Why is the T-72 so bad?

[Sokol]

I've only played for maybe 5 hours but its very obvious the T-72 has the worst survivability in this game by far
I always die in one shot

[Max Reefer]

I'd say (and I'm no expert) that it's because all the ammo is stored in a carousel right below the turret ring. Therefore any centre mass shot from any side will probably hit the ammo, causing the famed turret toss/cook off.

Personally, I like the T-72 missions because of this handicap. Makes me move more carefully and puts my operation methods to the test.

[Voidhunger]

well this is why i dont like modern tanks. modern ammunition is so good that you can score just one hit and its over. Its a shame they are making modern tanks.

[Dooby]

The T-72 in game is an east german operated export version called the T-72M1, the tank itself is becoming outdated in the setting (1985) and on top of that, it only gets 3bm15. 3bm15 is a fairly old APFDS round exported to east germany meant to consistently counter things like the chieftan, M60, or Leopard 1, and is thus under equipped for the M1 abrams.

Soviet models will have stronger munitions more capable of countering composite arrays found on the M1 abrams and leopard 2. It will likely be able to deal with the hull of these vehicles much more consitently than 3bm15, though it will still have trouble with the turret cheeks.

As for survivability, the biggest problem with russian style MBTs is the spare ammunition strewn throughout the hull and turret, not the ammunition in the autoloader. This is less true on the T-64 and T-80 which have vertically stored ammunition in the autoloader (very dangerous).

[Dooby]

The T-72s the germans have in this timeframe are really only well armored against 105mm HEAT rounds and earlier APFSDS (m735 DM23) and APDS (DM13 M728) rounds that were previously in service with the united states and germany. In 1985 america is using 105mm M833, a depleted uranium dart well equipped to deal with the T-72M1 so the hull armor is usually defeated with a solid frontal hit.

[DragonWhite4Gulf]

In Iraq We had an Abrams pull up to a line of T-72s in an Iraqi motor pool. They put a 120mm sabot round through the T-72s and it pierced 7 Tanks in one shot.

[Raphaël Ambrosius Costeau]

Originally posted by Sokol:

I've only played for maybe 5 hours but its very obvious the T-72 has the worst survivability in this game by far
I always die in one shot

Because its a T72 ? Have you seen whats happening in Ukraine, by any chance ?
That's just what they do, that's why actual modern tanks have ways of isolating and redirecting ammo detonations outward instead of just imploding catastrophically...
T-55 is even worst : if its looking at you, you can try saturating it with MG fire and theres a decent chance it will go straight through the optic/MG vision port and detonate the turret ammo... Great design feature obviously.

[Mors]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0x-8NheU1E

The whole "turret blows up in the sky = horrible design" is fallacy.

That happens only when you have already penetrated the crew compartment and you have turned the whole crew to minced meat, and there is nothing to do to the crew anymore in that point, so in that moment IF it happens that the ammunition would manage to ignite, blow up all the ammunition, that is happening after the moment when vehicle has already been killed and it doesn't anymore matter.

Other fallacy is that the western MBT's like M1 Abrams, Leopard 2 or Challenger are completely protected from the same happening in them. First of all, the ammunition in T-series is protected from the frontal impacts. You really need to get to shoot from side or from top to get any arrow penetrate in that part.
In example Leopard 2 the right side of the front hull has ammunition, hit there and it ignites and turret will fly up. In the M1 Abrams, hit the turret back/side and likely the turret will fly up as well. In the challenger, just put the round to bottom part of frontal armor and you get the turret fly up in the air.

In the Iraq and Syria it has been shown how these western MBT's turrets fly same way as "imfamous T-72" has done. The difference in Ukraine again is that 1) there are equal equipment against each others and 2) there is modern AT top-attack weapons against modern MBT's unlike in other areas.

The T-72 in the game is already like generation older by the ammunition it is against. That is already unfair. There is very high task for developers to get a accurate simulation of such penetrators and impact point accuracies that it is better leave to some "acceptable errors".

T-72M export version of the T-72A with thinner armor and downgraded weapon systems. It was license-produced in Poland and Czechoslovakia.

T-72M1 another export version of the T-72A. Though the T-72M1 has thicker armor than the T-72M. In most protected areas of the hull and turret its armor arrangement consists of various layers of steel and a fiberglass compound with phenolic resin. The T-72M1 was uses as a target for testing against 105 mm APFSDS rounds fired from an M68 tank gun of the M60A3 tank in Austria. The results revealed that the M60A3 was unable to defeat the front armor of the T-72M1 with available ammunition. This tank was license-produced in Poland and Czechoslovakia.

http://www.military-today.com/tanks/t72.htm

Referring once again to "Возможная Компоновочная Схема Танка", it is reported that live fire testing revealed that the gun mantlet area of the T-72B could be defeated by BM-22 or BM-26 at a distance of 1.65 km. It is known that the armour penetration of these two rounds at a 0 degree impact angle at 2 km is between 420mm RHA to 490mm RHA, depending on the source. Therefore, the thickness of the gun mantlet weakened zone of the T-72B must significantly higher, taking into consideration the reported distance limit of armour defeat (1.65 km instead of 2.0 km). With that in mind, the vulnerability of the gun mantlet area of the T-72B against BM-22 and BM-26 does not necessarily translate to a vulnerability to contemporary 105mm APFSDS or even 120mm APFSDS like DM13 and DM23. Indeed, this so-called "weakened zone" would still be highly resilient to 105mm DM23 and DM33, as well as 105mm M833 and 120mm DM13 and DM23.

The table below, taken from page 62 of the book "Т-72/Т-90. Опыт создания отечественных основных боевых танков" (T-72/T-90. The experience of creating domestic main battle tanks) published by the Uralvagonzavod Research and Production Corporation, gives the distance limit of initial perforation of 105mm APDS and 120mm APDS on the armour of the T-64 (Object 432) tank with the same 80-105-20 upper glacis armour configuration. As the table shows, it is considered outright impossible for 105mm APDS to defeat the upper glacis armour or the frontal turret armour at any range, but 120mm APDS is considered capable of achieving initial perforation on the upper glacis armour at a maximum range of 1,000 meters and the frontal turret armour at 500 meters.

Overall, the upper glacis armour of the T-72 Ural provided good protection against the tank guns of the expected enemy forces. It was immune to 105mm APDS at point blank range and immune to 120mm APDS from above one kilometer. Given that 105mm APFSDS did not exist for several years after the introduction of the T-72 Ural, the Chieftain was the only credible threat in 1974.

https://thesovietarmourblog.blogspot.com/2017/12/t-72-part-2.html

[Lolman345]

Originally posted by Mors:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0x-8NheU1E

The whole "turret blows up in the sky = horrible design" is fallacy.

That happens only when you have already penetrated the crew compartment and you have turned the whole crew to minced meat, and there is nothing to do to the crew anymore in that point, so in that moment IF it happens that the ammunition would manage to ignite, blow up all the ammunition, that is happening after the moment when vehicle has already been killed and it doesn't anymore matter.

Other fallacy is that the western MBT's like M1 Abrams, Leopard 2 or Challenger are completely protected from the same happening in them. First of all, the ammunition in T-series is protected from the frontal impacts. You really need to get to shoot from side or from top to get any arrow penetrate in that part.
In example Leopard 2 the right side of the front hull has ammunition, hit there and it ignites and turret will fly up. In the M1 Abrams, hit the turret back/side and likely the turret will fly up as well. In the challenger, just put the round to bottom part of frontal armor and you get the turret fly up in the air.

In the Iraq and Syria it has been shown how these western MBT's turrets fly same way as "imfamous T-72" has done. The difference in Ukraine again is that 1) there are equal equipment against each others and 2) there is modern AT top-attack weapons against modern MBT's unlike in other areas.

The T-72 in the game is already like generation older by the ammunition it is against. That is already unfair. There is very high task for developers to get a accurate simulation of such penetrators and impact point accuracies that it is better leave to some "acceptable errors".

T-72M export version of the T-72A with thinner armor and downgraded weapon systems. It was license-produced in Poland and Czechoslovakia.

T-72M1 another export version of the T-72A. Though the T-72M1 has thicker armor than the T-72M. In most protected areas of the hull and turret its armor arrangement consists of various layers of steel and a fiberglass compound with phenolic resin. The T-72M1 was uses as a target for testing against 105 mm APFSDS rounds fired from an M68 tank gun of the M60A3 tank in Austria. The results revealed that the M60A3 was unable to defeat the front armor of the T-72M1 with available ammunition. This tank was license-produced in Poland and Czechoslovakia.

http://www.military-today.com/tanks/t72.htm

Referring once again to "Возможная Компоновочная Схема Танка", it is reported that live fire testing revealed that the gun mantlet area of the T-72B could be defeated by BM-22 or BM-26 at a distance of 1.65 km. It is known that the armour penetration of these two rounds at a 0 degree impact angle at 2 km is between 420mm RHA to 490mm RHA, depending on the source. Therefore, the thickness of the gun mantlet weakened zone of the T-72B must significantly higher, taking into consideration the reported distance limit of armour defeat (1.65 km instead of 2.0 km). With that in mind, the vulnerability of the gun mantlet area of the T-72B against BM-22 and BM-26 does not necessarily translate to a vulnerability to contemporary 105mm APFSDS or even 120mm APFSDS like DM13 and DM23. Indeed, this so-called "weakened zone" would still be highly resilient to 105mm DM23 and DM33, as well as 105mm M833 and 120mm DM13 and DM23.

The table below, taken from page 62 of the book "Т-72/Т-90. Опыт создания отечественных основных боевых танков" (T-72/T-90. The experience of creating domestic main battle tanks) published by the Uralvagonzavod Research and Production Corporation, gives the distance limit of initial perforation of 105mm APDS and 120mm APDS on the armour of the T-64 (Object 432) tank with the same 80-105-20 upper glacis armour configuration. As the table shows, it is considered outright impossible for 105mm APDS to defeat the upper glacis armour or the frontal turret armour at any range, but 120mm APDS is considered capable of achieving initial perforation on the upper glacis armour at a maximum range of 1,000 meters and the frontal turret armour at 500 meters.

Overall, the upper glacis armour of the T-72 Ural provided good protection against the tank guns of the expected enemy forces. It was immune to 105mm APDS at point blank range and immune to 120mm APDS from above one kilometer. Given that 105mm APFSDS did not exist for several years after the introduction of the T-72 Ural, the Chieftain was the only credible threat in 1974.

https://thesovietarmourblog.blogspot.com/2017/12/t-72-part-2.html

You stated so many wrong, repeated inaccuracies about both the western MBTs you speak of and the PACT ones.

No the T series autoloader is not protected frontally from modern penetrators, there are multiple confirmed reports of the middling capability STUGNA ATGM frontally penetrating the venerable T-80BVM and obliterating the vehicle due to a magizine cook off, to that same end, there are also multiple examples of Ukranian MBTs frontally penetrating multiple different variants of Russian tanks and cooking them off to boot, and Oryx's abacus provides over 1523 tanks for your choosing in this matter, take your pick on the ones who launched their turret into the stratosphere.

To that same end, the M1 series tanks cannot physically "launch" their turrets, their ammunition is stored in a turret bustle rack, it is above the turret line and hull, and the small ammo storage present in the hull also has a integrated blow out panel, no Russian MBT has such a feature for obvious reasons. The ammunition cannot physically lift the turret in the M1 because it is above the hull, and you cant invert physics to suit your flawed argument.

The Leopard 2s that have cooked off as you state are also the export Leopard 2A4s within Turkish service, they do not represent the modern series of leopard tanks, most western nations do not carry the hull rack's storage into combat for what should be obvious reasons, leaving only the upper bustle rack present which is once again above the hull and equipped with a blowout panel.

In the case of the Challenger 2, unlike other western MBTs it solves the issue of turret fires in a rather unique way, all of it's charges for the gun are stored in water glycol jackets, if they were to be penetrated while within their case, they would be inundated with a fire retardant mixture, thus, they do not combust like normal charges when hit, usually burning violently or being snuffed out before conflagrating. Of course this design comes with other issues, mainly in the case of handling but that is besides the point.

No, the T-72, and every other T series tank including the T-14 is a time bomb because the design places the crew on or next to a literal pancake of boom that the west quickly realized it a giant liability, hence why every single auto loader you see in modern, non PACT or Russian service feeds from a turret bustle rack and not a carousal, even China is attempting to move away from this with their new Type 15 light tank, their newest AFV, feeding from a bustle rack auto loader much akin to the Japanese Type 10 MBT and, well, every other western auto loaded tank.

It is a bad design and is still in use due to the fact that the T-72 and it's derivatives are cheap to produce, moderately easy to maintain, are lighter on average than their competitors, and require 1 less crewman to operate.

It is a bad design as it, places the ammunition in a centralized location, only provides adequate armor to a singular part of the hull which relies on it's high angle by design, and cannot accept blowout panels by virtue of the crew literally being placed on top of the primary magazine. The reason why the magazine of the auto loader is still a overall flawed design as well is due to the fact that regardless of what is done, on a magazine detonation, the path of least resistance is and will always be up and out of the vehicle, the west realized this and installed blowout panels accordingly. But due to the T series tanks having both crew and the turret in the way of that, you cannot install panels that would functionally do anything to mitigate such a event. Even the T-14 still fails in this regard as a magazine detonation would still propel the turret off the vehicle or critically damage it, as, even with the supposed installed side blowout panels, the path of least resistance is still up and out of the turret basket.

[harry]

Generally just move more slowly and use regular pauses to look around. The T72 is extremely survivable if you are hull down, and it's got a very capable armament. You want to focus on landing the first shot.

[YANKEE GO HOME]

You're using obsolescent ammo (the NVA never got anything better) while currently fighting tanks using the absolute best ammo NATO had at the time the game is set, because older types aren't implemented yet and neither are supply issues which force some of your enemy to use it. You're also engaging at, in most missions, what amounts to knife fighting range for a modern MBT. Most importantly, the tank is not designed to fight by platoon, it's designed to operate as part of a radically different approach to warfare which the game currently cannot really simulate and may or may not simulate in the future, because you kind of can't do NATO tactical-level thinking and Soviet operational-level thinking in the same game, especially without missions running for several hours.

For now the tactical solution is to avoid challenging Abrams frontally or in the open, and use treelines or terrain features to approach them unseen and hit them in the side or rear. You can kill them frontally if your aim is good enough, but it's unreliable due to T-72's simplistic fire control - a HEAT round that arcs just enough to fuze on the upper plate will go through easily, and any hit to the turret ring will as well. A HEAT hit to the turret ring is pretty much guaranteed to wipe out the entire turret crew. Don't aim for "weak spots", that's a stupid habit people pick up from the snail game and not what is done in real life, aim for the centre of seen mass. The place people associate with "frontal weak spot" from WWII tanks is one of the strongest pieces of armour on the entire M1 anyway.

The closest you'll get to an operational solution at the moment is to avoid company attacks in the campaign (especially if you're not sure what tanks you'll be facing) as they are built around the way NATO uses tanks and the relative size of attacker vs defender are all out of whack for what you need to be able to do in Pact stuff. Favour defences (and then use treelines to get effective fire on target), spoiling attacks, raids, and recce in force.

Also, glad to see that as ever, people are only too happy to offer genius opinions about the autoloaders of "T-series" tanks without being able to tell that T-72's autoloader is a completely different design, with completely different ammo stowage, to T-64/T-80. And pretend Abrams is the basic standard for NATO tank protection, especially in this era where half the tanks you're facing in the game are M60s which are even more vulnerable to being hit by literally anything than a T-72 is. Gotta get those r/ncd street creds in somewhere, I guess.

[BobobVanBlob]

Originally posted by Sokol:

I've only played for maybe 5 hours but its very obvious the T-72 has the worst survivability in this game by far
I always die in one shot

Skill issue.

Imagine thinking all tanks should survive APFSDS to the face. What if your tank is not supposed to get shot at by APFSDS? Have you tried this wonderful new thing called maneuvering?

[bloody_gums]

Originally posted by rule .303:

You're using obsolescent ammo (the NVA never got anything better) while currently fighting tanks using the absolute best ammo NATO had at the time the game is set, because older types aren't implemented yet and neither are supply issues which force some of your enemy to use it. You're also engaging at, in most missions, what amounts to knife fighting range for a modern MBT. Most importantly, the tank is not designed to fight by platoon, it's designed to operate as part of a radically different approach to warfare which the game currently cannot really simulate and may or may not simulate in the future, because you kind of can't do NATO tactical-level thinking and Soviet operational-level thinking in the same game, especially without missions running for several hours.

For now the tactical solution is to avoid challenging Abrams frontally or in the open, and use treelines or terrain features to approach them unseen and hit them in the side or rear. You can kill them frontally if your aim is good enough, but it's unreliable due to T-72's simplistic fire control - a HEAT round that arcs just enough to fuze on the upper plate will go through easily, and any hit to the turret ring will as well. A HEAT hit to the turret ring is pretty much guaranteed to wipe out the entire turret crew. Don't aim for "weak spots", that's a stupid habit people pick up from the snail game and not what is done in real life, aim for the centre of seen mass. The place people associate with "frontal weak spot" from WWII tanks is one of the strongest pieces of armour on the entire M1 anyway.

The closest you'll get to an operational solution at the moment is to avoid company attacks in the campaign (especially if you're not sure what tanks you'll be facing) as they are built around the way NATO uses tanks and the relative size of attacker vs defender are all out of whack for what you need to be able to do in Pact stuff. Favour defences (and then use treelines to get effective fire on target), spoiling attacks, raids, and recce in force.

Also, glad to see that as ever, people are only too happy to offer genius opinions about the autoloaders of "T-series" tanks without being able to tell that T-72's autoloader is a completely different design, with completely different ammo stowage, to T-64/T-80. And pretend Abrams is the basic standard for NATO tank protection, especially in this era where half the tanks you're facing in the game are M60s which are even more vulnerable to being hit by literally anything than a T-72 is. Gotta get those r/ncd street creds in somewhere, I guess.

I agree completely however for a PACT player the weakspots is essential targetting the abrams. Of course at range you just need to shoot shoot shoot. If you are close enough to aim for any part of the tank specifically though you should ABSOLUTELY aim for the rear turret bustle and set off their ammo

[Fat Otaku]

Originally posted by harry:

Generally just move more slowly and use regular pauses to look around. The T72 is extremely survivable if you are hull down, and it's got a very capable armament. You want to focus on landing the first shot.

That being said, you are describing exactly what the soviet tanks are not good at... This to me will just hinder the advantage of its thicker hull armor and the FCS system which will adjust the range to the target based on your own movement.

[Fat Otaku]

Originally posted by Sokol:

I've only played for maybe 5 hours but its very obvious the T-72 has the worst survivability in this game by far
I always die in one shot

Because it tried to be low profile, so ammo will have to be crammed into the small crew compartment. So, most shot that penetrate the tank will catch an ammo along its way. Additionally, it was supposed to be cheap and suitable for mass production, so losing a few tanks after fighting a US force in a first contact scenario with a tank ratio of 5:1 (according to the estimation of a US field manual in 1978) wouldn't be that big of concern, especially for a communist dictatorship.

[Mors]

Originally posted by Fat Otaku:

This to me will just hinder the advantage of its thicker hull armor and the FCS system which will adjust the range to the target based on your own movement.

The T-72 has automatic range recalculation based your movement.
The Delta-D ranging system use the vehicle speed, tracks traveling rate and turret angle on the target to adjust automatically the set range.
When hull is directly going to direction as the turret, it is full range, and when the turret angle relative to hull is changed, then the range calculation is adjusted proportionally until you are moving 90 degree relative to the target and then no range change is performed.
Downside is that as moving toward, sight is raising and gunner needs to manually adjust the sight downward to compensate for shrinking distance.

The system works great, until your tracks starts to slip on either the mud or on ice. Meaning you need to stay stationary while your tracks are rotating and you are literally stuck in that position. In other words, you are basically in mobility-kill situation.

The T-72 Ural original weapon system had 0.5-0.6 first-hit probability at 2000 meters when firing subcaliber ammunition. The new turret in the T-72 Ural-1 increased it to 0.7 with redesigned sight and bearings, but the TPD-K1 laser designator that came to some T-72 Ural-1 models and officially in T-72A made it faster to get that first shot out. Even when considering the laser rangefinder didn't fire where sight pointed and required re-aiming after ranging and increased it to 0.8 scale.
Considering as well the true Hunter-Killer capability, best stabilization system (until Leopard 2 came out), 72 degree FOV with 8x magnification, automatic sight range adjustment based selected ammunition. And for backup purposes gunner can use a split-image rangefinder viewfinder (right eye piece) by just aligning top & bottom pieces in center 2 degree circle with thumbwheels in controller and you have proper distance set (or possibility to use it as stereoscopic rangefinder as well).
Capability to use both eyes open helps to eye strain as both eyes see same image and magnification.