The Death of an SAA T-72 Tank *Video*

[Feuer Frei!]

This is awesome footage (around 9 mins.) of Syrian T-72's in combat against Syrian Rebels.

If you like Tanks as much as i do then watch it...Turret cam ftw:rock:

Oh, and around 7:08 it will become clear why the title of this thread.

SOURCE (http://www.military.com/video/operations-and-strategy/antitank-weapons/death-of-an-saa-t-72-tank/2255200979001/)

[TLAM Strike]

Here is another T-72 hit by an RPG-29:

http://raw.prochan.com/Raw/t/f49_1359150133

Hit its ammunition rack by the look of it. One crewman survived somehow and made it out of the bottom escape hatch..

[Jimbuna]

He certainly didn't hang around for long :)

[Stealhead]

Here is another T-72 hit by an RPG-29:

http://raw.prochan.com/Raw/t/f49_1359150133

Hit its ammunition rack by the look of it. One crewman survived somehow and made it out of the bottom escape hatch..


Was that his skin hanging off or his clothes or both?I recon both I dont think you could walk or run away from that unharmed he only had about 2 seconds to get out he must have started as soon as the round hit you can see him jump out right as the 'blow torch" started he might have already been unde the tank at that point. Odd that the other T-72 nearest the camera facing the enemy is not even attempting to suppress the direction the enemy is clearly attacking from.

Here is another method you can see that they set off the ammo with this one as well.The T-72 was clearly designed with crew survivability in mind.
http://www.prochan.com/view?p=819_1354818221

T-72 escape system
http://i863.photobucket.com/albums/ab197/vaambg/m84-8.jpg

[Nippelspanner]

Some impressive footage here.
As grusome as war is, it is very fascinating in so many aspects...

[Stealhead]

Some impressive footage here.
As grusome as war is, it is very fascinating in so many aspects...


My father said that about Vietnam he enjoyed combat he said it made him feel like a tiger hunting another tiger.He found out that warfare brings out instincts that you are suppress.

[Skybird]

Odd that the other T-72 nearest the camera facing the enemy is not even attempting to suppress the direction the enemy is clearly attacking from.
Not at all when considering the urban environment and the fact that sight from T-72s is extremely bad when buttoned up.

The T-72 was clearly designed with crew survivability in mind.

Not certain whether you are kidding or not. The T-72 was designed to survive long enough in WWIII battles against American and German forces to get off ten shots before being destroyed - and that was the optimistic expectation. But as I said - their sights suck.

[Feuer Frei!]

Skybird is correct.

The only thing i can imagine being advantageous in crew survivability is the ammo containers being isolated. That is imo the only real reason why you would say crew survivability comes into it.
But, with the T-72 it's problematic since it has an autoloader for the main gun. Reason is the 125mm main gun of the T-72 uses a semi-combustible propellant case for its ammunition. That is, when the round is fired, most of the case burns during the shot, and only a small stub at the base is ejected.
But because of the way the autoloader on the T-72 was designed, this combustible ammunition was arrayed on a carousel at the bottom of the turret basket, and exposed. That’s bad for the ammo, and really bad for the crew if there is any explosion aboard.

Here are some videos of a Syrian Tanker, giving his personal views on the T-72.
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NFF4Gc9Mb5c

Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=udH9uveEQOY

The T-72 was commonly referred to as the 'Beast from the East'.

There were many versions of the T-72 tank built.
Iraqi T-72's were built from 'kits', shipped in from Russia for example.
Export versions were armoured with low-grade steel. The T-72B quickly followed, which had even thicker armour and was soon fitted with Kontakt-1 Explosive Reactive Armour (ERA) as extra protection against anti-tank missiles.
By using heavy flying plates each side of an explosive charge this new ERA generated enough energy to shatter the sabot rounds fired by NATO tanks. When the USSR fell apart both Germany and the USA obtained T-72B tanks and tested their own tank guns on them. To their surprise and alarm the T-72B was almost invulnerable to 120mm sabot fire.

The latest models have an improved gun made with machinery imported from Germany, and can fire longer sabot shells; their penetrating power is now at least as great as NATO tank guns. T-72Bs can also fire a range of gun-launched missiles, letting them attack tanks and helicopters out to 5 kilometres. Because of its automatic loader the T-72 only needs a crew of three, instead of the four found in western tanks.

Tanks are considered useless in Urban environments.

[TLAM Strike]

Tanks are considered useless in Urban environments.

Interesting post on that here by a retired tanker. (http://worldoftanks.com/news/2158-chieftains-hatch-ten-years-irrelevance/)

But we were learning this as we went. There were certain ‘fundamental truths’ which we knew when we started which we then rethought. Firstly, simply the utility of the tank in patrolling. We would run with a track on the soft shoulder in the hope of detonating mines. Tank would be immobilized, and we’d have to spend some time fixing it, but better the tank hit it than a HMMWV. (This was back in the days when our two HMMWVs had steel plate bolted to them), and quite handy when a Route Clearing Package isn’t around. We actually had a very boring tour, after the first week when the opposition realized that we were bringing tanks along, they proved not to be so stupid as to deliberately engage us. The noise of the tracks could be heard coming from some distance away, so much like the siren of a police car, once the opposition figured out we were coming, they’d break contact before our arrival. Lots of happy infantrymen for our having stopped the fight, but we never got to even see the opposition, let alone engage them. As a general rule, wherever we went, it was quiet. Tanks are great at peacekeeping!
Eventually we were relocated to Mosul and attached to a Stryker unit up there, which wanted something a bit meaner than an 8x8 truck. As a tanker, I was not particularly happy about this. I was well versed with the concept that tanks and cities tend not to mix. How foolish I was, and how easily I was willing to disregard decades of experience on the subject learned by others. Of course tanks are useful in cities: They provide exactly the same advantages in the city as they do in the open. Their vulnerabilities are emphasized differently, but their advantages are the same.

[Feuer Frei!]

Well, i take that onboard however he doesn't really go into detail in relation to what advantages a tank has in urban theatres.
Indeed he was referring more to the fact that tanks ARE relevant to battlefield tactics, which to some extent can include urban warfare.
When operating in urban areas, all-round observation is immediately limited and restrictions to maneuver capabilities are exercised.
Sniping, dropping bombs from roof tops or upper floor windows, attempting to attack through open hatches.
Attacking simultaneous on both flanks from alleys, allowing the enemy to fire RPGs from close range at these relatively weak areas of the tank’s armor.
Man-portable anti-tank weapons such as RPGs are considered the most dangerous.
Urban warfare has no frontline, meaning attacks can come from all sides.

There are of course enhancements that can be made to tanks to increase their use in this environment.
Marking poles, steel mesh protection to air intakes, exhausts and openings, remotely activated machine guns, sniper firing hatches, hull mounted rams, weapon systems remotely controlled and more.

[Skybird]

I strongly doubt your claim the T-72's latest gun has the penetrative power of Wetsern L44 and L55 guns. It lacks precision over long range and limits the effective useful combat range to around 3-3,5 km, where the projectiles cannot defeat Western armour. The effective engagement range thus probably lies below 2000m. At very short ranges, yes, practically all tanbkls these days have overkill punch. But the penetrating power of SABOT ammunition declines fast with the T-72 gun. The gun versions used in T-72s also have different muzzle velocities that add to disadvantages in range and precision, it is not only the ammo itself.

The export versions of the T-72 almost always were of inferiror quality and armour, compared to ther stuff produced by the Sovijets, for use by Sowjet forces. That is true for the Polish and Czech versions, and those that were delivered into ME countries. Already in th eearly 90s their armour was no match for American first generation uran ammution (thus the nickname "silver bullet"). The Americans lead in uran-core ammunition design. The Germans lead in conventional (Tungsten) design. Latest egneration Tungsten rounds form Germany achieve almost the same penetration power like 3rd generation uran ammo. T-72 cannot compete here. Their dangerous wepaon over loing disdtance is the gun-launched missile like Refleks, these things fly slow, but are devastating if hitting. However, they are almost non-existent in tanks outside the former WP states, and are rare even in the Russian arsenal for T-72s.

---

Some quick overview information from data used in SBP, since I already had that as a separate table. Mind you, these data are not classified but reasonable estimations done by pros and former or active insiders on basis of publicly available material.

All numbers xxx/xxxx mean RHA in mm and initial V0 in m/s.

Abrams and many Leopard-2s share the L44 gun, let'S start with the L44 gun first.

A widespread round for that is the DM33 from Germany, 1987: 600/1650
The 1988 US pendant from that time is the uran-core M829A1: 700/1575
The Germans then came with the DM53 some time later: 840/1670.
The Americans finally answered with the M829A3 in 2003: 850/1555

Maximum useful ranges: 3500-4000 m.

So originally, the first generation uran core ammo was slightly superior to the earlier designs of German Tungsten, a gap that the Germans than managed to close.

Compare that to the best and latest T-72 ammo available in SBP, the BM42M, Russia 1998: 630/1600.
Max. useful range: 3300 m.

I can tell you from having played with that, you almost never hit something vital at that range, not to mention delivering a lethal first blow, due to the original T-72's bad sights you also do not see much at that range. Thermal imagers were added later to T-72 for some countries only. The penetration power at 3000+ meters is such that you are not well advised to shoot at a modern Western tank at that range. He can kill you at that range with one shot. It is unlikely you will kill him at that range.

Let'S see with some other ammunition.

The L55 makes the gap even more obvious, unfortunately the sim doe snot give data on using American ammo with it, since the only tank in SBP featuring the L55 is the Leopard-2E.

The latest round DM55 fired from an L55, is listed with this data: 920/1800, useful range 4000m and more. That leaves 3rd generation uran ammo fired from L44 guns behind.

And then there is the feared (and deservdly so) Refleks, rare, but lethal when being met. The seciond version is the AT-11b from 1992, listed like this: 1300/800, max range 5000m.

Ouch, is all I say. It flies half as slow than a normal SABOT round, and is remote controlled. Where available and where terrain allows the use, it gives NATO tank commanders a headache. However, it is not SABOT, it is a missile.

Amazing that the Russians build such a small missile that nevertheless is as lethal to armour like a TOW-2.

---

I did not list the Chally2, since SBP models the earliest version of that thing's gun, which was hopelessly inferior and a great disappointment. The Brits I think soon switched to using a different gun, giving the Chally finally the punch that this heavily protected beast deserved.

I expect that Eastern and Western tactical doctrine favours different optimal engagement ranges, to reduce advantages of the enemy's arsenal and maximising one's own strengths.

[Skybird]

On tanks in urban environment, the old assumption this does not play well had to be reconsidered since Thunder Run, and since the Israelis successfully implemented tanks in urban operations and for purposes of urban peacekeeping and control. It obviously is a question of having accordingly designed equipment (else you get trapped from being fired on from building floors to high for your gun to be trimmed at or being seen by your sensors: Russian tanks in the Georgian war), and accordingly tailored tactics.

The Israelis have specialised tank designs for urban operations. The Leopards have one or two variants for that role, too ("PSO"). Many other, smaller vehicle types also are designed with urban combat in mind.

Sending T-72 into a city without adequate infantry support and the enemy being armed with Panzerfaust and ATGMs does not sound like a brilliant idea to me. Which is illustrated by videos like to be seen in the thread's beginning.