T-73B compared to M1A2 Tusk

[Penguin]

Has an M1 main battle tank ever been destroyed by a T72?

Dan Rosenthal, U.S. Army Infantry, RSTA (Reconnaissance, Surveillance, Target Acquisition), OIF

Not directly in combat, no. As best I can tell, the closest that a base-model T-72 has come to killing an Abrams was an incident in which an M1A1 took three main gun rounds from an Iraqi T-72 in February 1991. One of the rounds failed to penetrate the turret armor; two of the rounds made partial penetrations on the rear of the turret, causing a fire. The tank was cleared of any radiological contamination (from the DU in the armor) and recommended to be returned to service. It was not destroyed, but is the only documented instance of an M1 being knocked out (crew bailed) from an Iraqi main battle tank of any kind.

Another tank, Bumper B-23, from TF 1-37 of 1st Armored Division, took an unknown KE (non-DU, meaning that it was likely Iraqi) round that did not fully penetrate the rear engine grills, but it was destroyed by an ATGM in the battle and caught fire. The only injury to the crew was a twisted knee suffered when exiting the vehicle.

However, consider that a tank duel's outcome depends heavily on the range and angle of fire. In Iraq, though there were several close-range battles, much of the terrain supported long range fire from M1A1 HAs (or better variants) against unupgraded, export-variant T-72s that lacked effective night vision, thermals, or rangefinders. A T-72 that gets a lucky close range shot to the sides or rear of an M1A1 would still be able to cause a catastrophic penetration (consider that in nearly all cases in which an M1 was penetrated by hostile KE rounds, they were hits to the rear).

It's possible that an upgraded, late-model T-72 variant (at least a T-72B or later, including the T-90 series) would be capable of a frontal penetration. Russia did not export the better technology to Middle Eastern buyers, due to the risk of the tanks being captured by the west. So any export variant tank will be inferior to the Russian equivalent (see, e.g. the T-72M series). At least with the T-72B line, the tank is capable of firing the Svir ATGM, and carries the 2A46-M (or 2A46-M5, for the T-72B2 and later) main gun. And the T-90 incorporates features of the T-80 series, but on the more inexpensive T-72 chassis as a baseline. However it's no longer technically a T-72, so it wouldn't count for the purposes of this exercise.

Has an M1 main battle tank ever been destroyed by a T72? - Quora

 

[C130]

I want to clarify more on what I was trying to say.

T-72B3 has narrowed the gap against the M1 abrams especially the M1A1 version which is the type mostly exported.

It's FCS/sensors are just as good as the M1A1 Abrams. It's ammunition is nearly as good as the M1 Abrams.


I was trying to say is would you rather have 1 M1A2 or 3 T-72B?? let's assume each crew is highly trained and they know the strengths and weaknesses of their tank.

let's take the Syria way for example

would you rather try to take a large swathe of land from rats and ISIS with 16 M1A2 abrams or 48 T72B3?? obviously having more tanks means you can cover more land and hold it.


i can see it's an apples to oranges thing, but I would take more tanks that are about 80% as good as Western tanks.

 

[ultron]

T-72B3 has autoloader. That's efficient.

 

[C130]

T-72B3 has autoloader. That's efficient.

is hand loading slower than an autoloader??

 

[jhungary]

I want to clarify more on what I was trying to say.

T-72B3 has narrowed the gap against the M1 abrams especially the M1A1 version which is the type mostly exported.

It's FCS/sensors are just as good as the M1A1 Abrams. It's ammunition is nearly as good as the M1 Abrams.


I was trying to say is would you rather have 1 M1A2 or 3 T-72B?? let's assume each crew is highly trained and they know the strengths and weaknesses of their tank.

let's take the Syria way for example

would you rather try to take a large swathe of land from rats and ISIS with 16 M1A2 abrams or 48 T72B3?? obviously having more tanks means you can cover more land and hold it.


i can see it's an apples to oranges thing, but I would take more tanks that are about 80% as good as Western tanks.

It's not about money, in fact, it never about money.

That's the same question to anything, like

Would you rather goes to war with better pistol only than a cheap rifle? Even an AK would have drop you anywhere from $500 to $1000, then why not just equip soldier with pistol, for each AK I can get two to three CZ-75 A soldier holding 2 CZ-75 at hand is 80% effective than a soldier holding AK's

How about M4 and AKs? M4 cost anywhere in the margin of $2000-$3000, For each M4, you could have bought 4-6 AK with it, why not every soldier pick up two AK and go to war that way, when AK and M4 is even closer than 80% difference?

It's a complex factor, Russian Tank and American Tank have operated under 2 Doctrine, T-72B3 is build for centralized warfare, M1A2 is build for decentralized warfare, it basically come down to how you fight. It have never been about money.

 

[C130]

It's not about money, in fact, it never about money.

That's the same question to anything, like

Would you rather goes to war with better pistol only than a cheap rifle? Even an AK would have drop you anywhere from $500 to $1000, then why not just equip soldier with pistol, for each AK I can get two to three CZ-75 A soldier holding 2 CZ-75 at hand is 80% effective than a soldier holding AK's

How about M4 and AKs? M4 cost anywhere in the margin of $2000-$3000, For each M4, you could have bought 4-6 AK with it, why not every soldier pick up two AK and go to war that way, when AK and M4 is even closer than 80% difference?

It's a complex factor, Russian Tank and American Tank have operated under 2 Doctrine, T-72B3 is build for centralized warfare, M1A2 is build for decentralized warfare, it basically come down to how you fight. It have never been about money.

I disagree. $$ is a big factor IMO. not only is the M1 a lot more expensive to purchase it's a lot more expensive to operate.

the gas turbine engine costs a lot to run compared to a diesel engine of a T-72

as for the pistol and rifle scenario those are two different weapon systems and don't fit with this discussion. I get what you are saying that a pistol is cheaper than a rifle why not buy two or 3 pistol for 1 single rifle, but I'd take rifles over pistols every time since a rifle is better weapon for war.

take a 100 guys each with a CZ-75 against 33 guys each with AKMs who is more effective? like seriously lmao.

and for the M4 and AK. you are assuming each side has the same amount of people?? because you say why not each soldier carry two AK??? why not just add more soldiers and give him a AK??

M4 costs $2,000-$3,000 as you say and a AK-103 is like $300

so for every soldier you can arm with a M4 you can arm 10 guys with a AK-103

10 guys with M4 vs 100 guys armed with AK-103

but if you want the best and cost isn't a problem then go with the best, lmao.

not every country has $$ like the U.S

 

[jhungary]

I disagree. $$ is a big factor IMO. not only is the M1 a lot more expensive to purchase it's a lot more expensive to operate.

the gas turbine engine costs a lot to run compared to a diesel engine of a T-72

as for the pistol and rifle scenario those are two different weapon systems and don't fit with this discussion. I get what you are saying that a pistol is cheaper than a rifle why not buy two or 3 pistol for 1 single rifle, but I'd take rifles over pistols every time since a rifle is better weapon for war.

take a 100 guys each with a CZ-75 against 33 guys each with AKMs who is more effective? like seriously lmao.

and for the M4 and AK. you are assuming each side has the same amount of people?? because you say why not each soldier carry two AK??? why not just add more soldiers and give him a AK??

M4 costs $2,000-$3,000 as you say and a AK-103 is like $300

so for every soldier you can arm with a M4 you can arm 10 guys with a AK-103

10 guys with M4 vs 100 guys armed with AK-103

but if you want the best and cost isn't a problem then go with the best, lmao.

not every country has $$ like the U.S

That's where you are wrong.

A smaller, more professional armies, can afford M4, and uses 10 men against 44 men, because it have a large array of hardware behind them, on the other hand, almost all country uses AK have manpower resource, rather than Firepower.

Money is not a factor in war, as I said, it come down to how you fight a war. That's translate to How you can use a platoon of soldier against a company? The same amount of money to equip a Platoon of 43 men with M4, I can also get a few other heavy weaponry, like M2, mortar tube and so on. However, to equip 144 men I can only get 144 AK with a few other weaponry.

Then it came down to tactics, and warfighting strategy.

SO to answer your question (If you cannot see the answer already)

It depends on how do you value human life? If they are expensive to you, then you will equip the best equipment there are, even if these equipment are merely 10-20% better than others. You may end up arming each soldier with tens of thousand of equipment, simply because country like US, Germany, Japan, South Korea, Australia et al invested millions of training on their soldier (A single US soldier on average cost $240,000 to train, from Basic to ATI), it's quite stupid just to save money on equipment and spend even more on training.. For country like Afghanistan, however, human life is worth merely more than a bullet, so, then it would not make sense when you arm them with top notch equipment, because, why do you need these equipment when there are hundreds, if not thousands, of recruit they can fill the slot if one of them fall?

 

[C130]

That's where you are wrong.

A smaller, more professional armies, can afford M4, and uses 10 men against 44 men, because it have a large array of hardware behind them, on the other hand, almost all country uses AK have manpower resource, rather than Firepower.

Money is not a factor in war, as I said, it come down to how you fight a war. That's translate to How you can use a platoon of soldier against a company? The same amount of money to equip a Platoon of 43 men with M4, I can also get a few other heavy weaponry, like M2, mortar tube and so on. However, to equip 144 men I can only get 144 AK with a few other weaponry.

Then it came down to tactics, and warfighting strategy.

SO to answer your question (If you cannot see the answer already)

It depends on how do you value human life? If they are expensive to you, then you will equip the best equipment there are, even if these equipment are merely 10-20% better than others. You may end up arming each soldier with tens of thousand of equipment, simply because country like US, Germany, Japan, South Korea, Australia et al invested millions of training on their soldier (A single US soldier on average cost $240,000 to train, from Basic to ATI), it's quite stupid just to save money on equipment and spend even more on training.. For country like Afghanistan, however, human life is worth merely more than a bullet, so, then it would not make sense when you arm them with top notch equipment, because, why do you need these equipment when there are hundreds, if not thousands, of recruit they can fill the slot if one of them fall?

By the way, M1A2 do offered with Diesel Engine variant, look at Australian Army M1A2SEP for example.

I get where you are coming from, but Russia tech is catching up with U.S tech is all I'm saying man.

would I rather be in a M1 Abrams when a ATGM hits or a T-72B3?? the latter which if you hit the side or rear it's defiantly going to blow up, lmao.

 

[jhungary]

I get where you are coming from, but Russia tech is catching up with U.S tech is all I'm saying man.

would I rather be in a M1 Abrams when a ATGM hits or a T-72B3?? the latter which if you hit the side or rear it's defiantly going to blow up, lmao.

And Russian tech is closing the gap is not matter, and this is all I am saying man.

What you are doing is trying to justify something by one account, at a one-sided argument, if you look at the money prospective only and disregard everything else, of course T-72B3 is better, in fact, a tank is a tank, 105mm Centurion can probably kill a M1 Abrams if it was hit in the weak point, or at least MK it, then why T-72 then? Why not country all armed themselves with Centurion which cost less than a million dollar?

 

[C130]

And Russian tech is closing the gap is not matter, and this is all I am saying man.

What you are doing is trying to justify something by one account, at a one-sided argument, if you look at the money prospective only and disregard everything else, of course T-72B3 is better, in fact, a tank is a tank, 105mm Centurion can probably kill a M1 Abrams if it was hit in the weak point, or at least MK it, then why T-72 then? Why not country all armed themselves with Centurion which cost less than a million dollar?

why buy a $120 million dollar F-35 and drop a $50,000 bomb to kill a few rats when you can use a OV-10 bronco armed with a M-197 chain gun and guided 70MM rockets??

it's called greed my friend greed and stupidity.

F-35 is good if you are going to fight let's say Russia,China, and Iran but 21st wars are going to be mostly against people with no air force and limited AA.

 

[jhungary]

why buy a $120 million dollar F-35 and drop a $50,000 bomb to kill a few rats when you can use a OV-10 bronco armed with a M-197 chain gun and guided 70MM rockets??

it's called greed my friend greed and stupidity.

F-35 is good if you are going to fight let's say Russia,China, and Iran but 21st wars are going to be mostly against people with no air force and limited AA.

No offend, but this is the stupidest argument I have ever heard on here..

Why not just get a Cessna and armed with 2 machine gun and strafe?? Why do you even need Bronco?

You can never expect something to be just that, when you say 21st century war are going to be mostly against people with no air force and limited AA, so if US implement it and decommission most if not all of their advance weaponry, because "It's mostly going to be jackarse running around with donkey anyway" If I am Russia or anyone with remotely enough firepower to fight a conventional war, I would be laughing my arse off all the war from Kremlin on my way to the white house.

You cannot prepare your armed force just to perform a specific task and ignore all other responsibility. You prepare your armed force for EVERYTHING. It would have to be equally prepare for the next world war and at the same time prepare for the next fight with insurgence in the jungle or in the desert

It's not called greed, it's called preparedness.

 

[C130]

No offend, but this is the stupidest argument I have ever heard on here..

Why not just get a Cessna and armed with 2 machine gun and strafe?? Why do you even need Bronco?

You can never expect something to be just that, when you say 21st century war are going to be mostly against people with no air force and limited AA, so if US implement it and decommission most if not all of their advance weaponry, because "It's mostly going to be jackarse running around with donkey anyway" If I am Russia or anyone with remotely enough firepower to fight a conventional war, I would be laughing my arse off all the war from Kremlin on my way to the white house.

You cannot prepare your armed force just to perform a specific task and ignore all other responsibility.

It's not called greed, it's called preparedness.

"Why not just get a Cessna and armed with 2 machine gun and strafe??"

Cessna works as well, pretty much any COIN aircraft would be better than using a $120 million dollar stealth fighter.

"Why do you even need Bronco? "

because it's the battle tested COIN aircraft

"You can never expect something to be just that, when you say 21st century war are going to be mostly against people with no air force and limited AA, so if US implement it and decommission most if not all of their advance weaponry, because "It's mostly going to be jackarse running around with donkey anyway" If I am Russia or anyone with remotely enough firepower to fight a conventional war, I would be laughing my arse off all the war from Kremlin on my way to the white house."

do you honestly think nuclear powers would go to war with one another??

"You cannot prepare your armed force just to perform a specific task and ignore all other responsibility"

I agree with that, but putting all your eggs into expensive weapons system is just stupid IMO. especially when most of the wars you are fighting against Muslims with no air force and limited to no AA.

it's greed it called the MIC.

 

[jhungary]

do you honestly think nuclear powers would go to war with one another??


I agree with that, but putting all your eggs into expensive weapons system is just stupid IMO. especially when most of the wars you are fighting against Muslims with no air force and limited to no AA.

it's greed it called the MIC.

How do you know it won't?

As I said, it's never about money, all the egg in one basket, or whatever else.

In war, even a guerrilla war can turn into conventional warfare, look at how Vietnam People Army go from Guerrilla warfare to win over the rest of South Vietnam in a conventional warfare.

EVERYONE, not just Russian or Chinese, or any nuclear power, can wage Conventional Warfare, it would be quite stupid not to prepare for it.

You can call it whatever you want, but at the end of the day, you still need to put that into account. How much money you are willing to spend to keep an edge? That is the question you need to ask yourself, otherwise why devote money into military at all, when war come, we can just surrender, that will save you 650 billions a year. Is it good enough for you then?

 

[C130]

How do you know it won't?

As I said, it's never about money, all the egg in one basket, or whatever else.

In war, even a guerrilla war can turn into conventional warfare, look at how Vietnam People Army go from Guerrilla warfare to win over the rest of South Vietnam in a conventional warfare.

EVERYONE, not just Russian or Chinese, or any nuclear power, can wage Conventional Warfare, it would be quite stupid not to prepare for it.

You can call it whatever you want, but at the end of the day, you still need to put that into account. How much money you are willing to spend to keep an edge? That is the question you need to ask yourself, otherwise why devote money into military at all, when war come, we can just surrender, that will save you 650 billions a year. Is it good enough for you then?

you can PREPARE, but why not use systems that are proven and cost effective?? I'm not saying the military should stop funding R&D and lose the edge.

we aren't fighting wars to win.

 

[jhungary]

you can PREPARE, but why not use systems that are proven and cost effective?? I'm not saying the military should stop funding R&D and lose the edge.

we aren't fighting wars to win.

look, war is always dynamics

You cannot fight with the eyes and ears you saw today, because development is always dynamics, you don't know what your enemy have and will do tomorrow.

Overkilling may cost money, but understatement cost life, at the end of the day, it come down to the same question. How much you value the life of your soldiers?