Bradley vs T-72

[Jaguar]

OK, this is a bit OT, but what sort of Russian tanks came in between the development of the T72 and the T90, and does Iraq have any of them?

[Mordoch]

Originally posted by Jaguar Warrior
OK, this is a bit OT, but what sort of Russian tanks came in between the development of the T72 and the T90, and does Iraq have any of them?

The T-80 would be the tank model, and Iraq doesn't have any of them.

[CerberusIV]

It is a bit confusing because the Soviet Union did not go out of its way to clarify this sort of question but AFAIK

The original post WWII tank was the T54/55 type, developed into the T62.

Then the T64/T72 came out. The T64 was Soviet forces only and the T72 was similar but exported.

Then the T80 came out and was followed by the T88 (or they may have been variants of the same model).

Then the T90.

It is further complicated by there being several variants of each model, usually with non-interchangeable parts.

[Kramerman]

Ive had some arguements about Explosive reactive armor vs Cobham armor (from a T-90 vs M1A1 discussion). Any thoughts on superiority or advantages/disadvantages of one or another?

[CerberusIV]

Explosive reactive armour only works once

Seriously - a burst of 25mm fire from a Bradley would make a mess of, or even detonate, a segment of reactive armour and strip away the protection from that part of the tank. It then depends on the probability of a tank round or a missile hitting that area.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by CerberusIV

Then the T64/T72 came out. The T64 was Soviet forces only and the T72 was similar but exported.

Then the T80 came out and was followed by the T88 (or they may have been variants of the same model).

The T64 and T72 were from different design lines with the T64 produced by the Soviets before the T72 but in limited numbers compared to the many variants of the T72 and T80. In many ways the T64 can be seen as an experimental tank design that saw some production.

The soviets exported the T72S which was a stripped down version of tank with which they equipped their own divisions.

[red_mustard]

The T-72 is no match for any US or UK tank out there. While a T-72 has to get within 200 yards to hope for destroying an Abrams head on. An abrams simply stands off at a mile with no problems.

A bradley 25mm DU*AP munition can certainly penetrate a T-72's front turret armor. Unfortunately for the T-72 deathtrap, it probably wouldnt get the chance to fire back. As the ammunition storage is located in a turret compartment and we have all seen the pictures of the T-72 turrets a half mile away from the rest of the tank. The T-72 125mmA2 gun is underpowered even in its day. Among other things it ammunition suffered poor quality control, some rounds simply never detonating after penetration or some round simply never firing at all. It was the Warsaw Pact standard up until the late 80's.

A few more disadvantages are the most obvouis. T-72's are unable to use there Laser Range finders on the move and must fire from stationary positions. Bradleys and Abrams are mobile vehicles when firing in tank battles.

The Auto Loader on a T-72 can only get out 4-5 shots per minute. The Abrams can go 10-20 on a good loader.


Conclusion
Theres no match. A T-72 cannot take on anything in Iraq currently with exception, the humvee.

[Lord Merciless]

I think a T72 in Russian hands would accomplish far more than in Iraqi hands.

[red_mustard]

I think your wrong. As the T-72M1b (Lions of Babylon) Iraqi local produced version is considered better than the last Russian produced T-72BV model. The Russian had scrapped most of there T-72's after the gulf war realizing the folly of there design. The T-90 is much better tank. Its everything the T-72 was meant to be.

I think Iraqi Republican Gaurd tank crews were very well trained now and in the gulf war. For all there losses, they stood and fought and got several hits. Its just a matter of the tank being such a poor tank. And now look at the recent counter attack. 30 T-72's and some buses counterattacked. We just cut em up before they had a chance to damage us.

[red_mustard]

Should say that only about 1/3 of Iraqi T-72's (500) were ever locally produced. Most were imported from WP states. The factory was made in 1986 and built about 400 T-72's before being bombed in 1991 and was unable to continue producing at a good pace. In 1998 it was targeted again but at the time it was proved that the factory had stopped producing tank parts but was changed to a civilian auto-parts plant.

[JCG]

Originally posted by red_mustard As the T-72M1b (Lions of Babylon) Iraqi local produced version is considered better than the last Russian produced T-72BV model.

Interesting...any source on that?

I'd imagine that those T-72s were to be upgraded in a couple of areas, but that they would still be lacking in others compared to the Russian version...like optics/targetting equipment, perhaps.

Anyways, I think he meant that Russian crews should be, on the average, much better than Iraqi ones...

[Lord Merciless]

Tanks need to be in hands of experienced crews and competent commanders to be truly effective. Israelis didn't care whether their tanks were M48, M60, or Centurion, they kicked Syrian and Egyptian butts regardless. Iraqi military doctrine was stuck at WW1 level.

500 T-72s in Russian hands can be a frightening force.

[GePap]

dp

[GePap]

Wow, a rare tp...damn server....

[GePap]

Originally posted by CerberusIV
It is a bit confusing because the Soviet Union did not go out of its way to clarify this sort of question but AFAIK

The original post WWII tank was the T54/55 type, developed into the T62.

During 1946 the T-44 was coming into limited service, plus the soviets were making IS-3's. The T-54/55 was an offshoot of the T-44, but it did have to wait a few years before coming into service, while the T-34/86 remained the main tank o Soviet forces (look at film of the Soviets coming into Budapest and see how many T-54's vs. T-34/86 you can spot.)

I agree with the notion that the Iraqis are doign badly not only due to vastly inferior equipment but bad training and unimaginative use of what little they got.