T-72 varients

[Nikademus]

Hello,

I'm a long time SP player trying to make sense of the myriad of T-72 varients across the ocean of OOB's for my own mod set. From what I have been able to glean, the T-72 started life as a cheaper MBT option for the Soviet Army and WP nations and is alleged to be inferior in most (if not all) aspects to the T-64. Yet from the get go the T-72 has similar FC/ROF stats and superior armor to the T-64. It also has similar/same HEAT protection value despite some (granted...Internet) sources stating that early T-72's (prior to the 90's) built for export or built in WP nations did not have composite armor (Steel substituted) T-72's built for the Soviet army starting with the T-72A? did have composite armor. (alleged)

According to the latest Wikipedia entry on the T-72 it was not until the mid 80's B varient that the T-72 began matching the T-64 in terms of proteciton and? fire control.

My questions for anyone better informed would be...

1) Were export/foreign built T-72's inferior to Soviet service T-72's in terms of HEAT protection?

2) Was the T-64 better protected with superior FC and ROF?

3) Were the Polish T-72's weaker in balistic protection (according to the Wiki site...they were)

4) In relation to question 1) Did WP built/service and foreign export models differ in the same way (T-72's sold to arab countries for example)

5) Will the OOB's ever be standardized in terms of the mryiad of T-72 varient designations (letters, numbers and dashes....oh my!!!!) I do have Zaloga's T-72 book and it 'attempts' to standardize the varients which doesn't come close to matching all the designations seen in this game, nor do 72's with the same designation always match from OOB to OOB.

6) Are the early T-72 marks a bit overrated in terms of protection? As noted, in-game they start off better than the T-64 from the get go and quickly equal/rival even the T-80B.



As it stands right now, i've removed the HEAT protection from foreign exports/WP T-72's for varients prior to 1990 (I made some exceptions if the date was close to represent later T-72 or "upgrades" for that nation), and bumped up the FC/ROF and armor stats for the T-64 a bit. Still...i'd like to get opinions from other OOB modders on what they feel the Sov Tank values should be.

thx in advance.

[Marek_Tucan]

T-72 : some (Soviet-only) tanks did have corundum-based composite armour similar to T-64A, but of worse quality.
T-72 : Baseline model, turret cast steel. Both got glacis composition 80mm steel + 105mm composite + 20mm steel.
T-72M : Improved (M-E4 got 44 rounds, generally all got LRF, side skirts and smoke dischargers). Glacis 60 steel+105 composite+50 steel.
T-72A (Dolly Parton) : Composite turret, glacis same as T-72M (at first), later reinforced with 17mm HHS plate.
T-72M1 : Export version of T-72A, almost same, AFAIK all got the HHS plate from the beginning.
T-72B (Super Dolly Parton) : Thickened turret front, new composite array, glacis got 30mm HHS instead of 17mm. Capable of missile launch (B) or without missiles (B1)
T-72BM : Newer composite, better FC.
T-90 : first pieces generally even more upgraded T-72BM with newer FC and (some) with TI sights.
T-72S : Export version, conflicting data - some sources state export version of B, some state it's A/M1 with B FC and ERA which would mean weaker armour than 72B.

Moreover, T-72 M and M1 do differ a bit depending on manufacturer. from what I've seen, with armour quality (mostly the composites) Russian are the best, then Czechoslovakia and then Poland. With night sights it seems Czechoslovakian are marginally better compared to Polish and Russian (speaking of basic T-72M/M1 package).

Plus there's the Yugo M-84(T-72M)/M-84A(M1) and Romanian TR-125 or how is it called...

[thatguy96]

this is a pretty good source for T-72 variant information. Trust it a bit more than wikipedia.

[Marcello]

"T-72S : Export version, conflicting data - some sources state export version of B, some state it's A/M1 with B FC and ERA which would mean weaker armour than 72B."

I am pretty sure that T-72S is T-72B, give or take a few details.I mean, with only light era and no thermal sight in the 21st century it is already enough of a tracked coffin without having to go further back to the T-72A armor scheme.

"T-72BM : Newer composite, better FC"

AFAIK it was basically a T-72B with Kontakt-5.The improved
FC/passive armor/everything was the T-72BU.Or T-90 as they call it now.Or so I heard at any rate.

"Romanian TR-125"

That thing never went in mass production AFAIK.If you get into things like prototypes and modernization packages there are enough to fill an encyclopedia and a new one popping out every week.My favourite was the T-72S with Kaktus ERA which was proposed for Yemen.

Here is a good source I was recommended for some armor values:
http://www.hot.ee/vsevolod/T-72values_eng.htm

[Nikademus]

Thx....yes i've been to this site and a bunch of others. Here, btw is the link to the wiki article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-72

I agree that Wiki's quality can be suspect at times, however given the disperity between sources, i figure its an even playing field in this case. I have read from other sources that abstractly state that the T-64 (and later T-80) were superior models as well as info that described "export" versions of the T-72 as inferior copies due to technology hording. The wiki site also contains an interesting link to the Iraqi "Lion of Babylon" version of the T-72 which would seem to support that notion. (yet in the Iraqi OOB, the T72's have typical Soviet values...including Composite armor type HEAT values)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion_of_Babylon_tank

[Marek_Tucan]

You might also get lost if some organisations (like our army) sometimes refer to T-72M1 as T-72M etc... Good source on T-72 variants is www.tank-net.org .

[Marek_Tucan]

Marcello said:
"T-72S : Export version, conflicting data - some sources state export version of B, some state it's A/M1 with B FC and ERA which would mean weaker armour than 72B."

I am pretty sure that T-72S is T-72B, give or take a few details.I mean, with only light era and no thermal sight in the 21st century it is already enough of a tracked coffin without having to go further back to the T-72A armor scheme.

Most likely it seems it's T-72A/M1 refurbished to 72B standards concerning FCS. Mind you, it's not RUSSIAN soldiers who may die in them and from Russian POV it's good to costly sell T-72A hulls that would otherwise rust up in reserve depots

[Nikademus]

Thx for the link...forgot about Tanknet. lol....even found a thread devoted to the T-72. Unfortunately once again there are differing views and sources. I'd almost forgotten the theory that only the turret was cast steel while the hull glasis had more advanced protection. sigh..again it seems one must take their pick. Hard to believe that even after 30+ years the true stats of this MBT (and the early T-64 and 80?) remains a bit of a mystery or at least under question. Still also not sure if there was a difference between Soviet/WP made/outside WP delivered.

[Marek_Tucan]

In general concept there is no difference between T-72 built in USSR or outside, as well for T-72A or T-72M1 (ironically enough some M1's might have had a it better protection than T-72A's as they received the HHS plate from the beginning whereas some A's not and the plate was added later on). There were slight differences in quality of composites or of sights, but in game terms it's 1-2 points here and there.

[Marcello]

I have given a look to the T-72S issue.In sales type publications it is marketed as a modified T-72B.The iranians are apparently buying them in construction kits for local assembly.I think that they would realize that they are getting T-72A and bad words in farsi would follow. To be honest for support work the tank isn't that bad. Light ERA and the passive armor will stop RPG-7s just as effectively as Kontakt-5 and T-90 armor but at less expense. But if you have to go up against T-84s or such...