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

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

SOURCE

[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]

Originally Posted by 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..

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

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

[Stealhead]

Originally Posted by Nippelspanner

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]

Originally Posted by Stealhead

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:

Part 2:

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]

Originally Posted by Feuer Frei!

Tanks are considered useless in Urban environments.

Interesting post on that here by a retired tanker.

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.