T-72 varients

[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 .

[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...

[Marcello]

"I'd almost forgotten the theory that only the turret was cast steel while the hull glasis had more advanced protection."

For the early versions (T-72, T-72M) this was apparently the case. Certainly the turrets of those tanks look like plain cast steel, with no inserts. This may sound odd, given that generally you would want the turret to have protection at least equal and possibly much better than the hull but there are a few justifications for that.First of all while the turret had only "conventional" armor it was very thick and supposedly well shaped for shot deflection.Then while the glacis was "composite" it was only steel/fiberglass,nothing of fancy. I also believe the soviets had little taste for western style "hull down" defensive style fighting, which put an emphasis on turret armor (and main gun depression, which the T-XX were never famous for).

[pdoktar]

Yep. The soviet idea was for head-on advance, and very little dug-in defence, so no need for much stronger turret armor. (I find the soviet armor layout much better for WinSPMBT type of games)