Military Ground Vehicles of Your Nation [NO MECHS] Mk.IV

[The Kievan People]

The Israeli Experience in Lebanon, 1982-1985. By Major George C. Solley.

[Dostanuot Loj]

They are still monkey models.

And even if they are upgraded to the '72B, they are still inferior to any modern main battle tank.

I'll just wait and see, then. Here's the data from '82 Lebanon:

12 T-72s lost (according to Israel) or none lost (according to Syrian and Russian sources).
"Killed" T-72s are thought to have been destroyed in ambushes by anti-tank guns and ATGMs, according to Western sources.
160 Merks and M60s killed overall, mostly by T-72s.
~400 tanks lost, almost exclusively T-55s.

Pretty good combat sheet, I'd say. This is when they were still A-model.

Actually, I'm not an RU-fanboy. I'm just making a case for the viability of the T-72; also, yes I do know about the T-72BU (T-90) tank. Its much better, and I do believe in fact the T-72 will become outdated very soon. Just saying that currently, the T-72 has been upgraded to still remain effective in combat.

The T-72 was considered outdated by the Russians in 1991. It's still viable, about as viable as a Sherman. Which means it's great, unless it has to fight modern tanks.

Time for you to pull a credible source out, because you're wrong.

Let's see. Total losses of T-72s in Lebanon82, as reported by the Syrians and supported by Russia (Yep, supported) is 30, with 19 of them being to Merkavas, 11 to ATGMs (Presumed TOWs from AH-1s). Israeli claimed 8 T-72s (Confirmed by Syria) on the first day in the Beka'a valley.

Israel had no more then 300 Merkava tanks in existance by the end of the conflict. The number of Merkava's claimed killed is in the mid-teens (Depending on what you define as a "kill" 14-19) and almost all of them are by ATGMs carried by infantry and helicopters. Not a single T-72 claimed kill on a Merkava.

It is worth noting that, of the 250 T-72s Syria had, losses were reported (And supported by the Russians again) at somewhere north of 60, including 8 captured.

Sorry, even the USSR admitted that the Syrian use of the T-72 in 1982 was a complete failure, and spent a lot of effort and time afterwards correcting its PR.

Modern Tanks in Battle by Vladimir Ilyin.

The actual article merely states that the Syrians claimed no losses of T-72s, not that any Merkava were killed. Further, it also goes on to disprove that claim with numbers like I posted above. Which are taken from the same source material my numbers are (And my numbers come from names like Zaloga, Katz, and Gelbart, who have done the research in Israel, and in Russia and others sources).

Also, Lebanon is far from ideal when it comes to numbers - mountainous terrain and urban enviroments all over. In 82, Israel deployed over 3 times the amount of soldiers Syria had there - Israel invaded when Syria just sent a light occupation force to keep everyone under control, the Israelis sent a huge army to take it from Syria.

Way to go Syrian propaganda.

Unless math taught in school has changed since I have been out, 78,000/45,000 is just under 1.75, not 3. Therefore, Israel could not have deployed "over 3 times" the amount of soldiers.

That it is still very viable. Kontact-5 ERA was almost impervious to Western munitions until the collapse of the USSR (July 1997 Jane's International Defence Review), and with newer ERA it still remains very-well armored. We haven't seen a newer T-72 in battle against Western tanks yet, but I'd wager that the T-72 would perform admirably. Not to forget newer Western counterparts (Leopard 2, for example) aren't that much better-armored, and the T-72B can probably penetrate any Western MBT with modern ammunition.

This entire paragraph is so hilariously fail I don't know where to begin, nor do I want to spend the next hour explaining simple concepts in modern tank technology. So I'm just going to say this: no.

[Riysa]

Just imagine if the T-55 actually made a true comeback into the world of MBTs.

T-55s...T-55s everywhere. *Buzz Lightyear meme*

Google has failed me. I can not find a screenshot from any sort of game showing T-55 spam.

[The Akasha Colony]

T-55s...T-55s everywhere. *Buzz Lightyear meme*

Google has failed me. I can not find a screenshot from any sort of game showing T-55 spam.

I know some in Wargame: European Escalation had complained about it being a tactic. Of course, most just complained about the broken NATO tank destroyer spam.

[Dostanuot Loj]

Just imagine if the T-55 actually made a true comeback into the world of MBTs.

T-55s...T-55s everywhere. *Buzz Lightyear meme*

[Osaea]

The T-72 was considered outdated by the Russians in 1991. It's still viable, about as viable as a Sherman. Which means it's great, unless it has to fight modern tanks.

Okay, I'm going to assume this is some pretty radical hyperbole. As viable a Sherman tank? Really?

Wow, well, if that's the case, I guess those Iranian "Super Shermans" who got severely swept aside by T-55s, much less the Iraqi's prized T-72s (before they met their demise in the Gulf War), should have been trying harder. They certainly had competitive numbers! At least the 200 Shermans used by the Pakistanis in '65 put up a fight (which they promptly lost against Indian armor excluding their own Shermans).

[Dostanuot Loj]

The T-72 was considered outdated by the Russians in 1991. It's still viable, about as viable as a Sherman. Which means it's great, unless it has to fight modern tanks.

Okay, I'm going to assume this is some pretty radical hyperbole. As viable a Sherman tank? Really?

Wow, well, if that's the case, I guess those Iranian "Super Shermans" who got severely swept aside by T-55s, much less the Iraqi's prized T-72s (before they met their demise in the Gulf War), should have been trying harder. At least the 200 Shermans used by the Pakistanis in '65 put up a fight (which they promptly lost against Indian armor excluding their own Shermans).

I'm going to presume you have not looked any of that up yet, and be nice.

1: You mean Israeli Super Sherman mods? Iran ran some M36B2s in reserve units in the Iran-Iraq war, but not many. And a small number of Shermans were dragged out for reserve infantry units to have a mobile machine gun.
2: Pakistani tankers were pretty shitty. This is a fact even they admit.

Viability is a concept wherein the item, in this place the tank, is able to contribute to the capabilities and effectiveness of the effort. So yea, just as viable. Both a Sherman and a T-72 can provide mobile, large-bore direct fire support, as well as small-arms and splinter protected cover. Hence the "unless it has to fight modern tanks" qualifier. Not even remotely hyperbole.

[Osaea]

Okay, I'm going to assume this is some pretty radical hyperbole. As viable a Sherman tank? Really?

Wow, well, if that's the case, I guess those Iranian "Super Shermans" who got severely swept aside by T-55s, much less the Iraqi's prized T-72s (before they met their demise in the Gulf War), should have been trying harder. At least the 200 Shermans used by the Pakistanis in '65 put up a fight (which they promptly lost against Indian armor excluding their own Shermans).

I'm going to presume you have not looked any of that up yet, and be nice.

1: You mean Israeli Super Sherman mods? Iran ran some M36B2s in reserve units in the Iran-Iraq war, but not many. And a small number of Shermans were dragged out for reserve infantry units to have a mobile machine gun.
2: Pakistani tankers were pretty shitty. This is a fact even they admit.

Viability is a concept wherein the item, in this place the tank, is able to contribute to the capabilities and effectiveness of the effort. So yea, just as viable. Both a Sherman and a T-72 can provide mobile, large-bore direct fire support, as well as small-arms and splinter protected cover. Hence the "unless it has to fight modern tanks" qualifier. Not even remotely hyperbole.

I stand corrected on the model of Shermans (definitely a mistake on my part, I am thinking of Iranian units). But what exactly qualifies as "modern armor"? Tank models that first entered service around 1970, to the best of my knowledge, are still common in plenty of armies. I'm fairly certain their deployment rivals or surpasses tanks from the period afterward. Suggesting a M4 Sherman would do just as well T-72 in these combat circumstances (assuming other things remain the same, of course) is hyperbole.

If that wasn't your intention, my fault.

EDIT: On the subject of "shitty" tankers, literally the entire world, including India, believed Pakistani tank crewers enjoyed superior training if comparable combat experience to their Indian opposition in '65. The Indian Army did not set a terribly high bar, as Lahore and other battles demonstrated.

[San-Silvacian]

M73 w/ autoloaded 105/L75 for AWWWYEAH AT.

fyi fires caseless 105 rounds

[Aqizithiuda]

M73 w/ autoloaded 105/L75 for AWWWYEAH AT.

fyi fires caseless 105 rounds

Needs moar MRAAS for lulzy 50km+ artillery dual role.

[Osaea]

M73 w/ autoloaded 105/L75 for AWWWYEAH AT.

fyi fires caseless 105 rounds

Needs moar MRAAS for lulzy 50km+ artillery dual role.

"Caseless" kind of seems odd for a contemporary tank. Are the casings for propellant charges that problematic?

[Aqizithiuda]

Needs moar MRAAS for lulzy 50km+ artillery dual role.

"Caseless" kind of seems odd for a contemporary tank. Are the casings for propellant charges that problematic?

Most tank rounds already have cases which are mostly combustible. The ARES design and the more recent MRAAS just use a push through method of feeding to allow for the entire case to be combustible. It allows a higher rate of fire, among other things.

[Osaea]

"Caseless" kind of seems odd for a contemporary tank. Are the casings for propellant charges that problematic?

Most tank rounds already have cases which are mostly combustible. The ARES design and the more recent MRAAS just use a push through method of feeding to allow for the entire case to be combustible. It allows a higher rate of fire, among other things.

Looking at pictures of the 2A46's ammunition in Baryatinskiy's book on the T-80, and I'm pretty sure the propellant charge is wrapped in something combustible too, not a shell certainly. If this is what they mean by "caseless", that makes sense.

[Aqizithiuda]

Most tank rounds already have cases which are mostly combustible. The ARES design and the more recent MRAAS just use a push through method of feeding to allow for the entire case to be combustible. It allows a higher rate of fire, among other things.

Looking at pictures of the 2A46's ammunition in Baryatinskiy's book on the T-80, and I'm pretty sure the propellant charge is wrapped in something combustible too, not a shell certainly. If this is what they mean by "caseless", that makes sense.

Pretty much. "Caseless" and "combustible cased" are similar enough to be considered one and the same.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

I'd like some hard stats on that, please.

Never mind, just saw the factbook entry. It looks good but pretty heavy.

T2009A3/4: 65 tons

M1A2-SEP: 69 tons
Leopard 2A6: 61 tons
Challenger 2: 61 tons
T-90: 46.7 tons
Merkava IV: 65 tons

Its also lesser in weight than most main-stream NS MBTs.

I think I'm going to throw in a 120mm ETC instead of the 140mm ETC simply for faster rof and mass usage of NATO ammunition. ETC is compatible with conventional, right?

I don't think so.
I recall Vault saying that ETC rounds require massive redesign of the cartridge and the warhead. He also said, oddly (and didn't clarify), that this also makes 120 ETC rounds roughly comparable in size and weight to 140mm conventional cartridges.

No blowout panels sucks hard for T-72. Poor armor means you have to strap on Kontakt-5 which anyway can be penetrated by newer APFSDS. Plus, hand-cranked turrets.

You stick with your Asad Babil or whatever. Stingray will always be the champ!

Kontakt-5 is beyond the point. We are talking about newer ERA, which is much more effective versus modern munitions.

I never said the T-72 was perfect. It has flaws, yes, but is still very viable. Also, the Asad Babils were downgraded T-72A Iraqi variants that still used munitions from the 70s and were degrading.

I'm not even going to get into the T-90, which is technically a T-72 variant (T-72BU being the original name for it).

Kontakt-5 could only defend against M829A3 from a range of more than six kilometres. This is a greater range than an Abrams is physically capable of engaging from (in other words, an Abrams with M829A3 could always kill a Kontakt-5 equipped T-72).
Relikt was supposedly capable of defending against M829A3 from 1km.

Most tank rounds already have cases which are mostly combustible. The ARES design and the more recent MRAAS just use a push through method of feeding to allow for the entire case to be combustible. It allows a higher rate of fire, among other things.

Looking at pictures of the 2A46's ammunition in Baryatinskiy's book on the T-80, and I'm pretty sure the propellant charge is wrapped in something combustible too, not a shell certainly. If this is what they mean by "caseless", that makes sense.

The 2A46 gun doesn't use cases at all, just propellant bags, like an artillery piece.
NATO-standard tank rounds are pretty much combustible aside from a brass case stub. So basically imagine a plastic shotshell, only instead of melting, the plastic actually burns with the propellant on firing.

[Elan Valleys]

Bridges?

Not that much of an issue really unless you have really old and crappy bridges.

Didn't know Japan was known for its weak and crappy bridges.

[Immoren]

That it is still very viable. Kontact-5 ERA was almost impervious to Western munitions until the collapse of the USSR (July 1997 Jane's International Defence Review), and with newer ERA it still remains very-well armored. We haven't seen a newer T-72 in battle against Western tanks yet, but I'd wager that the T-72 would perform admirably.

No blowout panels sucks hard for T-72. Poor armor means you have to strap on Kontakt-5 which anyway can be penetrated by newer APFSDS. Plus, hand-cranked turrets.

I thought lack of powered turret traverse was/is found only in those cheap knock offs (Like Asad Babil) and most T-72s have powered turrrets as standard. :/

[San-Silvacian]

Not that much of an issue really unless you have really old and crappy bridges.

Didn't know Japan was known for its weak and crappy bridges.

iirc they made the Type 10 light for that reason with allot of soft-ground and old bridges.

No blowout panels sucks hard for T-72. Poor armor means you have to strap on Kontakt-5 which anyway can be penetrated by newer APFSDS. Plus, hand-cranked turrets.

I thought lack of powered turret traverse was/is found only in those cheap knock offs (Like Asad Babil) and most T-72s have powered turrrets as standard. :/

This is true :<

[Immoren]

Maybe I should develop this further. Maybe not.

[The Kievan People]

Not that much of an issue really unless you have really old and crappy bridges.

Didn't know Japan was known for its weak and crappy bridges.

IC what u did there.

Regulations on vehicle weight normally include big safety margins.

[Raziac]

Just thinking... would a Merkava Mk.4 body and a Leo 2A7 turret (120mm smoothbore) work?

[The Kievan People]

Just thinking... would a Merkava Mk.4 body and a Leo 2A7 turret (120mm smoothbore) work?

Why...

[Raziac]

Just thinking... would a Merkava Mk.4 body and a Leo 2A7 turret (120mm smoothbore) work?

Why...

Engine in front is good crew protection, not to mention nice sloped armor surfaces on turret from the Leo. Because indigenous idiots with lots of GMPG's and AR's tend to focus in the front of the rolling metal doom-wagons.

[The Kievan People]

The Merkava IV turret is better.

[Raziac]

The Merkava IV turret is better.

So... I should just use the Merkava.
Thanks.