Iraqi Army

collegeboy16 wrote:

GarryB wrote:Read further down the page describing the "upgrade" and you will see it is fitted with a 105mm rifled gun, so I would assume they removed the 125mm smoothbore and autoloader and replaced it with a British 105mm main gun for which they would need a manual loader... ie human loader.

that doesnt make sense at all then- where does the loader sit in the turret? either side of the gun is occupied by the gunner and commander, and the center space has to be unoccupied for the gun or its gonna puree his guts everytime it fires and recoils backwards. not to mention the gunner and commander are now 400mm lower from position when handling the controls.

In my last two posts I have explained the situation. Please, read the first one first.

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:
The autoloader is an integral subsystem that allows for the turret's small size and low profile, which in turn provide for T-72's extremely high armor areal mass density in comparison to weakly armored tanks like, for example, Abrams.

Fanboyism at its finest.

You have done a good job of being the exact opposite of US-fanboys, but just as absurd.

TR1 wrote:

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:
The autoloader is an integral subsystem that allows for the turret's small size and low profile, which in turn provide for T-72's extremely high armor areal mass density in comparison to weakly armored tanks like, for example, Abrams.

Fanboyism at its finest.

You have done a good job of being the exact opposite of US-fanboys, but just as absurd.

I'd say he has done his research compared to you... If you have any counter-points then show the evidence for them.

LOL are you joking?

Calling the Abrams a weakly armored tank in comparison to the T-72? trying to sound psuedo scientific when mentioning density and area?

Your post is so full of....errors... I don't even know where to start.

That front turret is NOT penetrated. How can you even post something like that with no knowlege of what is happening in the photo?

T-55 can penetrate a T-72 from the side with ease as well. So what?
And that Abrams was not hit by a T-55 in first place. That's not even what 100mm AP or APDS shells look like when they hit.

Bradley's 25mm gun (not 20mm btw) can penetrate T-72s ass with ease as well.

I am not sure what the rest of your post is supposed to prove, that is where it is not blatantly wrong.

The comment about the Abrams being a weakly protected tank is just asinine. As is 90% of your post.

It's like  a kindergarten in here when it comes to the Abrams, dear lord.

Well the Abrams is a mediocre tank in comperision with lot of other tanks. It does nothing superb, only KE ammunition the rest is mediocre or subpar. The worst tank in mobility, protection is mediocre only frontal armor array's are not bad, but the coverage is worse than T-72 when looking at 30° to each side from the frontal array, Firepower is also weak, lack of ammunition types and lack of secondary weaponary in RWS. The Abrams losses against Leopard2 and Merkawa 4 and T-90A by a big margin.

You know it is nothing special, same as these beloved "Chobham" magic armor less than ~1000-1100mm RHAe protection for the turret on M1A1 like we have seen with Kornet-E which grilled the tank from front to the rear.

It is not bad but far away from being good or useful, to expensive, logistical nightmare, mediocre at everything. That is not fanboyism that is just a mediocre tank design, to heavy, to expensive, to bad designed in mobility, protection lacks by a big margin in comperision with lot of tanks and there is no T-72BV or AV you can knock off with old PG-7 Monoblock shape charges.

It is.

30mm BMP can penetrated it from the side. Bradley punch a hole at the ass.

A virtually naked tank. No ERA, no APS (TUSK is just sextoy for advertisement), no spaced armour at the turret.

Very big and rectangular turret, much bigger than T-xx round one. Longer hull, and higher length:width ratio. That means much much bigger surface area. Higher profile, easier to be hit. Engine compartment is higher.

Take a look at the weight, size, price of Abrams and see how ineffective the design is. 15-20 tons heavier, 2 times more expensive. But the protection level is inferior.

Abrams is a degenerated version of Leopard 2, but for many reasons many fanboys claimed it as king of tanks.

30x165mm from behind it will penetrate with ease, but from side only specific spots, the armor is still to high for 30mm ZUBR-8 rounds, they penetrate up to 37mm (top 0° 100m) RHAe steel but the armor is more on side turret and hull than 37mm RHAe.

But yes the M1 Abrams lost against Leopard 2 even among concepts of MBT-70/Kampfpanzer 70 american design failed requirements and that is just the same case for Abrams vs Leopard 2.

It has nothing to do with the T-72. It's an Iranian upgrade for the T-55.

The "T-72Z"

That makes rather more sense as 105mm ammo would be easier to source than 100mm ammo, and the T-55 already has room for three crew.

It actually says in the description that it is an upgrade of a T-55...

Also, you just assumed the brochure was correct.

The photo is misleading, as is the designation as this tank clearly has nothing to do with the T-72.

Otherwise the details seem to be accurate... a modernised T-55 with a 105mm british gun.

hmm, makes better sense that this is what it really looks like, maybe the Z suffix means going one gen backward tongue . then we could have M1AZ which is actually some M60 clone

Actually the mistake was ours... assuming the T-72 and T-72Z designation had anything to do with the T-72 designation of the Soviet tank of the same designation...

We can claim we were led astray by the photo of course...

You have done a good job of being the exact opposite of US-fanboys, but just as absurd.

The autoloader is a huge factor in reducing the size of the vehicle, and therefore increasing its armour density... these are facts... which in my experience US Fanboys wouldn't recognise with a map and a tutor point things out for them.

Calling the Abrams a weakly armored tank in comparison to the T-72? trying to sound psuedo scientific when mentioning density and area?

Calling the Abrams inefficiently armoured would be fair... the T-90 has comparable protection while being 20 tons lighter. You could say the same of the T-80U, though with the same fuel consumption issues as the Abrams hense the T-80UD.

M1 Abrams side armour was penetrated by T-55 100mm gun

That is perfectly normal for tank armour.

Bradley 20mm gun penetrated the engine chamber of M1 Abrams

Again perfectly normal.

Even the most capable modern MBT has protection over its 60 degree frontal arc to stop MOST OF THE TIME the main gun calibre of the enemy and the majority of their ATGMs. The Sides will generally only stop autocannon fire, so 100mm main gun ammo should still penetrate, and the rear armour wont stop much more than HMG fire if that... so 25mm gun on the Bradley should penetrate.

Side, rear and top armour of M1 Abrams can be penetrated by BMP 30mm gun

Perfectly normal.

another IS suicide bomber truck taken out by the army, huge explosion & shockwave. No one wounded or killed except for the suicide bomber

So pretty good result all round.

Well the Abrams is a mediocre tank in comperision with lot of other tanks.

You need to check the meaning of mediocre... the Abrams is not a bad tank... it is a good tank, but not a great tank... like any tank it has issues... there are no perfect tanks.

It's like  a kindergarten in here when it comes to the Abrams, dear lord.

No, the problem is marketing and hype. Just like the Patriot missile downing all those Scuds during Desert Storm and the Abrams being invincible against any Russian or Soviet weapon because the crap that the Iraqi army had in the early 1990s wasn't good enough has led to tales of the US being safe from ballistic missiles and the Abrams being some super tank that no T-80 could defeat... I mean after all the Abrams was sniping T-80s and T-90s in Desert Storm from 5km range... didn't you know that?

As usual the US is a victim of its own propaganda and after crying wolf this has come to bite it in the ass.

they see to now lie out of habit and as you have read here are now no longer believed... they called it an invincible tank so it gets called a mediocre tank... obviously the truth is somewhere in the middle (where else could it be?).

Blame the people here for getting a dose of reality and reacting to Americas bullshit... America does the same with Russia... everything Russia does is wrong because they are the enemy...

Enough for this thread now...

With Iraqi soldiers in Abrams tanks fighting ISIS please do not post drawings showing weakpoints.

this is operational now.

Nice, have they been used in combat yet Sheytan?

@Sheytan

Thanks for sharing

Would love to hear some feed back regarding the performance of the radar equipped Havoc...

They had a new version of the standard helo where the small ball EO sensor under the thimble nose had rather more than two ports and seemed upgraded. Not many domestic Russian aircraft seem to have that optical ball... anyone seen some photos of this aircraft that are not in a production line?

Iraqi Mi-171SH
.

1st battalion, 75th infantry bde, 16th division conducted a combined arms live fire exercise which also involved the radar equipped Mi28. They used ground based operators to send target data.

training of the 16th division.

Mi28Ne from 2.16
firing cannon from 3.05

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSCawj6PSdE

Many AK's and RPK but no PKM seen. At a proper position with a few PKM's they will tear IS terrorists apart.

so could someone guess which type of T72 this is ?

https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xfp1/t31.0-8/10915064_1628626374040367_97941540626515782_o.jpg?efg=eyJpIjoidCJ9


Is it a T72 ural, T72A or T72B variant?

seems to have a crosswind sensor on the back of the turret (or maybe just the pintle for MG).

sheytanelkebir wrote:so could someone guess which type of T72 this is ?

https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xfp1/t31.0-8/10915064_1628626374040367_97941540626515782_o.jpg?efg=eyJpIjoidCJ9


Is it a T72A or T72B variant?

From that angle looks like B. But could be an M1. If the drum wasn't attached it would be easier. I don't see the Smoke discharger rail on the Right side of turret. Nor do i see the commander "cupola".

Another picture....

sheytanelkebir wrote:Another picture....

That's a T72M1. There aren't any T72A's in good shape to sell Iraq. Those are Warpact tanks.

I do believe this is one of the first combat actions of the Mi28Ne in Iraq.

its a VBIED factory in North West Iraq.

Last week.

Spotting and observation was done by a IA-407 or King Air 350. firing was by cannon and rockets.

the factory was completely destroyed by the huge secondary explosion.

sheytanelkebir wrote:I do believe this is one of the first combat actions of the Mi28Ne in Iraq.

its a VBIED factory in North West Iraq.

Last week.

Spotting and observation was done by a IA-407 or King Air 350. firing was by cannon and rockets.

the factory was completely destroyed by the huge secondary explosion.

damn, half of that camp got engulfed by the base of the mushroom cloud and flattened clean. that huge of an explosion prolly shook the helo as well.

Looks like Scud hit the place.