Talk:T-72

Leading image

Can we agree on the most appropriate leading image to represent this very numerous family of vehicles? I don't think using a photo of the newest Russian T-72B3 or Indian or any other contemporary vehicle to do the article justice and emphasize the longevity of this series.

I propose a detailed picture of the T-72A, since this is the most numerous and and widely exported version, with T-72M and M1 being license build and operated all across the world. If there are no objections, I will proceed with this in a few days. 24.52.231.99 (talk) 19:05, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

1ST CHECHEN WAR - POTENTIAL IN ACCURRACIES IN MAIN ARTICLE.

see Russian-Manufactured Armored Vehicle Vulnerability in Urban Combat: The Chechnya Experience

by Mr. Lester W. Grau Foreign Military Studies Office, Fort Leavenworth, KS. <https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/rusav.htm> for a comprehensive analysis of soviet AFV loses, DURING THE FIRST CHECHEN WAR QUOTE

"During the first month of the conflict, Russian forces wrote off 225 armored vehicles (of all types) as non repairable battle losses." - ARTICLE CITES 225 as being the number of T72 (t80) deployed.

Effectiveness of KOBRA missile is not evidenced. - particulary what were they fired at -- given that Grozny was largely flattened by indiscriminate bombing I suspect that the targets destroyed were buildings.

"Sixty-two tanks were destroyed in the first month's fighting in Chechnya."

"The elevation and depression of the Russian main tank guns are incapable of dealing with hunter-killer teams fighting from basements and second or third-story positions and the simultaneous attack from five or six teams negate the effectiveness of the tank's machine guns."

"Early in the conflict, most Russian tanks went into combat without their reactive armor. They were particularly vulnerable to damaging or lethal frontal hits without it.(10)"

CHECHEN opposition quoted as using RPG 7 & RPG 18.

<https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/rusav.htm> --Zakalwe101 (talk) 15:04, 8 January 2017 (UTC) original entry by Zakalwe101 1504 08/01/17

No M1 casualties from T-72?

I have just reverted the removal of the assertion that no Abrams were lost to T-72 action during the Battle of 73 Easting. The reason given was that General Robert Scales book, Certain Victory said that there were, but gave no page number. Here is the book. It's 460 pages long. Which page is it on? http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/cgsc/carl/download/csipubs/CertainVictory.pdf (Hohum ^@) 18:35, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Edit: Pages 5 and 262 are where 73 Easting is mentioned. One lost Bradley due to fratricide is all that is noted. (Hohum ^@) 19:05, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

T-72 vs T-72B3

The article must be amended to stress the fact that T-72B3 is completely different from T-72. It looks similar on the outside, but the components inside are completely different. The way the article is written now may create an erroneous impression that modern Russian tank fleet is composed of outdated T-72s, which is not the case. Over a 1,000 tanks have been modernized to T-72B3, which is a different generation from T-72.

Basically, the article should draw a clear distinction between three generations of tanks: 1) T-72/T-72A/T-72M (2nd generation), 2) T-72B (2nd generation advanced), 3) T-72B3/T-72B3M (3rd generation or 3rd generation advanced — depending on who you ask). 46.242.8.29 (talk) 20:12, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

You have the "variants"- and the "service"-sections to work with and the T-72 operators and variants article to point out differences in individual nations equipment. If that is not enough: for example variants of the Centurion (tank) were also completely rebuild, and those just got a new article - without destroying the existing one. Alexpl (talk) 13:08, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

The assertion that the T-72 is second generation is not really supported by a source. I would argue the T-72 is third generation. T-54/55 first generation. T-62 and 64 second generation. T-72 and T-80 third generation.

Chechen wars

I originally rewrote this section (as noted above ) having discovered the source document cited 95,(now100 2A02:C7F:CA47:8100:152A:2F5A:297B:C456 (talk) 20:41, 4 January 2020 (UTC)) since then it has been amended but without any additional citations, and efffectively distorting the evidence provided in the citation 95. So i have reverted it back, please if you going to amend it please please provide evidence. Zakalwe101 (talk) 22:25, 2 June 2019 (UTC) /// Yet again I have had to revert this, it has been amended without any references, in particular numbers of tanks deployed has been given for the assault on Grozny ,if you are going to quote exact figures then provide the source. Citation 95 relates solely to a Russian study of battlefield right offs (non repairable)and should not be confused with the number of vehicles deployed. I have also chosen to remove the emotive labelling, anyone reading this article should be able to make an informed decision on who is a terrorist or not , lets keep it factual.Zakalwe101 (talk) 22:22, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

04/01/2020 Yet again someone has mangled the entry inserting details of allEged numbers and types of afv's used without any source notes. I have reverted it back to my original entry which at least gives details of the number vehicles lost. ( I assume it would be obvious to extropolate that the number deployed exceeds the number lost ?) I have removed reference to "terrorist." Zakalwe101 (talk) 19:34, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I have also removed the comment that "The frontal armor of the T-72 has never been penetrated during the war." the document cited as evidence of this claim provides no such evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zakalwe101 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 4 January 2020 (UTC) citation 102 realtes solely T62 (VARIOUS MODELS) deployed to Chechnya,I've tranlated it, it has no place in this article. 2A02:C7F:CA47:8100:152A:2F5A:297B:C456 (talk) 20:41, 4 January 2020 (UTC) citation 103 relates to Ichkeria Air Force History- no mention of T72 , I've tranlated it, it has no place in this article. 2A02:C7F:CA47:8100:152A:2F5A:297B:C456 (talk) 20:41, 4 January 2020 (UTC) citation 104 relates to acts of terrorism by Chechen/Wahhabist seperatists, it doesn't provide any relevant information relating to the T72 tank. 2A02:C7F:CA47:8100:152A:2F5A:297B:C456 (talk) 20:41, 4 January 2020 (UTC)