 

[jeffb]

Russian autoloaders:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJzcY3ZNwcE&ab_channel=Observer

 

[paralay]

,

 

[paralay]

,

 

[helmutkohl]

. Korea is making some inroads into heavy armaments, but I dont think anyone has bought their heavy tank, just the IFV based one.

So that leaves China. Who seem to have several models available.

Korea has bought the K2 themselves in some numbers.. right now its competing against the Leopard 2A7 for Norway's order.
I suspect Norway will end up choosing the Leopard for commonality purposes.

however I dont see the K2 as being a T-72 type of replacement because IRC it's pretty expensive.

I do see Chinese tanks being used as T-72 replacements for existing operators that can't afford western tanks.
Thailand already uses the MBT-3000?

 

[BullpupRafale]

The T-72 series just have a poor upgrade path ahead of it due to being a compact vehicle with less volume and mass to work with. To improve capability significantly one needs a new tank. The T-14 is a tacit admission of the platform limits.

Except most prominent feature on T-14 Armata can be done on T-72 sized hull.

Russia could have also went for western style autoloader and have turret crew recessed partialy or entirely inside hull of T-72. Alternatively have both styles of autoloader with propellant charge in hull and ammunition in added turret rear basket autoloader. Space freed up in hull by relocating ammunition would allow for separation wall between propelan lt and crew, another benefit would be that profile change would not be radical.

 

[Fluff]

The T-72 series just have a poor upgrade path ahead of it due to being a compact vehicle with less volume and mass to work with. To improve capability significantly one needs a new tank. The T-14 is a tacit admission of the platform limits.

Except most prominent feature on T-14 Armata can be done on T-72 sized hull.

Russia could have also went for western style autoloader and have turret crew recessed partialy or entirely inside hull of T-72. Alternatively have both styles of autoloader with propellant charge in hull and ammunition in added turret rear basket autoloader. Space freed up in hull by relocating ammunition would allow for separation wall between propelan lt and crew, another benefit would be that profile change would not be radical.

To get the crew into the hull? that would take so much redesign, I think most designers would suggest you start with a clean sheet, even if your keeping the road wheels and the engine. But it wouldnt give you the level of armour, nor the ammo capacity, nor the growth in main gun allowed for. Something would need to go. A T72 sized T14 would be easy meat for existing ATGM and tank ammo.

 

[BullpupRafale]

To get the crew into the hull? that would take so much redesign, I think most designers would suggest you start with a clean sheet, even if your keeping the road wheels and the engine. But it wouldnt give you the level of armour, nor the ammo capacity, nor the growth in main gun allowed for. Something would need to go. A T72 sized T14 would be easy meat for existing ATGM and tank ammo.

You do not consider that primary limitation of T-64/T-72/80/90 is autoloader in hull as it restricts length of APFSDS.

Removing hull autoloader would allow gunner and commander to be entirely inside hull like the driver.

Having turret basket autoloader with single piece ammunition would allow longer APFSDS than also T-14 Armata could fit.

In worst case scenario the weight of tank is same while it would be better protected against top attack.

For like T-72B3M as example, in comparison less Relikt ERA would be needed and excess then mounted on sides of tank.

Primary permanent negative is need for more electronic components.

 

[Zaskar24]

Didn't the Ukrainians show a design for a T-64with the crew in the hull and an unmanned turret a few years ago? I thought that I had at least a picture but I cannot find it right now.

 

[Rhinocrates]

I think the current conflict has really highlighted the need for more and better active protection systems. Such systems offer better protection against both ATGM and artillery fire and because they can be largely "bolted-on", they offer a simple (and relatively cheap) way to improve the survivability of older designs like the T-72 (T-72B Design dates from the mid-80s although later updates are from the twenty teens).

Sorry, probably running way beyond the specific thread topic here... because it is speculative, mods might want to move it to another thread.

I certainly agree that this is a future path in the long-term evolution of the MBT. I gather that one of the many blunders the Russians have made is to fail to provide adequate infantry support, allowing Ukrainians to get close with portable anti-tank missiles and drones. They may have reasoned (rightly) that the modern battlefield is no longer 'safe' for infantry to operate.

one thing to point out too is that weather conditions have been on the Ukrainians' side, along with deliberate flooding. Boggy ground has slowed tanks and troops and restricted wheeled vehicles to to roads, making them sitting ducks. Putin can be blamed for choosing this time of year. The tanks would have been much more effective on frozen or dry ground.

A couple of thoughts that occurred to me...

Western MBTs are about as big and heavy as a practical tank can be - any heavier and the number of bridges they can cross reduces dramatically. Any wider and they can't be transported by train. Any longer and manoeuvrablity suffers (unless it's articulated, in which case complexity increases along with vulnerability and maintenance costs).

Drawing an analogy with naval warfare (well, tanks were once called landships), modern warships have ditched passive armour in favour of sensors and active defences, as well as dedicated air-defence escorts. The next step then might be, as jeffb says, bolt-on active protection systems. An advantage to that is that they can be modular - i.e., mixed and matched to specific conditions.

Beyond that, a version of the 'all or nothing' protection used in 20th century warships - maximised protection for the crew and fighting capacity but nothing for everything else (the T-14 is heading in this direction somewhat). Non-essential systems can themselves serve as protection - for the JLTV for example, the design utilises the engine as frontal protection, hence the simple, relatively rounded appearance of the nose versus the slab-sided rest of the vehicle.

Hybrid or even fully electrical power systems could revolutionise packaging. A big internal combustion engine is needed for accelerating a huge mass of armour but with reduced armour mass and the internal combustion engine reduced to being a generator for multiple (and redundant) electric motors, mass and power demands can be conserved while retaining acceleration (electric is great for acceleration). Hub-in-wheel motors are the subject of research now and should be swappable in the field. In any case, electrical generation capability will need to increase anyway to power the systems that will be needed in the future.

Escorts. There's plenty of research in autonomous AFVs. Small specialised escorts could replace infantry cover and be suited to reconnaissance, anti-personnel, anti-artillery and anti-drone roles. Ranging in size from Spot with a rifle (see that Black Mirror episode, 'Metalhead') to BAE's Black Knight (not the proposed Challenger upgrade, Black Night).

Black Knight (vehicle) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The advantage of these is that they don't require a blank slate design for the MBT and can be introduced alongside older systems.

Active stealth or spoofing. https://www.baesystems.com/en/feature/adativ-cloak-of-invisibility

DEWs. The main objection to lasers is that battlefields are often covered with smoke, which scatters light. However, scattering is dependent on wavelength and particulate size (which is why fine cigarette smoke looks blue and coarse-grained smog looks reddish). Low IR and microwave would be less affected. Handy for drones perhaps but not so much for artillery where the time taken to burn the target can be several seconds.

Finally, everythingone everywhere, all at once (a really fun film, I recommend it) are talking about systems of systems and fusion. Ideally, it means that a tank can draw on a an extensive range of services and knit them together into a fighting capability with real-time sensing, communications and firepower. In practice, it should allow commanders to become like William Heath Robinson - cobbling together available assets spontaneously for a specific task. A network can degrade and still work while a monolith can't.

Black Knight is being evaluated now, I think, and you can expect DARPA's GXV-T (or whatever its called now) program to experiment with some of these instead of silly maintenance nightmares like the reconfigurable wheel track (

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iqODh0Czls&ab_channel=DPCcars
).

Finally, before my medication takes effect, since T-72 have been functioning largely as turret-launching platforms ('There seems to be something wrong with their bloody tanks today', as Admiral Beatty would say), one 'improvement' would be this:


That could launch the turret right into orbit!

 

[Josh_TN]

The shear number of T-72s in storage in Russia and Ukraine and the lack of much production in the west I think will ensure the type is continually updated and still the most prolific MBT is usage for some time. I suspect if anyone buys brand new tanks China will some day become the next big MBT exporter to the world (medium to long term).

As others have noted, all MBTs suffer from propellant fires after penetrations. The M1 is AFAIK singularly unique in that its ammo storage is completely separated from the crew compartment which increases survivability (notice the TC or gunner bailing out in the video above) but you're still left with a knocked out tank afterwards. Also as others noted above the M1 pays a huge penalty in size, weight, and cost to have the armor layout and ammo storage it does have.

I think in the far future, large caliber direct fire platforms will likely employ more all around protection against smaller calibers and have to rely on active protection systems and compartmentalization (gun/ammo separated from crew) to lower vulnerability and casualties to large caliber ATGMs/guns. However in the short term you are mostly going to see current or recent production MBTs up armored and equipped with protection systems, not clean sheet designs. IMO there are too many legacy systems left over from the cold war in storage on both sides for anyone to bother building brand new vehicles with only incrementally superior survivability.

 

[Hood]

The whole point of the M1's armour design was to save the crew though, so it works as advertised.
Yes its a wreck but then one flaming wreck is much like another on a battlefield.
It was a realistic assessment that you can't keep every armour-piercing munition out but that you could try and save the high-cost skilled manpower inside it.

 

[Josh_TN]

I think the M1 blowout panel arrangement also tends to confine the damage to the turret. I believe some M1s that suffered propellent fires had their hulls salvaged rather easily. I think in any other design the tank is totalled.

 

[Topi]

Concerning the possible replacements/competitors of the T-72 in the future tank markets I have a few ideas which have not yet been mentioned here.

Several Chinese tanks have been mentioned here but not the ZTQ-15 / VT-5. Yes, it is a light tank and not a MBT, but this might actually be an advantage in many developing countries as its light weight will allow operations in places where the transport infrastructure is poor and its lower fuel consumption will somewhat reduce operating costs and the logistics requirements. Additionally, its 105 mm rifled gun should be able to fire any L7 ammunition in addition to Chinese made ones, it has a bustle-mounted autoloader, adequate armour, excellent mobility and first-class electronics.

Another possibility not mentioned here is a further development of the T-84 Yatagan if Ukraine manages to rebuild the Kharkiv tractor factory. With somewhat increased armour (incl. Kniž), an update engine and modern electronics (incl. a thermal sight), it should be a decent tank with a bustle-mounted autoloader, either a 120 mm or a 125 mm gun and possibly with no strings attached. Its weight of around 50 tons would again make it more suited to the developing world than Western MBTs and being a derivative of a Soviet tank, it should be easier for T-72 crews to get used to it than to Western designs.

 

[Foo Fighter]

If they fit the German 120mm gun they could also update later to the 130mm if needed. Commonality with NATO munitions would seem to be a strong selling point when this current kitbash is over.

 

[helmutkohl]

Concerning the possible replacements/competitors of the T-72 in the future tank markets I have a few ideas which have not yet been mentioned here.

Several Chinese tanks have been mentioned here but not the ZTQ-15 / VT-5. Yes, it is a light tank and not a MBT, but this might actually be an advantage in many developing countries as its light weight will allow operations in places where the transport infrastructure is poor and its lower fuel consumption will somewhat reduce operating costs and the logistics requirements. Additionally, its 105 mm rifled gun should be able to fire any L7 ammunition in addition to Chinese made ones, it has a bustle-mounted autoloader, adequate armour, excellent mobility and first-class electronics.

Another possibility not mentioned here is a further development of the T-84 Yatagan if Ukraine manages to rebuild the Kharkiv tractor factory. With somewhat increased armour (incl. Kniž), an update engine and modern electronics (incl. a thermal sight), it should be a decent tank with a bustle-mounted autoloader, either a 120 mm or a 125 mm gun and possibly with no strings attached. Its weight of around 50 tons would again make it more suited to the developing world than Western MBTs and being a derivative of a Soviet tank, it should be easier for T-72 crews to get used to it than to Western designs.

on the subject of the T-84s
have any comparisons been made with other tanks?
I believe Thailand and Ukraine operates the T-84 and modern Chinese tanks that could lead to interesting comparisons

one other thing I wanted to point out is that Tanks and other armored vehicles, unlike combat aircraft, the demand for clean sheet designs is not as strong. Upgrading older ones can go a long way still.

 

[shin_getter]

In the spirit of "people do what they must", the replacement of T-72 can be....

T-72 with ROBOTS:


You may go, whaaaa, why would anyone put robots in a tank like it is starwars?

Actually the reasonable is simple: new tanks is expensive, old tanks can be stored for decades. Maintenance of crews is also expensive. Robots are moving into civilian technology with lead time measured in "do you have prime with that" and would not actually be expensive with mass production. It is just machinery, AI not needed as teleoperation interface. In a crisis, it is plausible that there is a lot of old tanks available but few crews, and even less of that is willing to go forward in a deathtrap of a tank.

So buy some robots, run the "operate_T72.exe" and call it a day.
----------------
Example Future Timeline:

2030: Farawaystani state mothballs T-72, citing budget issues
2035: After the 7th 2-more year promise, Teslabot (Beta) is released with API kit
2040: Civilwar in Farawaystani, the existing state heavy forces suffer huge loss and dissertation rates and is ineffective.
2043: Splinter Farawaystani faction with control to the reserve T-72 stocks undergoes a program to put the tanks into use despite totally insufficient crews. Cue combination civil-military technology of robots in tanks, with a few crews teleoperating a large tank force.

Tank operation is actually a reasonable task for robots. Tank crew is a hazardous job unsuited for humans. Replacing human operated tanks is expensive, with needs hard to predict and likely not always done. The problem of operating machinery under datalinks is not challenging and do not require AI or dynamic mobility, as we've seen in cases of robots operating aircraft: see



Robots makes the whole optionally manned idea quite funny.
--------
Also, the whole narrative about electronics jamming and warfare is wrong. Lots of very serious conflicts is against forces with no electronics warfare capability whatsoever: ask the Syrians or even the Americans.

A 50ton MBT able to throw hundreds of horsepower into communications is about the hardest thing to jam in the battlefield. Aerial communication relay is also a given, if you've lost air/spectrum fight so bad that you can't keep aerial/space relays at any level of attitude your tanks can't survive either as all lighter covering forces are jammed and enemy air attacks are trivial. The now some may cry about ELINT, but in the coming era where APS radar lets you be detected 300km away and bored highschoolers on OSINT satellite images can track your armor movements, there is no stealth. The question to me is who will be the first space tourists that conduct ISR with oversized nikons looking out the window. Finally, robot operation is for getting some value out of the scrapheap, it is no great loss if it gets destroyed.

There are conflicts where teleoperated tanks do not fit, but there are also those that fit. You can see from ANNA videos, that existing Syrian armor is controlled by commanders with quadcopter view of the battlefield with a bunch of voice radios giving detailed commands like "shoot that window after you go around that corner." Can totally replace internal crew with external one with a upgrade in bandwidth.

The future is a longggg time.....

 

[Archibald]

Finally, before my medication takes effect, since T-72 have been functioning largely as turret-launching platforms ('There seems to be something wrong with their bloody tanks today', as Admiral Beatty would say), one 'improvement' would be this:

That could launch the turret right into orbit!

ROTFL.

You say in orbit ? I say... into the ground.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJ5__1PPgNQ

Don't laugh, UR-500 was initially created to launch Tsar bombas into orbit.

 

[Mark Nankivil]

The whole point of the M1's armour design was to save the crew though, so it works as advertised.
Yes its a wreck but then one flaming wreck is much like another on a battlefield.
It was a realistic assessment that you can't keep every armour-piercing munition out but that you could try and save the high-cost skilled manpower inside it.

That's the difference between the US, and the West as a whole, vs. Russia and probably China too is that the survival of the crew is a key part of the design requirements. Surely the blown turrets, etc. showed up during testing and for that matter, simply looking at the design and go "what if" it is hit.

Enjoy the Day! Mark

 

[TomS]

The whole point of the M1's armour design was to save the crew though, so it works as advertised.
Yes its a wreck but then one flaming wreck is much like another on a battlefield.
It was a realistic assessment that you can't keep every armour-piercing munition out but that you could try and save the high-cost skilled manpower inside it.

That's the difference between the US, and the West as a whole, vs. Russia and probably China too is that the survival of the crew is a key part of the design requirements. Surely the blown turrets, etc. showed up during testing and for that matter, simply looking at the design and go "what if" it is hit.

Enjoy the Day! Mark

The T-14 is explicitly designed to enhance crew survivability, so it's not like the Russians are actively opposed to protecting tank crews.

It appears that the logic behind the T-72 was that overall survivability was more enhanced by lowering the vertical exposure of the tank and improving frontal protection. When the T-72 was designed, APFSDSDU wasn't a thing and the T-72 was pretty well armored against 1960s tungsten carbide APDS. Rounds that could straight up penetrate the glacis plate on a T-72 didn't happen until the 1980s.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

I think the T-64/72/80 and their later derivatives represent Soviet thinking on efficiency more than anything else. There is a lot of emphasis on maximizing the armor an attacking weapon would face (hopefully limited to the frontal arc), but crew comfort and survivability in the event of a projectile getting through were lesser concerns. If a Soviet armored unit smashed itself to pieces to make a breach for the following unit to exploit it had done its job and getting those damaged vehicles and exhausted crews back into action were secondary. As harsh as it sounds a crippled tank with some surviving crew and a total loss would have been no different for the general in charge.

Admittedly when the T-64 entered service and for a decade or so after there wasn't much fielded innovation in Western MBT design in regards to armor or survivability so it's not as damning as it may sound.

 

[Stovepipe]

I read that the existing Russian autoloader evolved from an original attempt to autoload full size cartridges and when that was unachievable with a smallish tank, they went for the seperate loading ammunition. The current loader is a derivative of a ship's loading system.

 

[Topi]

With T-62s now being sent to Ukraine possibly due to a lack of more modern tanks in Russia, an issue with Soviet tank designs and production which has not been discussed in this thread seems to be rearing its ugly head. The T-72 series are actually difficult and slow to maintain and repair in the field when. For example, when compared to newer Western designs like Leopard 2 where the engine, gearbox and transmission form a power pack which can be changed and the damaged one sent to a depot or to the factory for repairs, the changing or repairing of anything in the powerplant of a T-72 is a slow and arduous task which apparently usually has to take place at a maintenance depot in the rear areas. This problem is made worse by insufficient production of spares which probably goes a long way in explaining the cannibalisation of stored tanks. I am not sure about the situation with Chinese tanks WRT powerpacks, but I would guess that they follow Western standards here considering the generally speaking efficient logistics networks in place in China.

 

[Foo Fighter]

If T-62's are being sent to the Ukraine another chain of spares comes into play thus complicating the supply chain. On top of which you will need to train crews to operate them.
Regardless of where you put the things, you need to be able to operate them effectively. What would happen if we tried to put Chieftain back into service?

 

[Cannonfodder43]

From my observations, it appears unlikely that even under better circumstances the Russians would not be able to replace the T-72/90 family on a 1 for 1 basis. Between the immaturity of the Armata and the more pressing needs for modernizations to other parts of the armed forces the T-72/90 will be around for a long time.

In terms of immediate modernizations in light of lessons from Ukraine I would recommend the following,

• Install Arena-M Active Protection System: Despite the system existing the Russians in their penny pinching did not bother to procure the system as part of any of the modernization programs. Penny wise pound foolish in this case, in the age of proliferating advanced ATGM systems its a vital necessity to help the tankers.
• T-90M Style Bustle for loose ammo stowage: While the T-72's ammo storage in the carousel in the base of the tank is decently protected for the 1970's, it is certainly no longer viable if the survivability of trained crews is to be prioritized. Still the 22 rounds in the autoloader are not going anywhere and any additional loose ammo not stored within fuel tank wet cells should be relocated to an external bustle as seen in the T-90M.

Longer term upgrades would preferably require that the carousel autoloader be replaced by bustle autoloader and magazine system. But the T-72 as a system is not at all bad.

Having said that IMO many miss the forest for the trees when it comes to attributing the causes of T-72 losses. It has been pointed out that drone directed artillery accounts for upwards of 50% of all armor losses among the Russians and APS systems are not at all suited to handle that. And issues regarding the losses and damage caused by ATGM teams are more due to insufficient infantry and armor cooperation, often a result of a lack of infantryman to cover the tanks. The Russians have an acute shortage of infantry, the VDV especially falling short of adequate numbers of dismounts to help their BMD's.

I would be remiss to point out that many of the images of knocked out T-72's we never saw what knocked them out and or destroyed them. And in imagery and video we see hits but often don't see the aftermath, the editing sleigh of hand in propaganda cuts a lot of information and context out. They show you what they want you to see, keep that in mind.

And lastly, in a war of the type being fought in Ukraine; tank loses are inevitable. Conventional wars have a noted tendency to burn through a lot of equipment on both sides very quickly, especially if both are actually fairly evenly matched at the tactical level a lot of the time. Initial opening bungles and tactical blunders aside, considering the capability and level of opposition, the losses suffered by the Russians would be similar with any other vehicle. And by all accounts the T-72's are still taking and dishing out pain quite handily, be it against Ukrainians or Russians.

 

[Pioneer]

If I may, it appears by the footage I've seen thus far, that a great portion of Russia's armour losses has to do with poor tactics as much as anything. The the amount of man-portable anti-tank weapons supplied by the west is unparalleled. The seeming saturation of anti-tank weapons in the hands of the Ukrainians would undoubtedly mean the death of any type/make of MBT, be it T-72 or Leopard 2 or M1 for that matter.
Almost every piece of footage I've seen of Russian armour being taken out clearly appears to lack infantry support so as to clear and neutralise these vast numbers of Ukrainian tank hunting teams - especially in urban areas.
As for the reinstatement and movement of T-62 by the Russian Army into the theatre of operations sort of makes sense to me, as I think its possibly overlooked that the Russian's would most likely be holding it's best armour back in case NATO was to become combat active against it. I think its also safe to say that the Ukrainians have probably lost the cream of their own best MBT already, so the T-62 as a gun fire-support platform, as the MBT's have been employed would make sense.
After all a tank is a tank to soldier who's facing it, whether it was built in the 1960's or 2022....



Regards
Pioneer

 

[Hood]

Would there even be any reliable ammo left for the T-62? The tanks are probably pushing 60 years old, the ammo about 30 years?

 

[Josh_TN]

Ammo ages pretty well. I still fire Yugo 7.62 from an M66; both gun and ammo are as old as I am at least (45). And there was certainly no shortage of production of 115mm in Soviet times.

 

[jeffb]

If I may, it appears by the footage I've seen thus far, that a great portion of Russia's armour losses has to do with poor tactics as much as anything. The the amount of man-portable anti-tank weapons supplied by the west is unparalleled. The seeming saturation of anti-tank weapons in the hands of the Ukrainians would undoubtedly mean the death of any type/make of MBT, be it T-72 or Leopard 2 or M1 for that matter.
Almost every piece of footage I've seen of Russian armour being taken out clearly appears to lack infantry support so as to clear and neutralise these vast numbers of Ukrainian tank hunting teams - especially in urban areas.
As for the reinstatement and movement of T-62 by the Russian Army into the theatre of operations sort of makes sense to me, as I think its possibly overlooked that the Russian's would most likely be holding it's best armour back in case NATO was to become combat active against it. I think its also safe to say that the Ukrainians have probably lost the cream of their own best MBT already, so the T-62 as a gun fire-support platform, as the MBT's have been employed would make sense.
After all a tank is a tank to soldier who's facing it, whether it was built in the 1960's or 2022....

Regards
Pioneer

Good points here Pioneer. I came across a nice little youtube video by Nicholas Moran (US Nat Guard Major) who does a tank history channel on youtube that echoes some of your points but talks mainly about being careful what assumptions we are drawing from the footage we're seeing.

View: https://youtu.be/W9pVEP0AzZ4

 

[Pioneer]

If I may, it appears by the footage I've seen thus far, that a great portion of Russia's armour losses has to do with poor tactics as much as anything. The the amount of man-portable anti-tank weapons supplied by the west is unparalleled. The seeming saturation of anti-tank weapons in the hands of the Ukrainians would undoubtedly mean the death of any type/make of MBT, be it T-72 or Leopard 2 or M1 for that matter.
Almost every piece of footage I've seen of Russian armour being taken out clearly appears to lack infantry support so as to clear and neutralise these vast numbers of Ukrainian tank hunting teams - especially in urban areas.
As for the reinstatement and movement of T-62 by the Russian Army into the theatre of operations sort of makes sense to me, as I think its possibly overlooked that the Russian's would most likely be holding it's best armour back in case NATO was to become combat active against it. I think its also safe to say that the Ukrainians have probably lost the cream of their own best MBT already, so the T-62 as a gun fire-support platform, as the MBT's have been employed would make sense.
After all a tank is a tank to soldier who's facing it, whether it was built in the 1960's or 2022....

Regards
Pioneer

Good points here Pioneer. I came across a nice little youtube video by Nicholas Moran (US Nat Guard Major) who does a tank history channel on youtube that echoes some of your points but talks mainly about being careful what assumptions we are drawing from the footage we're seeing.

View: https://youtu.be/W9pVEP0AzZ4

Thanks you jeffb, I appreciate the reference and link to the video. I concur with Nicholas Moran analogy.

Regards
Pioneer

 

[paralay]

,

 

[Pioneer]

I suggest waiting for the appearance of the T-62 at the front before discussing their movements. Russia has enough tanks T-64 / 72 / 80

I like this Anglo-Saxon arrogance about the "incompetent" conduct of the war. I want to ask, when was the last time you faced a worthy opponent at the front? Probably never?

You make some good points paralay, in regards to the T-62's and the West not facing a peer adversary.

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Foo Fighter]

I believe you are taking the word 'incompetent' out of context. The T-62 for example, was not developed for the current battlefield as we are seeing it but then what is right now?

 

[Fluff]

Would there even be any reliable ammo left for the T-62? The tanks are probably pushing 60 years old, the ammo about 30 years?

I believe Russia still sold these old tanks to Africa etc. So presumably they are still making ammo, assuming the cold war stocks are sold/used up.

 

[Stovepipe]

I suggest waiting for the appearance of the T-62 at the front before discussing their movements. Russia has enough tanks T-64 / 72 / 80

I like this Anglo-Saxon arrogance about the "incompetent" conduct of the war. I want to ask, when was the last time you faced a worthy opponent at the front? Probably never?

Russia can take over any European country using only monuments

As has been amply demonstrated, Russia's forces in Ukraine appear to have no equivalent of REME, chronically bad logistics, no competent NCO corps, no camouflage netting, no tactical nous when it comes to simple section/platoon movement, no decent close support tactics by aircraft, the VDV have been shown to be paper tigers and the Chechens appear to be no more than street sweeping thugs. Vehicles of all shapes and sizes have been found to have chronically bad maintenance in service and as a result of incompetent storage. The only arms of their Service that appears to function is artillery and some of the aviation assets and they are simply being used as blunt force hammers. Apart from that, they are lying to the families about casualties and loss rates. Did I leave anything out?