Failed Tanks

This discussion about the T-64 calls for an episode of Failed Tanks:

Pugnax wrote:The T-55 gets a bad rap for being vulnerable...its an old platform but deserves a place of honour.Morozovs T-55AG would be a great asser in countries where fire support is required and a threat by western powers unlikely.Surprisingly a large number of 55s that were knocked out in GW1 were repairable whereas 72s were obliterated.It might simply be that the 72s were overkilled but the old 55 soldiers on.

The T-72s that were unrecoverable were overwhelmingly Lions of Babylon or Saddams. These are downgrades of downgrades of downgrades.

I have read the accounts of how tragic a down grade they were.The glacis wasnt even hardened armour on many of them.Saddam really cut corners and deceived his own troops.

That's not even the beggining or end of it

Thanks for the video,it supports what i have read about Saddams army.T-55 however is still one of my favourites.The 72 will be around just as long,a tough ,reliable beast of war.

Still, a lot of Syria's T-72s are been knocked out quiet easily today - or even completely obliterated by internal explosions. We also have the example of Georgia's T-72s in the August 2008 war. I think it's accepted that the basic T-72 design has issues to deal with.

BlackArrow wrote:Still, a lot of Syria's T-72s are been knocked out quiet easily today - or even completely obliterated by internal explosions. We also have the example of Georgia's T-72s in the August 2008 war. I think it's accepted that the basic T-72 design has issues to deal with.

Not really.

Later T-72 variants held out very well in Chechnya; with some even taking dozens of RPG and ATGM hits from a variety of models
T-72s in Syria aren't doing bad either from the reports; many are taking many multiple hits. But when one does get knocked out or suffer a catastrophic explosion; it's video is posted of course.

Georgia's T-72s were knocked out because they lost the engagement. You know, how in any battle how you have those who win, and those who lose. If you look at the loser's equipment, it's generally either captured, knocked out or escapes.

BlackArrow wrote:Still, a lot of Syria's T-72s are been knocked out quiet easily today - or even completely obliterated by internal explosions. We also have the example of Georgia's T-72s in the August 2008 war. I think it's accepted that the basic T-72 design has issues to deal with.

Any other tank of its vintage has the same issues with ammo detonation.
Actually even Leo-2 would burn just fine if hit from flanks like most Syrian T-72s were.

It's not really an issue as much as legacy design without upgrades + being shot up from flanks.

flamming_python wrote:
Later T-72 variants held out very well in Chechnya; with some even taking dozens of RPG and ATGM hits from a variety of models

I don't believe that - fantastic claims require fantastic evidence.
How do you explain any tank being able to survive 'dozens' of hits from antitank weapons?

T-72s in Syria aren't doing bad either from the reports; many are taking many multiple hits. But when one does get knocked out or suffer a catastrophic explosion; it's video is posted of course.

I'm not saying that the T-72 is not an effective weapon system - but it is just a tank.

TR1 wrote:Any other tank of its vintage has the same issues with ammo detonation.
Actually even Leo-2 would burn just fine if hit from flanks like most Syrian T-72s were.

It's not really an issue as much as legacy design without upgrades + being shot up from flanks.

I can agree with that.
The T-72 is from the same era as the Leopard 1, Chieftain  or M60. They usually wouldn't survive a direct hit from RPG-29 either...

I reckon the T55 is a pretty nifty tank. The Iraqi Army still use (Type 69) and I believe they will continue having it for at least another 10 years... if not longer for training.

flamming_python wrote:That's not even the beggining or end of it

so many inaccuracies there...

war started 1980 not 1979

Iraqi T62s smashed Iran's chieftains in 1980-81. Iranian armour at no point in the war posed a serious threat to Iraq. (I would say this was the main weakness for the Iraqis, their experience from the Iran war did NOT adequately prepare them for a "proper war" against the US).

Iraq already had T72s before the war in 1980 (soviet built).

95% of the Iraqi T72s were manufactured in Soviet Union / Poland /Czechoslovakia.

The Assad Babil was a licence produced variant from Buman Labedy, and was in fact assembled from Kits starting in 1988 (i.e. after the war with Iran was already over).

Iraq did import armour plates as well as having a specialist armour plate facility at Taji built by Germans in the 1980s. and for example they built the "enigma" armour for the T55/Type69 which was IMMUNE to M1A1 shots..

The T72M1/Assad Babil is based on a T72A not B... and the Iraqis, after buying weapons from around the world for 50+ years were well aware of the difference from the "export" version and "domestic" version (which they weren't happy with, but tried to improvise their own upgrades separately to plug the gap), e.g. imported night vision equipment from Belgium, Dazzler for ATGMs etc...

The T72M1s Iraq had laser range finder, ballistic computer and Image Intensifier (and IR lamp like all T72s). But yes, they did not have the gun launched missiles. and at no point was Iran, Iraq, USA or anyone else under any impression of Iraq having anything like a T72B...

and yes the iraqi made ammo was truly dire. BUT the example of Training APFSDS round is from a SINGLE tank the US captured near an Iraqi training ground in 1991. Iraqis did indeed operate normal APFSDS rounds for their tanks. They're not THAT dumb!

as to why the Iraqis continued using the older T72s... they couldn't get anything better! simple. If they could get 1000 Challenger 2 tanks and some Leopard 2A4s, I'm sure they would have been more than happy to equip their armoured divisions with them (and even saddam the imbecile was aware of that).

Thing is none of the tanks available on the world market (past or present) truly meets the needs of countries like Iraq... except the Merkava

sheytanelkebir wrote:
Thing is none of the tanks available on the world market (past or present) truly meets the needs of countries like Iraq... except the Merkava

if by that you mean you mean tanks that are best used as static pillboxes, hull-down behind couple of feet of earth and sand then yes, merk is best. However if you want to bring the fight to an equal enemy, then T-72/90s are excellent in that regard. However if you are up against superpowers, then you would need armata mbts. Of course tanks alone would be nothing if they are used on their own and without skills.

Merkava is undoubtedly a very solid design and as collegeboy says is a very defensive oriented construct.It also has never operated in an area where air superiority was contested.Mobility and combined arms proficiency are key to success.

Merkava has the most freaking vulnerable engine of any tank in the world.

Most overrated design IMO.

GarryB wrote:The reason ERA is so useful is that one hit might take out a block or two but very few AT weapons are accurate enough to allow that empty area to be targeted accurately enough to exploit that.

But Garry , if the adversary is armed with the RPG 32 the T 72 , T 90 , Merkava or M1A2 will not be able to survive .

For that matter even an APS like Arena on a T 90 cannot protect it from an RPG 32 .

I suspect even the FGM 148 Javelin  if it hits directly , can cause un acceptable damage to any modern day MBT .

Merkava is also the most crew survivable tank in the world...on a frontal hit.

Deep Throat wrote:
For that matter even an APS like Arena on a T 90 cannot protect it from an RPG 32 .
.

Why not, nothing magical about RPG-32!?

" Arena system was primarily designed to defeat threats such as the rocket propelled grenade and the anti-tank missile, including newer anti-tank missiles with longer ranges.[11] The active protection system can protect against missiles fired from both infantry carried rocket launchers and from helicopters, which attack the vehicle directly or by overflying it"

runaway wrote:
Why not, nothing magical about RPG-32!?

" Arena system was primarily designed to defeat threats such as the rocket propelled grenade and the anti-tank missile, including newer anti-tank missiles with longer ranges.[11] The active protection system can protect against missiles fired from both infantry carried rocket launchers and from helicopters, which attack the vehicle directly or by overflying it"

RPG 32 was designed keeping APS in mind . Israeli Merkavas armed with Trophy APS have been hit by RPG 32 .

Active protection systems such as ARENA-E, Drozd and Trophy defeat anti-armor munitions by destroying them before they reach their target. The RPG 32's precursor round acts as a false target, tricking the target's APS into engaging it, allowing the main round a clear path into the target, while the APS is stuck in the 0.2-0.4 second delay it needs to start its next engagement.

Deep Throat wrote:
Active protection systems such as ARENA-E, Drozd and Trophy defeat anti-armor munitions by destroying them before they reach their target. The RPG 32's precursor round acts as a false target, tricking the target's APS into engaging it, allowing the main round a clear path into the target, while the APS is stuck in the 0.2-0.4 second delay it needs to start its next engagement.

Hm are you sure? I thought RPG-32 used ordinary tandem warhead, just as Kornet. As Kornet destroyed Merkavas it suggest Trophy wasnt installed or didnt work as supposed.
RPG-30 has precursor round, perhaps the new Kornets and RPG-32 have also?

Pugnax wrote:Merkava is also the most crew survivable tank in the world...on a frontal hit.

No more survivable than M1A2, Leo2A5, T-90AM, etc etc etc. if we are talking about frontal engagements.

It's not like the engine is behind a thick array...that's the problem...the front hull is not strong at all.

GarryB wrote:
Ahh, I think you are both talking about the RPG-31 with two rockets launched almost simultaneously.

Nope
"The RPG-30 shares a close resemblance with the RPG-27 in that it is a man-portable, disposable anti-tank rocket launcher with a single shot capacity. Unlike the RPG-27 however, there is a smaller diameter precursor round in a smaller side barrel tube, in addition to the main round in the main tube."

And tandem warhead is not the same Depp throat, so RPG-32 and Kornet did destroy Merkavas in 2006, before APS Trophy was installed.

"On March 1, 2011, stationed near the Gaza border, a Merkava MK IV equipped with the trophy system foiled a missile attack aimed toward it and became the first operational success of the trophy active defense system"

Maybe now its a different game.

But since Trophy costs some S600.000 it wont be fitted to all tanks, perhaps only those assigned to local hotspots like Gaza.

APS is the new name of the game. problem with recyclying old hulls like the T55 is that the cost of the hull becomes a negligible part of the overall system cost once you factor in all the modern gizmos.

I reckon the best use for the T55 hulls is in cheap ARV/Heavy APC. mods that don't cost the earth, and thus the original hull / tracks / engine will retain a decent % of the overall value of the end vehicle.