Talk:T-72/Archive 2

Employment section

There are some problems with the T-72#Employment section. It's time to find sources or delete material.

A significant characteristic of all Soviet and Russian tanks since the Second World War is their relatively limited range of main gun elevation. The tank's low profile requires a correspondingly low turret roof, which stops the rising gun breech. This inhibits depression of the gun (this was seen as a reasonable trade-off for a low profile). The main gun can be depressed only a few degrees, making it difficult to stop in a well-protected hull-down position (with the tank parked just behind the crest of a ridge and just the muzzle of its gun and part of its turret visible to the anticipated target).

Western tanks have considerably more elevation range and can be parked in a hull-down position with just the gun and a tiny sliver of the turret showing, whereas Soviet designs under many circumstances cannot take up a hull-down position at all because they cannot depress their guns far enough to park behind a ridge and shoot down the hill. In the interest of fairness, the origin and true impact of this shortcoming should be noted. The common Western explanation is that given Soviet doctrine's tactical emphasis on offence over defence, it was not particularly important to the Soviet designers that their tank be able to fight from a defensive position for long periods.

It should be made clear that Western tank can take a hull-down aspect in a wider range of terrain. It is a difference of degree for the respective types of tank—a big contrast in this case, but not something that one tank has and the other doesn't. The assumption about the offensive emphasis is commonly cited, but should be sourced. It should be noted that this characteristic and others are also a direct result of the Soviets' absolute dictates to limit the size and weight of tanks, based on lessons learned from the success of the T-34.

It is more likely that the T-72's designers were acutely conscious of the tank's limited main gun depression. A close look at the T-72 reveals an integral hydraulic bulldozer blade on the underside of the frontal glacis, which enables the T-72 to excavate and construct a defensive position that minimizes the need for gun depression.

True, but could be stated more briefly.

The T-72's lighter armour, lower ammunition count, and lesser gun range when compared to its Western counterparts all indicate that its design prioritised mass production over comparative invincibility. A (relatively) cheap weapon, fielded in quantity, could wear down the better-armoured spearheads of a Western conventional strike even in head-to-head battle. The T-72 is better characterised as a low-cost design balanced for phased offensive and defensive employment than as a tank designed solely for the attack.

Mass production was only one goal of the smaller, lighter design—also strategic and tactical moblity, maintainability, optimized protection.

Indeed, by comparison with its NATO contemporaries the T-72 seems somewhat under-provisioned for protracted offensive operations.

This ignores that Soviet doctrine emphasized expending entire units in the attack, then sending the remnants back to be reformed and rebuilt, while fresh units follow on in further attacks.

Western tanks such as the Leopard 2, the Leclerc, and the M1 Abrams, publicly specified for the capability to defend against a feared Soviet/Warsaw Pact invasion of NATO, exhibit significant offensive capabilities that could serve a preemptive strike as well as a defence including local counterattack. These Western tanks' higher on-board ammunition capacity may well have convinced habitually frugal Warsaw Pact strategists that they were not designed exclusively to fight from well-prepared positions in which additional ammunition could be stowed outside the tank turret (and from which a cheaper antitank solution might have nearly as much effect).

What is this paragraph saying about the T-72? It's built on supposition and inaccurate statements. Western tanks were built for survivability and endurance in the face of superior attacking numbers. Warsaw Pact strategists where extinct by the time the Leclerc saw the light of day. Any reason not to strike this altogether?

Armoured warfare is of course neither simple nor static, historically involving rapid alteration between modes of attack and defence. Engineers on the two sides of the Iron Curtain certainly received contrasting constraints and objectives. Whether evaluated for cost, mobility, armament, or protection, the T-72 is a classic representative of the Soviet school of tank construction.

Recent CIS export designs, intended to compete with Western tanks on the open market, have placed more emphasis on defence and crew survivability. The Ukrainian T-84 Oplot, T-84-120 Yatagan, and Russian Black Eagle appear to have armoured blow-out ammunition compartments.

This section needs references. I'll try to dig some up eventually.

It also needs a bit more of a focussed message. Perhaps information about the design concept of the tank, along with some history relating to the T-34 and T-54, belongs earlier in the Origin or Production history sections.

Agree? Disagree? Suggestions? —Michael Z. 2007-07-18 19:16 Z

Yes, pretty much agreed. The section on Western tanks really does not belong here at all since it adds nothing to the T-72 description. Probably belongs in a different article entirely, such as tank design?--Mrg3105 09:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Zulfiqar

I'm curious why this was added to the T-72 entry. The type does not use either the hull, the turret, or the engine of the T-72, and the 125mm weapon is apparently indigenous Iranian design.--Mrg3105 09:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I removed it. The Zulfiqar is an amalgam of technology from the Patton series of tanks and the T72. It's not a variant in any way, shape, or form. Therefore, there's no need to mention it at this article. Parsecboy 11:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Finland

Finland break up almost all T-72 in 2007, rest of spare parts sold to Czech Republic price 4,1 million euro. Argus fin 07:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

"Driving the T-72 is a real challenge."

I removed the nonsense about the "Driving the T-72 is a real challenge.". How is it possible that those who have actually served as T-72 crewmen haven't noticed the "challenge"? In addition, there was no source mentioned for this "fact" (and even if there was one, it would be wildly inaccurate source anyway). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.248.138.208 (talk) 15:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Probably just some original research. Bogdan ^що? 16:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Source inconsistency

I noted that the references marked number 5 seem to link up to the T-62 instead of the T-72 ones. Not sure if this is an error or what. Ominae (talk) 11:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I fixed it. Thanks for pointing it out. - SuperTank17 (talk) 16:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

T-72 a further development of T-62 or derived from T-64A?

I have a bit of problem here. One source tells me that T-72 was a further development of T-62 but the other one says that T-72 was derived from T-64A.

Can anyone clear this up? —SuperTank17 (talk • contribs) 15:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

In a sense they're both correct. The T-72 (Ob.172M) was developed by the same factory (Uralvagonzavod) that made the T-62 (Ob.166). One of the first prototypes, the Ob.167, still had the T-62 turret but already the new hull and suspension. On the other hand, the T-72 was an improved yet simplified and cheaper version of the T-64 so some of the parts can be found on both tanks. Another T-72 prototype, the Ob.172, was in fact a T-64A with the new V-46 diesel engine (initially V-45). dendirrek (talk) 17:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced speed

"However, it is capable of very high speed due to its light weight; one tank was clocked at 110 km/h on a German Autobahn."

This is in the weight section, and really should either be sourced, or removed. I have never heard, or read, about a T-72 doing these speeds, and all official literature says half that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.216.246 (talk) 02:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Sudan

Sudan - 30,000 In Service, is there a sorce for this? Enlil Ninlil (talk) 21:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I doubt the Soviet Union at the height of its power even had that many tanks operational... Koalorka (talk) 21:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Philippines?

Someone keeps adding the Philippines to the list of operators and is asking me to prove they don't operate it. I think it would be better for that person to come forward with evidence that the Philippine Army actually does operate the T-72. --Edward Sandstig (talk) 15:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it would have been better if you would even care who reverted your edit. Also I wasn't the one who added Philippines to the operators list in the first place. It was added by an anonymous editor on 6 May 2008.

Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 17:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

So why did you revert my edit immediately when I clearly stated that they didn't operate it? The anonymous user didn't post a reference, and you would rather I try to prove a negative? Or do you have evidence that the Armed Forces of the Philippines operates the T-72? --Edward Sandstig (talk) 18:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't have the sources but I simple done my duty as wikipedian to revert any edits that might be considered vandalism (deletion of certain parts of the article in this case). You did say that Philippines don't operate T-72 MBTs but you didn't prove it. You can easily prove such statement by referring to reliable sources which in this case wouldn't list Philippines as a T-72 operator.

Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 20:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid the burden of proof is on those who wish to include the Phillipines. It would be extremely difficult to prove a negative, even with the method you suggest, as the list might be incomplete, or out of date, etc. It would be much easier to show an equipment list that has T-72s on it. Parsecboy (talk) 20:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there are several IP editors who like to add nonsense about the Phillipino military to Wikipedia articles. This seems to be an example of that. More generally, the burden of proof for all material on Wikipedia rests with the editor who adds it, and other editors don't need to prove a negative if they remove particularly dubious looking stuff. Nick Dowling (talk) 03:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Ultimately, a fact like this ought to be supported by a reference, but we also try to assume good faith on the part of other editors. Also, please don't make accusations of vandalism when you see a normal edit or disagree with someone.

Since no one seems to be saying that the Philippines do operate the T-72, I would support removing this statement until a reliable source appears which says yes or no. —Michael Z. 2008-06-09 14:27 z

As Nick Dowling pointed out, there seem to be a number of anonymous IPs (usually from New Zealand) that keep adding dubious tidbits about the Armed Forces of the Philippines. I try to do my part and track down changes they make after I see their edits in Philippine-related articles, but they usually make small, easy-to-miss edits in non-Philippine articles. It seems a bit funny now, that my removal of a highly questionable claim, from an anonymous editor, who didn't even bother to add an edit summary or source could have been misconstrued as vandalism. ;) --Edward Sandstig (talk) 19:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC) (just to make things clear, by "funny" I meant amusing, no malice intended)

Reversions by Roadscoastfordoor

Please stop removing valid "citation needed" tags. As for the rest of your edits, you should look at the section on this talk page about the supposed challenges of driving the tank. Then there's this section which discusses the alleged 110km speed on German autobahns. The bit about the T-90's autoloader is totally irrelevant to this article. Parsecboy (talk) 16:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Explain to me how you on one hand can add uncited information yet demand that tags be left. And then show me the sources for your false and obvious misleading information for the false information that you add such as 1 "the 2A46 gun itself has a lower muzzle velocity compared to NATO 105mm and 120mm guns", 2"Penetration by Soviet kinetic energy weapons is considerably lower at 1 mile than smaller caliber NATO counterparts" where are the sources. And this part here is clearly twisted and propaganda driven A "in part due to the limiting factor of the small turret, which reduces breech-length and thus ammunition charge" And finally very interesting that you add fact tags to anything that says anything positive about the t-72 but do not demand the same for those things that say negative things that is the most interesting part Roadscoastfordoor (talk) 16:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't add any of that, I'm just reverting your removal of it. As I pointed out above, there has been discussion on this talk page about some of your alleged "facts" about road speed. As for the fact tags, you don't get to remove them because you don't like them. If you want to replace unsourced material you can't do so with material that is also unsourced. Provide a source, or don't change text that has been stable for some time. Parsecboy (talk) 16:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

You just added it like 1 min ago, do you have no memory?. The information is clearly bias and false and written from an anti russo perspective, most likely by ip vandals, stop re adding it and I can compromise on the road speed Roadscoastfordoor (talk) 16:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I reverted your removal of it a few minutes ago. The text had been there for quite some time previously. If you can prove the information is false, then remove it. If not, then don't.

This part, about the T-90's autoloader is completely irrelevant to this article:

"The T-90 autoloader (further modification of T-72) has a 'sequence' mode. When it is enabled, the loading mechanism continuously loads rounds of the same type without any gunner's intervention. This allows the loading operations to be performed in under 5 seconds. There are videos showing T-90 firing 3 shots in 13 seconds (4.3 sec per shot) while moving. This rate of fire is practically impossible for a human loader."

This article is about the T-72, not the T-90. As for this line:

"In the interest of fairness, the origin and true impact of this shortcoming should be noted. The common Western explanation is that..."

This is not an editorial, it's an encyclopedia. Phrases like "It should be noted" are generally prohibited. If there is contradicting information, state it, don't use peacock terms and weasel words to get the point across. Parsecboy (talk) 17:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

No no and no "If I can prove it is false" no no no read the wikipedia guide lines here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ref "Any material that is challenged, and for which no source is provided within a reasonable time (or immediately if it's about a living person), may be removed by any editor." Do you understand it is you who must prove that it is true not me that has to prove that it is false, otherwise everyone could write everything for example that the T-72 was built by FDR who traveled in a time machine to the 60s, see it is the person who adds the text that must provide that it is true not the one who wishes to remove itRoadscoastfordoor (talk) 18:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

And the loader can also go what I am talking about the the text about the gun, so if we cut the text about the gun which has no source then we can also remove the speed and the autoloader, ok? Roadscoastfordoor (talk) 18:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The issue is not that you're removing information, it's that you replaced it with equally unsourced info (speaking about the comparison of the 125mm and western 105 and 120mm guns). Parsecboy (talk) 22:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok then, what about cutting the speed, the autoloader, and the text about the gun should be; The T-72 has a 125mm gun and the Soviets armed them with anti tank guided missiles, corresponding Nato Tanks of that time had a 105mm gun. What do you think? Roadscoastfordoor (talk) 18:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

That seems to be fine to me; it would probably be good to describe the various types of ammunition the gun can fire (HEAT, APFDS, ATGMs, etc.), which I hadn't realized the article doesn't yet do. I'll try out a rewording of the gun section in a bit. Actually, I'm no expert on the T-72, and I don't have any references with me at the moment, so I'll hold off on adding anything specific about the types of ammunition it can fire; perhaps Supertank17 (one of the more active and seemingly knowledgeable editors of this page) can lend some of his expertise? I'll just trim the comparison between Soviet and NATO guns for the time being. Parsecboy (talk) 00:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've gone ahead and reworded the paragraph about the main gun, and included a pretty generic description of the types of ammunition fired; if you or anyone else knows the specific types of ATGMs, or other types of ammunition, please go ahead and add them (and link them if they have articles, which is likely). Take a look and let me know what you think. Parsecboy (talk) 00:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks good Roadscoastfordoor (talk) 01:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Confusing armour description

It is believed the maximum thickness of 280 mm, the nose is about 80 mm and the glacis of the new laminated armour is 200 mm thick, which when inclined gives about 500-600 mm LOS thickness.

This is not a sentence, and its parts are all confusing. What is the “nose?” Does the glacis plus its “nose” (200+80) equal the maximum of 280 mm armour, or is this sum a coincidence? I assume that “LOS thickness” means “thickness along the line of sight”—this is probably better expressed as “horizontal thickness,” as the LOS may vary depending on trajectory or relative elevation of the firer. —Michael Z. 2008-07-13 05:38 z

I couldn't understand that either. But I think the entire description section is a bit problematic, since many of the problems described were removed in the later models. Maybe "Description" should present both the early (T-72A/T-72M) and later variants (T-72B/T-72S). I'll try to rework the section soon. - Tourbillon ^A ? 16:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:EOCM.jpg

The image Image:EOCM.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --08:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Warsaw Pact T-72 inferior

Licenced versions of T-72 were made in Poland and Czechoslovakia, for WARPAC consumers. These tanks had better and more consistent quality of make but with inferior armour, lacking the resin-embedded ceramics layer inside the turret front and glacis armour, replaced with all steel.

In Poland (don't know how's with Slovakian factory, but I think it's the same) this information might be accurate to T-72M, but soon this model was replaced with T-72M1 with "Dolly Parton" amour and other upgrades making it superior to T-72A (Soviets were adopting T-72B at a time). T-72M1D (polish T-72M1K) was produced at the same time.

Many parts and tools are not interchangeable between the Russian, Polish and Czechoslovakian versions, which caused logistical problems.

Any sources on this statement?

--Corran.pl (talk) 21:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Autoloader

I've read articles and seen documentaries on the first Gulf war where it was stated that the T-72's autoloader was a major reason why the Iraqi tanks got so few hits on the American M1's. 6.5 seconds is the *minimum* time for the T-72 to load. A well trained M1 crew can manually load shells in 7 seconds shot after shot. If the Iraqi tank managed to get off the first shot, the crew was sitting there waiting for the next shell to load while an M1 crew had already loaded and fired their second shot. One documentary had an American tank crew member's observation that after the first Iraqi tanks had been destroyed, many Iraqi crews would fire one shot then bail out because before their gun could reload the T-72 would be hit by one or more M1's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.100.251.243 (talk) 07:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually iraqis had quite a lot of hits on US tanks, but very few of them did some damage - explained by the poor training and amunitions quality, already mentioned in the article. It is widely disputed if the autoloader is a disadvantage - it's prone to mechanical failures, but that is only when the tank hasn't been maintained properly (a problem also present in Iraq's armed forces overall). Otherwise, an autoloader device can keep a very rhythmical rate of fire, while the manual loading process can be very rapid, but after the first 5-6 shells the loaders from the crew get pretty exhausted, especially with the DU-shells of the M1 Abrams.

Tangra680 (talk) 12:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I imagine that after a platoon of M1 tanks has fired 5-6 shells, there wouldn't be much left to shoot at! -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 13:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

"I imagine that after a platoon of M1 tanks has fired 5-6 shells, there wouldn't be much left to shoot at!" Nice contribution to the discussion, keep it up. P.S. base M1 is significantly weaker than T-72, that is why it was very soon updated, maybe you meant M1A2? Quit wasting space and showing your ignorance. Ok, back to serious things: IS T-72 using same autoloader than T-90?? If yes, ther is video on youtube of T-90 firing 3 shells in 13 seconds.99.231.50.118 (talk) 07:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)Pavel Golikov.

Iraqitankers

Iraqis were very well tankers and well trained in 1991 (maybe not operational but tactical) and the quality of the ammunition was easternstandard,wich was simply less effective against the (in this case)counterparts,just read the story at global security of the three iraqi T-72s wich fired different ammunitions and hit one Abrams wich was mired and alone, three times but without outknocking it (one Sabot was fired from 400meters!!)the Abrams knocked all three out!,although is the estimated number of destroyed T-72s in the TANKBATTLES of DS low (20-50!!),only the losts in the aircampaign were high: 200-230!!(source:global security),so nearly all tanks were lost during the aircampaign and closeairsupportoperations of DS.The T-72 which they had was not effective against coalition tanks and not the tankers marksmanship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.83.83.228 (talk) 17:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

As you said T-72 in Iraq suffered from poor quality of it's ammunition (the fact it was as you called it eastern standard doesn't mean that it wasn't poor quality). As for the training of Iraqi tankers show me a source that tells that Iraqis weren't bad tankers. It is a widely known fact and almost every source says this. - SuperTank17 (talk) 17:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The quality of the COMMON T-72ammunition is poor ,not only of the monkey models and yes, it is well known but not correct that the iraqis werent well trained and competent tankers, source:"Tactical Evolution in the Iraqi Army: The Abadan Island and Fish Lake Campaigns of the Iran-Iraq War" and "Saddam Hussein's First War-An Assessment of Iraqi Operational Art in the Iran-Iraq War". The iran-iraq war shows how the iraqis developed themselfes, from their poor performance at the beginning of the war to a strong professional army in the last 4years, the iraqis had nearly no casualties compared to the iraniens in the last years, they were experienced and well trained after 8years of war(especially tactical) and in 1991 the tankers fought without numeral advantage,air support and equipment,which has any chance against the coalition.Sorry, but i have to edit! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.83.83.228 (talk) 18:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC) another source: "arab military effectiveness" The republican guard trained daily up to 13hours per day! and the Tankforces were the best forces of the iraqi military! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.83.83.228 (talk) 22:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

were are the sources that say that they were bad tankers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.83.83.228 (talk • contribs)

Quality of COMMON T-72? You mean the one from 70's? And you compare it to 90's tank??? Proper comparison indeed. 99.231.50.118 (talk) 07:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)Pavel Golikov.

Western/American point of view

Some parts of this article seem to be written from a Western/American point of view. Why does the article constantly compare the T-72 to Western tanks? The "service" chapter contained a part which said "many of the West's/America's enemies use the T-72" - this was too much for me so I removed the whole passage. English Wikipedia should have a global point of view, not an American/Western one. Offliner (talk) 09:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Because NATO sources for such comparisons are reliably available, while Russian sources for this technological masterpiece are under lock and key, or only available as rumours. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 17:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

T-72Z, Type 72Z, or Safir-74

This tank should not be confused with the Soviet T-72 MBT. It is not a T-72 but a conversion of the T-54 or Type 59. I previously removed the Safir from the world wide list but someone added it again! En total remove the little guy from the list Micro360 (talk) 00:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Jack in a box effect

Since it's quite a common stereotype when T-72 blowing from inside and wiping out all the crew I wrote this note in the article describing why does it seems to happen: Note: ammunition is basically stored inside the autoloader in the lowest part of the tank (horisontally in T-72 and vertically in T-80) — this means that the probability of being hit right into the carousel mechanism, as russian experts claim, is quite low[11]. However the amount of ammunition stored inside the autoloader is significantly small (22 rounds)[12] — that means that you have to fill the crew compartment with extra rounds (23 rounds) and put it inside the autoloader while shooting[12] which, on the other hand, does create a possibility of blast when the turret's armory is penetrated [13]. Furthermore, if T-72 was set on fire crew can leave it unharmed, but fire will eventually blow up the ammunition in the autoloader and set the turret fly (which means that all destroyed T-72 tanks loosing their turrets but doesn't mean that their crews were killed). Despite that, ammunition stowed inside T-72, unlike the ammunition that stowed outside most western tanks, are well-protected by ERA and thick turret's armory against RPG-launchers. I think we all can agree that all stereotypes should be explained here in wikipedia, so I ask you to carefully analyse those stastements, instead of just wiping it out.92.62.50.89 (talk) 19:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem is, it's not sourced to reliable sources. Wikipedia cannot cite itself, and there's no indication that the other website is reliable either (that and it's in Russian, and so it cannot be easily checked to verify it backs up what you're citing). If you can find quality sources, then you can add it back. Parsecboy (talk) 19:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The cited sources (except ruwiki - it should be replaced with a direct source) seem reliable to me. If you have conserns, you can ask at the reliable sources noticeboard. Just because the sources are in Russian is not a reason to remove the material. Offliner (talk) 20:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

On what reliable sources is this based? Just because it "looks" reliable it doesn't mean it is. Non-scholarly websites are not reliable sources. Parsecboy (talk) 20:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

What's so unreliable in information that 22 rounds are stored in autoloader and 23 are stored in crew compartment, tell me? Rukipedia also has this information, but I don't know what book I should write as a source because there's many of them (seems like this book should obviously have this information, but i don't have it on hands: "С. Устьянцев, Д. Колмаков. Т-72. — Нижний Тагил: Уралвагонзавод / Медиа-Принт, 2004."). Nevertheless, I do accept that this note has to be more concrete and reliable - think I should've discuss it here beorehead, sorry.92.62.50.89 (talk) 09:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not the specific numbers that are necessarily unreliable, it's that the website is not scholarly; I could just as easily make my own website and write that the T-72 stores 25 in the autoloader and 30 in the crew compartment, and it would have the exact same claim to validity as the other website, because neither one tells us where it gets the information. Websites rarely count as reliable sources, because they rarely provide us with their sources. An example of one that is reliable is Navweaps; if you look at the bottom of the page I linked, it gives the books from which it got the technical data. And no worries about being bold, we're having the discussion now, and that's what matters, right? Parsecboy (talk) 10:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Good news is that i found the book I was talking about on the internet - so it seems like I'll be able to proove those claims after all. It's a very interesting theme btw, e.g. someone said that T-80 driver are not able to leave tank unless turret is turned away, as far as he cannot leave tank through the turret compartment because of the autoloader, while T-72 driver can because AL is smaller. But it takes so much work to find proofs of that. Also you can see in T-80 description section exactly the same ideas (and numbers) but without links92.62.50.89 (talk) 15:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. There are indeed a number of myths surrounding these tanks (Western ones too) that come from either poor intelligence from the opposing side (low estimation of Russian tanks due to combat experience with monkey models) or puffery from themselves (nonsense like how the Abrams is supposedly indestructible). But reliable sources can be used to contradict these falsehoods. Parsecboy (talk) 16:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Since i'm not so good in english i can translate some information from this book ||S.Ustyantzev, D.Kolmakov(2004) Boevye mashiny Uralvagonzavoda/Uralvagonzavod battle mashines/ - T-72|| for you to check it rewright (deleting all unnecesarry things) and put in the article.

Fist works on a new tank started on Uralvagonzavod Factory (note: Zavod is a factory in fact, so its a tautology like Rashomon Gates) in early 60-s. UVZ tried to improve T-62 that was already been prodused by them, by making a new modification of this machine with the influence of ideas gained from T-64 by Khar'kovskoe Konstruktorskoe Byuro Mshinostroeniya (Kharkov Construction Bureau of Mashine Construction). New tanks (objects 167, 166M, 166TM) gained new chassis, and 125mm gun with simplified autoloader developed independently in UVZ. It was believed by engeneers that new tank should have as much interchangable details as possible to being able to be mass produced in case of war, that would mean that newly developed two stroke diesel 5TDF for T-64 is not acceptable, since it cannot be placed on a civilian machines (because it cannot be mass producted, since it consume new type of oil, and oil industry in USSR was not ready to produce it) - it was decided to choose another B2 four stroke diesel that was developed for a mass production (and consumpted old oils). Newly developed tracks for chassis was completely interchangable with an old T-55 tracks. However UVZ couldn't get a hand on an exemplar of a new armor that was in development for T-64 by NII Stali(Scientific Research Institute of Steel).

Object 167 was not accepted by Central Committee and for several years UVZ assembled the old version of T-62 (It was estimated that half of all T-62 was produced in that period of time, which mean that half of all T-62 now would have been produced with 125mm gun), the explanation given was that T-64 is almost completed, so there's no need for another tank. In preparation of production T-64 on UVZ all criticism about T-64 diesel and autoloader was considered - it was decided to make cheaper version of T-64 for assembling in case of war. Several T-64A was delivered to UVZ to examination, and eventually all improvements of Object 167 based on T-62 was installed on T-64, including new diesel B-45K. This modification, named object 172, initially was developed for assemling in case of full-scale war, but UVZ prooved that this tank is just as good as T-64, but more cheep and reliable so it was decided to allow UVZ assembling object 172 instead of T-64A.

After few years of examination in 1972 Object 172M (780h.p. B-46 diesel, 41 ton) was finaly put in service, under the name T-72.

As you can see, for example, T-72 is not based on T-62, as estimated in this wiki-article, but all aggregates that distinguish T-72 from T-64 was first tested on T-62(obj 167), so there's nothing from T-62 left.92.62.50.89 (talk) 21:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

South Africa?

I noticed a mistake in the map showing current and past countries using T-72s. South Africa is listed as a current operatior of the T-72, while in fact its army never had or operated these tanks. The South African defence engineering company LIW has developped a comprehensive weapon system upgrade package for the T-72, but this technology is only for export. As of summer 2009 the only main battle tank used by the South African Army is the Olifant.

Lacking graphic skills to do this myself, I suggest making proper changes with regards to the map: Removing South Africa from the list of current T-72 operators. I don't even know where the idea of South Africa using T-72s came from... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.72.60.235 (talk) 11:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Verified in Jane's. Graphic fixed. Hohum (talk) 15:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Sierra Leone?

Ah the problems of proving a negative...

The map depicts Sierra Leone as using the T-72. The only source I found that mentions this is the wikipedia article on the army of Sierra Leone and even there it says only: "There was also a report that 40 T-72 main battle tank - had been taken on second-hand from Poland, but this seems to be false; they are not listed in the IISS Military Balance 2007 or 2009."

None of my sources ("Modern Trackted Fighting Vehicles" by D.Użycki, Lampart, Warsaw 2006" for example) confirm or mention Sierra Leone having such tanks.

Could anyone who has access to more sources (vide Jane's paid content) confirm this and remove Sierra Leone from the map showing the countries using the T-72 if needed? (talk) 18:03, 24 AUGUST 2009 (UTC)

SIPRI database states that Sierra Leone ordered 2 probably ex-Ukrainian T-72 tanks from Ukraine in 1994 which were delivered via Poland in 1995. The vehicles are described as to be operated by the mercenary company EO (South African Executive Outcomes). There no mentions of any other T-72s being delivered from Ukraine or any other countries. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 19:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok I see what you mean, still should tanks used by a mercenary company count as the T-72 being used by Sierra Leone as a country? I thought that only equipment used by the national army should be listed.

For example: if some insurgent groups in Bolivia use the AK-47, we don't list the AK-47 as currently used by Bolivia, right? (talk) 00:44, 25 AUGUST 2009 (UTC)

In such a case they should be listed as in service with those forces (this only applies if the said forces aren't the official army of the country). The way I understand the case of Serra Leone is that it bought the tanks and possibly even operated them but at some point those we lent to the EO mercenaries (understandably only for the period for which they were hired, in case of Serra Leone it was containing an insurrection of guerrillas known as the Revolutionary United Front). Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 00:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Right, so if I understand correctly these were tanks that were legally the property of the national army, while the mercenaries were just hired as skilled crews and din't own the tanks themselves? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.72.60.235 (talk) 11:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

That's what I deducted from the information available to me. The fact that Serra Leone ordered them from Ukraine IMO should speak for itself. Mercenaries buy their weapons theme selfs so if those two T-72s were a property of the mercenaries than they wouldn't be described as being bought by Serra Leone. Because of that the only logical conclusion is that hey were simply hired as tank crews for a period of time. The one thing we don't know is what happened to the tanks afterwards. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 12:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Italian upgradings

In several sources about the syrian T-72s, an italian upgrading of the tank was aimed at. No source said any thing about the new charasteristics of the upgraded tank, however. Would some one help updating the article with informations abot that, please? One last pharaoh (talk) 21:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it could be the FCS (like the Ariete's one, the TURMS system).--Stefanomencarelli (talk) 21:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Something about the T-72

I think that this tank was too overlooked before, and too undervalued later. The discussions about its validity were and are indefinite. I would summarize the list, just to try to point some issues.

• Fuel. This is no well understood. The crew compartment it's not just filled with ammo, but with fuel tanks too. Such a nasty combination. The external fuel is less dangerous than the internal, but it's more easily flammable: external fuel on the track and the aux tanks. The latter are easily droppable, but not the first. I know they are lighty armoured, but how much? The best thing it's their profile, so slim if compared to the T-54/62 (over)track tanks. The vulnerability to artillery fragments and HMG should be great, the T-72 would be quite flammable if hit in that sector (right track) and had no self sealing tanks. About vulnerabilty, T-72s are fair vulnerable to landmines too; the carousel is low so it would not easily hith from direct fire, but it's too cloose to the tank's bottom. Luckily.. there is still the blade to clear those treaths, atleast under some conditions.

• Digging. The bulldozer blade is one of the least researched things. Even so, it's a very interesting feature, so compact and standard for all the T-72s. Just image how much it could be useful in a battlefield, but also in a natural disaster (slides etc). Transforming the 800 hp T-72 in a bulldozer was a great archiviement for soviet designers, without significative handicap. A thing that no western tank has, probably useful for anti-mine clearing too.

• TC cupola. The IR indipendent system is something interesting, even if the IR projector is needed and the pratical range is not more than 400 m. But, let me say: M1 Abrams did not had even a simple day-periscope. IN fact, the TC capability to see day-night was archieved only by soviet tanks, because the last western generation of MBTs was generally equipped with a daylight periscope and a monitor (thermal images from gunner's system), but not an indipendent sighting system 24h capable. It's not so great as advantage, but still, M1 Abrams had a real TC periscope only with M1A2 version. Strangely enough, almost all the 60's gen tank had IR sighting for TC (Chieftain, M60 and AMX).

• Tracks. Apparently their endurance was greater, and the cost inferior, compared to the M1's ones. They were metallic, however, so they damaged the paved ways. AFAIK the Desert Storm's Abrams had a model of track that lasted only for 1,400 km, instead of 3,000 (planned). T-72s had probably the same endurance of T-62, 2,000 km. The T-80s tracks can last for 5,000 km (AFAIK). These little particulars can make a great difference both in training and in combat (i.e. see the logistic chain necessary for Allied)

• Desert Storm. I would not call incompetent the iraqui tankers. But they were forced to combat against the most modern an formidable foe in the world, with a total air superiority and a tactical awareness far greater. Thermal sights, and stuff like E-8 Joint Stars (prototypes) are a little underrated. You cannot fight an invisible foe. Tactical weakness were great too. Iraqi fought without a real awareness about their foes and their tactics. Bad weather hampered more them (IR sight) more than US forces. But still, it's inexplicable that even M60 and AMX-30 werent' destroyed by iraqi tanks. Even so, T-62 and 72s fought well against iranian tanks, stuff like Chieftain, in the previous war.

• The armour of T-72s was not bad at all compared to their size. They were more armoured than AMX and Leopard 1 and M60s (filled as well of ammunitions in the crew compartement). But, pratically, there was no way to protect a 40 ton tank by 120 mm ammo. IOW, there was no way to made a pratical 50 t tank for the Red Army (but it had to be done), for economical and strategical (transport) reasons. NATO won because they need less tanks and had to fight more difensively, inside their boundaries. Remember the critics about Chieftain, compared critically with Leopard 1. Later, German made the even heavier Leopard 2. With these tanks, it was virtually re-made the 1943-45 situation: Tiger and Panther against T-34, rougly with the same problems. But, differently than WW II, there was no way to protect the sides of the tanks from enemy fire. When a Sherman fired to a Tiger, in the flanks, it could not penetrate it even at 500 m. When a T-72 could fire at an M1 or whetever, it had high probability to strike and penetrate it 'if' the impact was on sides or rear. This is important: a Tiger was pratically immune from a 75 mm gun with any range and angle, but even a modern MBT is vulnerable on the sides, even to a 25 mm gun. And a 125 mm is far more powerful, even at 2 km. So, in a battle fought without a fixed enemy, every tank would be endagered at 360° (while frontal arc is only 60). After all, many M1 were disabled by side or rear shots, and it seems that some T-72s were responsable of the damages made in some chases (it's debated, some sources says that it was a fraticide fire or Hellfire strike).

• Lastly. The fact is that no tank battle can be decided by the simple tecnical capabilities. Just ask to NTC (US Army aggressors), usually winners with their 'soviet equipment' against US Army Abrams. So, maybe it's not important that T-72s had not DU penetrator, they were unable to pierce the M1 frontal arc anyway; but they could have been important to strike the sides from great range. Only recent MBT versions have cared about the flank protection, expecially of the hull (turret was already quite protected). IOW, if an M1 has 600 RHA frontal protection, the flanks are far thinner, it's impossible to have enough armour to protect a modern tank (too weight and volume required).Regards.--Stefanomencarelli (talk) 22:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Price was about US$1.3 million

I read, about twenty years that Saddam Hussein bought each of these tanks for US$1.3 million in 1980 decade.Agre22 (talk) 00:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)agre22

Then that's export price. Provide the source when putting it in NineNineTwoThreeSix (talk) 19:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

T72 stationary

Really bad OR. T72s are not defensive ambush tanks like the Swedish S, but offensive high mobility platforms meant to fire missiles while moving at full speed. Remember that Soviet tank doctrine of high mobility was developed at the same time as Nazi Blitzkrieg during the world war combats on the eastern front. Either way, it's OR, so I'm removing. NineNineTwoThreeSix (talk) 19:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Good lord, 50 MPH speed?

Let me just say, the speed if the T72 is not 50 MPH. That would be one of the fastest tanks in the world today. None of that info is cited. The T72's speed is 37.25 MPH, or 60 km/h. Whatever idiot put that down must have thought the T72 was fast because it was smaller. The fastest modern soviet tank ever made is the T80 which had a turbine engine like the Abrams. Most western tanks are known for being faster. Politics aside, that is an outrageous speed. Also, I think the article itself will need an overhaul in some areas. AloDuranium (talk) 15:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The citation for that section of the infobox is in the title of that section. However, "Gary's Combat Vehicle Reference Guide" - as dubious as I think it is, doesn't say 50 mph either. I have added Jane's as an additional source, which verifies the speed as 60 km/h.

Certainly the article could do with a lot of work. (Hohum ^@) 18:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The T72's range is a little exaggerated too, but I'll look at what other sources say. AloDuranium (talk) 20:26, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Speed specification being tampered with

The speed of the T72 has yet again been changed to a higher and unreferenced speed. If this continues to happen I'd like to request this page be locked to non-users. AloDuranium (talk) 00:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Autoloader safety

I've heard some tankers claim the T-72's autoloader could be unsafe, resulting in amputated or crushed limbs. Can anyone verify this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.111.29.1 (talk) 23:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I have talked to some tankers online who crewed the T-72 (Finnish Army) and most of them say it is absolute nonsense. If it did happen, it was probably very rare and most likely due to some carelessness on the part of the unfortunate crewman. 142.151.138.146 (talk) 16:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

T-72E1

There seems to be a new version out there now, called T-72E or T-72E1: [1] --MoRsE (talk) 18:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Service - inaccurate map

Western Germany (dark red on the map) haven't been using any T-72s. Is there a policy or style guideline towards painting entire countries even if they were divided when the piece of hardware was used? Not wanting to insult anybody, but Western Germany as a former T-72 user looks quite silly to me. - ¡Ouch! (^{hurt me} / _{more pain}) 13:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

File:T-72 Main Battle tank Poland.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:T-72 Main Battle tank Poland.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:42, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Iraki tanks

AFAIK, the issue about ammonitions were quite simple explained. In fact, the APFSDS was usually the BM-9, 15 or 17. Like many other countries, the Iraki Army had not more, not the BM-22, not surely the BM-26, 32 or 42. Not that those could pierce the M1A1HA front armour, but still, better than the older ones. No trace of really modern armour was ever found. Many of the AP were only steel shots. Even so, they proved successful even vs the Iranian Chieftains, so they were not that bad either. Just insufficient vs Abrams. It was a pity (from the irak POV) that no hit were scored vs AMX-30B2 or M60A1, since those MBT would had been pierced atleast from 2 km away. I don't know about HEAT ammos used by irakis, but probably there was only the BK-12. Here there is the link to a site about armour and pen. levels: http://collinsj.tripod.com/protect.htmStefanomencarelli (talk) 00:39, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Subjectivity in Design Characteristics section

Some of the statements about width and use seem subjective. The main western battle tanks of the same era have similar widths - or at least they do if you check theor Wikipedia pages. For instance the UK Chieftain is actually 3 inches narrower. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.59.43.240 (talk) 10:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

File:T-72m jna.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:T-72m jna.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:T-72m jna.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Gulf war performance

T-72's reputation has suffered following poor combat performance against modern Western tanks ... during the first and second Persian Gulf wars - I think that one has to take into consideration that Iraq's T-72 were monkey models which were considerably inferior to the original model. But I'm not an expert so ... --Adam Zivner (talk) 17:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

This is mentioned in better detail at the end of the T-72#Production history section. Maybe the wording could be adjusted a bit, but this is essentially accurate. —Michael Z. 2008-10-28 19:34 z

And you say without giving a source and explaining the factors behind the performance in detail. If that sentence is going to be added to the lead-in paragraphs, it should also mention several factors which were against them, for example, inferior models, less-experienced crew, lack of air support, poor communication and co-ordination etc. Therefore, it is best to mention this in the operation history section and be as objective as possible in the lead paras. --Incidious (talk) 23:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the sentence and I have a strong feeling that someone is going to revert it. In that case, the only option left would be to add a POV tag to the article. I'm open to any discussion on this matter. --Incidious (talk) 23:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I would argue that the reputation of the T-72 has suffered as a result of the Gulf wars; and probably unfairly so. If you want to reword the sentence to include (or perhaps a better solution would be to include a footnote—something like "T-72's reputation has suffered following poor combat performance against modern Western tanks ... during the first and second Persian Gulf wars"

Of course, it still needs a citation or two. Parsecboy (talk) 23:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

 I would say that the reputation of the T-72 has been destroyed by the gulf wars. of particular concern is the poor relative training and maintenance of the vehicles with respect to both their adversaries and their manufacturers (soviet union). the lack of varied ammunition, including Svir ATGM missiles is the first drawback, the second is the variant. the T 72 M is in terms of armor is comperable to the T-72 Ural  from 1973 and it was facing M1A1 HA variants entering service in 1987. 14 years is a long time for tank development. the only fair comparison for the T-72 would be for it to face opponents of the same relative age. by that standard the T-72 A should be compared to the original M1 (with the 105mm), and the Ural should be compared with the M 60A1 (possible A2 i couldn't find an entry date) or the leopard 1 A4 (1974). this is to say nothing for the fact that the iraqi armed forces were incapable of using their tanks in their intended role (in a massive combined arms operation) whereas the coalition adversaries were proceeding exactly as intended. this isn't to say that the T-72 would have been superior either, i merely wanted to voice grave concerns that the gulf wars are being extrapolated to represent soviet era performance, often requiring the vehicles to be taken out of context, and placed in a futuristic battlefield in which they are nothing more than scrap metal. Anonymous  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.162.189.189 (talk) 05:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC) 

Cost

Can anyone add information as to how much one of these tanks costs? Given the recent Kenyan purchase of 33 of these tanks it would be particularly interesting to know the value of a T-72.92.0.29.41 (talk) 11:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The Czech license-produced T-72 (which includes some upgrades) runs about $4 mn USD. (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/t-72cz.htm) EDIT: There's also a place selling T-72s to civilians for about €50,000 each (http://www.tanksforsale.co.uk/T72_tanks_for_sale_page.htm), although I can't vouch for their condition. Octane ^{[improve me?]} 29.09.08 1403 (UTC)

this source claims that in 1984 USD the T-72 and T-64 tanks cost between 800,000 - 850,000 per tank. http://www.foia.cia.gov/docs/DOC_0000261345/DOC_0000261345.pdf the source is the CIA Anonymous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.162.189.189 (talk) 05:31, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Newbuild T-90S's from UVZ will cost about $2.5 million, though the upgraded T-90SM will cost about $4 million each. Second hand T-72s will be much much cheaper. If you can get a group of people wanting to buy one each then you can probably make some sort of deal and get them fairly cheap, but the bits you get with them will effect the price. Thermal sights and other expensive bits will drive the price up and anything secret will likely be removed before you get it. GarryB — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.152.95.200 (talk) 01:14, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Variants and countries

I took the liberty to break the list of variants - that was getting really long! - up in different parts, per country, to enhance clearity. Also I added some Russian "obrazets" (= model) designators that I found in several Russian sources, including Uralvagonzavod's latest publication. dendirrek 11:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

For some reason nobody mentioned the Solvakian 72B upgrade that included twin 20mm AA guns. The picture wasn't included either. I think this is quite important consider how rare it is on tanks and the added firepower against attack helicopters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.6.147 (talk) 01:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

To clear this up, the Soviets generally exported tanks one generation behind their current new production vehicles. The T-72M was nearly identical to the domestic-only Soviet T-72 Ural, with similar armor thickness and quality. The T-72M1 was nearly identical to the domestic-only Soviet T-72A. Both the T-72M1 and T-72A even shared the kvartz insert in the front of the turret which was the extent of composite armor present in either one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.28.99.106 (talk) 03:47, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Laser rangefinders outside former Soviet Union

For the statement:

'Most T-72s found outside the former Soviet Union do not have laser rangefinders.'

Please provide a citation here, my belief is that the widely exported T72M and T72M1 were both equipped with laser rangefinders. Please provide evidence contrary to this as photographic and literary evidence suggests the coincidence rangefinders in these tanks have been replaced by TPD-K1 laser rangefinders (see Zaloga, 2009) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.107.2.158 (talk) 23:07, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Armor comparison

Who typed that T-72 has lighter armor than western tanks? It has heavier armor. Compare volume to weight of armor, not just weight of tank. Western tanks are actually thinner protected. I will dig out armor/volume ratios if someone is interested.99.231.48.156 22:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)Pavel, October 10, 2007.

Yes, please find your sources comparing armor thickness of T72 and the Western tanks. That way, we can add another source to the article, which is always a good thing. I'd also be interested in the comparison, just for my own knowledge. Parsec Boy 23:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is: http://www.hot.ee/vsevolod/T-72values_eng.htm

Another note: The "fact" of T-72 going 110 km/h in motorway is completely made up and is not obviously never drove a tracked vehicle. Constructionally t-72 can't reach that speed on even ground (as won't other main battle tanks of world either, in real life situations.)

Speed on even ground (2000r/min)on different gears (t-72A) later with 840hp engine differ from this with top speed 66km/h. In practise t-72 early models can reach speeds somewhat more than these in full throttle but structural maximum speed is around 80-85 km/h. And that's from gearbox, over that speed also track angular velocity is too much with definite maximum speed even in neutral gear and downhill could be no more than 100km/h.

From original manual:

first 8,1:1 (7,3km/h) second 4,3:1(13,6km/h) third 3,5:1(17,1km/h) fourth 2,8:1(21,5km/h) fifth 2,0:1(29.5km/h) sixth 1,5:1(40,8km/h) seventh 1,0:1(60km/h)

Considering most Western MBTs are still classified, i find it off it would be compared to any of them to begin with0 since we have no accurate sources.

The source 'http://www.hot.ee/vsevolod/T-72values_eng.htm' in no way compares T72 armor protection against Western MBTs as it does not even mention Western MBTs Please clarify the statement T72 armor is thicker then Western MBTs. Which Western MBTs is it thicker than? Which model/s of T72? By thicker do you mean RHA equivalency? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.107.2.158 (talk) 23:20, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

"Iranian TOWs proved ineffective against the armour of 72"

Source 25 cited. Also minor error, in that it should probably say "armour of T-72"
This is an incorrect conclusion to derive from the source, claiming this because only 60 T-72s were lost. http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_214.shtml

It states that for Operation Moharram, eight Iranian Cobras had 300 TOW missiles forward-deployed for the operation. With these missiles, More than one hundred MBTs and seventy other armoured vehicles were destroyed, as well as other aircraft. Later in the Operation, T-72s were deployed and their frontal armour was apparently resistant to the original TOW missile, according to this single source. The T-72 as a vehicle was not proof to attack. 81.101.221.187 (talk) 13:51, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.army-technology.com/projects/t72/

  Triggered by \barmy-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 12:18, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Relative armour protection

Someone typed that T-72 has weaker protection than western M1 tanks, but this is not true, as far as I know, it all went like this (let's begin with earliest examples) when T-72 came out, there was no tank to match it. Then M1 came out, but was not quite as good, it had 105 mm gun, which would probably not have any impression on T-72. Then Americans upgraded M1 to m1A1 and added 120 mm gun, but at the same time, T-72 was upgraded. And so on and so forth, until the developement of T-90 and M1A2, which are direct descendants from T-72 and M1 tanks. If you look at present T-72 tanks, upgraded with Kaktus and Relikt Heavy Reactive armor (which introduces the concept of module armor design, tell me if you want to find out more about it), there is a bit of doubt whether western ammunition will be able to penetrate fully upgraded T-72 tank, plus newest reaktive amrmor. remember, in 1992 US confirmed that their rounds can not penetrate T-72 with Kontakt-5 ERA, and this sparked the developement of m829A2 and A3. But since then, Relikt and kaktus reaktive armor have been developed, specifically for countering Kinetic energy penetrators. Also, the articles talks about cold war era, and here is the link:

http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/EQP/era.html

If you scroll down, you will find american M829A1 shattered penetrator, shattered by K-5. This basically means that article is wrong in saying that armor protection of T-72 during cold war was inferior to that of western tanks, in fact, it is possible to argue that it was greater than that of western tanks. Since A2 and A3 rounds for Abrams were developed after the end of cold war, I concluded that the article was wrong in saying that soviet T-72 had less protection. In fact, looking at factors such as armored coefficient (weight of tank divided by the armored internal volume of the tank) T-72 is better protected than western tanks. Add to that Reactive armor that can defeat western penetrators and you have almost certainly better protected tank.

We should either add to article that we are talking about original T-72 without reactive armor and without any upgrades (but then we would have to talk about original M1, which was greatly inferior to T-72) or we should delete the part that says that western tanks had greater armor protection.

people here might argue about iraqi performance of T-72, but unfortunately for them, there were not many T-72s in Iraq, but ratehr Iraqi version of soviet downgraded export version, produced without proper armor elements and using cheep chinese steel (!!!!!) penetrators, tanks were controlled by inferior and uneducated crews. Hence, performance of Lion of Babylon (name of Iraqi version) has nothing to do with original Soviet T-72 tank, especially upgraded. 74.98.216.68 04:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Pavel Golikov.

There are bigger problems with the paragraph you edited. It refers to (1970s–80s) Warsaw Pact planners' response to the 1992 Leclerc tank, for one. There are many statements in the section which need to be sourced or removed. —Michael Z. 2007-07-18 18:54 Z

Kontakt-5 reactive armor was introduced on the T-72B very late in the cold war and would have likely stopped decent APFSDS ammunition from penetrating the turret but not the hull. The Iraqi T-72s were not downgraded any more than your typical export T-72. Also the original M1 Abrams was not inferior to the T-72 of the time. Yes it had a 105mm gun but the M833 APFSDS was quite capable and probably could have penetrated the T-72A. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.162.178.224 (talk) 00:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

"could have penetrated" is meaningless without further qualification. At what distance? At which angles? All of this is speculative. The exact performance characteristics of tank main gun ammunition have never been widely publicised by governments nor easy to find, even in the era of the Internet. The same is true of the various generations of composite laminate armor which have been applied to both Eastern and Western tanks in the past thirty and more years.

Ditto. The Red Army didn't have enough K-5 to equip their T-80U, let alone T-72s! 'Downgraded' export T-72M/M1 is identical to their regular counterparts! Why is this arguement being raised from the dead yet again? And the original M1 is not "great inferior" to the basic T-72. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, over? Dude, the original T-72 has plain cast armor under 300mm thick. The original M1's armor protection is vastly superior to cast steel armor! As for cheap, Chinese steel core AP shots that the Iraqis were using, they also have got HEAT rounds. The Red Army was relying on the AT-11 as its primary anti-tank weapon--a shaped charge round that the M1A1 could have shrugged off--and the very best Soviet long rod penetrater fielded at the time still could not penetrate M1A1HA armor.

And of course you have NO proof whatsoever of your bridicuylous claims. Tests done in 1997 showed Americans would not be able to penetrate soviet tanks in 1980's with their 125 mm gunss, let alone 105. There IS proof of that though. The famous 1997 issue of Jane's.99.231.50.118 (talk) 07:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)Pavel Golikov.

Where is there any evidence that the Soviet's couldn't arm the T-80U with K-5? You do realise that the T-80U was specifically build with K-5 as standard, right? Also, the 3BM42 round employed by the Red Army during the time of the M1A1-HA's deployment could have easily penetrated the Abrams from it's sides. And probably front as well if conditions were right. And actually, the T-72 'Ural' had composite armour around 380mm from it's front glacias. Not cast steel under 300mm. That would be the T-72M export model. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.245.129.38 (talk) 03:07, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Defence Research and Development Canada bought 10 T-72s from the East Germans after the fall of the wall. These tanks were put on ranges (with the exception of a few museum pieces) to test Canadian Arms against the Vehicle. The 105mm APFSDS round fired from a Leopard 1 was able to penetrate the Up Armoured version of the T-72. The Dart was able to pass through both sides(front and rear) of the T-72 and still travel 1km afterward. As for your comment on reactive armour, I think you do not understand how reactive armour works. Reactive armour cannot useually defeat a APFSDS round. Reactive Armour is designed to defeat HEAT rounds, and other forms of shaped charges. Judging by how much incorrest information is on the page here, i feel it is possible other publications may also be incorrect. The m829a2 round was also used in the Gulf War which took place in 1991, not 1992. The round leaves a very distinctive hole in all vehicles it hits, including T-72s. Pictures clearly show glacius plates being pierced from this round. This leads to ammuniton carosel explosions and the resulting popped turrets.

Cheers

Perhaps you are not following the criticisms of the article. Getting 10 T-72s from East Germany is not getting access to Soviet standard T-72s for testing, the East German T-72s didn't even have ceramic armour let alone ERA, so of course a 105mm round will penetrate it, it has less armour protection than the very first T-72 Ural tank. The addition to the turret and hull front of layered armour and of course the addition of modern ERA, which neither the East German nor Iraqi tanks had would have defeated both the 105mm and 120mm anti armour rounds of the period. It would be the equivalent of testing Soviet missiles and ammo against Abrams tanks exported to Egypt, which I am pretty sure you will find wont have the armour protection levels of US equivalents either. GarryB — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.152.95.200 (talk) 00:52, 24 September 2012 (UTC) --- " I think you do not understand how reactive armour works. Reactive armour cannot useually defeat a APFSDS round." Heavy ERA is relevant against APFSDS. Lastdingo (talk) 17:35, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Notes on Autoloader Edit

I think I have significantly misrepresented the T-64 autoloader, mostly by confusing it with the T-80's system (which did store both trays vertically). Please advise on how to describe this in two words! - 95.165.32.11 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:06, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Dubious

The article states “NOTE: Despite popular belief the T-90 is NOT a modified version of the T-72. But they do share some characteristics.” There is no citation and this contradicts several statements in the article about the T-90. This is false and should be removed. —Michael Z. 2014-08-21 04:29 z

Already done. Khazar (talk) 04:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

War in Donbass

It is questionable that a T-72 with "prominent Kontakt-5 Explosive Reactive Armour (ERA) arrangement" "is not known to have been exported or operated outside of Russia", as the BBC report asserts. The T-72B as shown by in Ukraine have exactly that kind of turret reactive armour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.231.171.13 (talk) 19:14, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

That's a blog, and not a reliable source. Noone can check where those pictures were taken. Thomas.W ^talk 20:58, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

ukrainischen Fernsehen zeigte Präsident Poroschenko Hintergrund t72B))) aber es funktioniert aber nichts. Wenn es eine T72 im Donbass, warum nur auf dem Foto? es photoshop? Wo REAL? kann zeigen, seine nesmogli Foto. Denn das photoshop? 89.105.158.243 (talk) 19:20, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

In the german wikipedia somebody will help you out. Alexpl (talk) 11:39, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

+ Ukraine Ukraine – 1032 T-72, T-72MP, T-72AG, T-72B sowie weitere Modelle. Ungarn Ungarn – 238. Usbekistan Usbekistan – 70 T-72M1 und T-72B. Venezuela Venezuela – 92 T-72B1W[69] 79.104.198.54 (talk) 16:34, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

According to globalsecurity.org Ukraine had known before the war, about 1,700 different variants of the T-72 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.218.183.91 (talk) 16:31, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Soviet war in Afghanistan

Any sources about alleged use of T-72 in Afghanistan? There were problums like the suspinchim of the T72 it was ment to fight in europe so when it went to Afghanistan it gust broke apart and the the afgans would ambush them.

• T-62 and no big/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.218.183.39 (talk) 17:54, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on T-72. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071012124110/http://jedsite.info:80/tanks-tango/tango-numbers-su/t-72_series/t72-series.html to http://www.jedsite.info/tanks-tango/tango-numbers-su/t-72_series/t72-series.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:13, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect Chieftain tank main armament.

The Iranian Chieftain tanks were armed with the 120mm L11A5 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.100.214.150 (talk) 06:53, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

About Irak-Iran war and Chieftains

This statement: The Iraqi T-72Ms performed well against some opposing Iranian tanks such as Pattons but badly against Chieftain in the Iran–Iraq war. In the early stages of the war, an Iraqi battalion of T-72 tanks faced an Iranian battalion of Chieftain tanks. 105mm M68 tank guns and TOW missiles proved effective against the frontal armor of Iraqi T-72s.

It's frankly speaking,untrue. The T-72 was regarded from both sides as the best MBT fielded. Even iranians admit that Chieftain was not a very good tank and inferior to the other tanks (Pattons and T-72s) mainly for the unreliability of the engine.

You can find first hand accounts on the web, and read what really both sided said about, instead to still spread some inaccurate (to say the best) descriptions:

http://www.iran-heritage.org/interestgroups/war-iraqiran-news2.htm

Here you can read what a iranian tank commander said about the T-72 and Chieftain: About the Chieftain:

It was just not as good as other tanks we had, such as the American M-60.

About the 'most feared Iraqi weapon' he said this:

The Iraqis were equipped with some new T-72 tanks. It had good speed and targeting capability, and had armor protection against the RPGs [rocket-propelled grenades] carried by our infantry. The T-72 was a very dangerous threat to us. (Cit)

I can say that the T-72 unit was very good. They were mobile, very flexible, and there were a lot of them

So, the statement about the 'poorly' T-72 vs Chieftain is simply untrue.

But wait, there is also the POV of iraki generals.

This a link is another one book, in which many witness are interwieved and said how the T-72s were superior to the iranian tanks.From page 95:

Hamdani: The press reported comparisons between Russian and British weapons. British weapons were not very good....The 90th Iranian Armored Division had Chieftain tanks; they had a lot of problems and did not fight effectively. The 16th Iranian Armored Division, which was equipped with Chieftain tanks, lost a battle against the 10th Iraqi Armored Brigade with T-72 tanks. It is hard for an armored brigade to destroy a division in 12 hours but it happened; it was a disaster for the Iranians. Kuwait was another disaster...An order was issued that every tank had to carry two types of ammunition: the first was effective against heavy armor and the second was used against infantry and light armor. We were ordered not to inflict heavy casualties when we entered Kuwait, so we armed our tanks with the less effective ammunition, so the Kuwaiti tanks would be knocked out when we fired on their tanks, but their soldiers would survive. When we fired upon them using this less effective ammunition, I realized that even this ammunition destroyed the Kuwaiti Chieftains.(cit)

So there is no excuse: the T-72 was favoured by both sides, while the Chieftain was dispraced both by Iranians and Irakis. The wiki articles should remark this accounts, but they are not included at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.20.209.65 (talk) 01:37, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

The Chieftain carried the L11 not the L7 (M68). The L7 proved effective v the T72 in Israeli service. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.183.52.98 (talk) 12:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Monkey Model

The "monkey model" discussion page mentions that the claim that the Iraqi T-72Ms were intentionally downgraded by the Soviets rests on extremely shaky ground and has no clear or reliable source. This article should be updated to reflect this. The T-72M's performance was likely the same as the T-72A. Listing it simply as an export model would be far more accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.222.162.3 (talk) 02:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Iraq purchased parts for the T-72M1 from all over eastern Europe as trade restrictions during the war meant they couldn't import whole tanks, Iraq was assembling these T-72M1s in Baghdad, however Saddam not knowing anything about tanks thought that he was getting the best tank in the world in his opinion, the T-72B. However in reality they were producing T-72M1s, not necessarily 'Downgraded' export versions but not top Soviet specification, these are what became to be known as 'Monkey Models' to western researchers. Saddam decided that these tanks were too expensive to import parts & assemble & so began a domestic production project of a tank based on the T-72M1. This lead to the Development of the 'Saddam' & the 'Lion of Babylon', Iraqi T-72s did make the Gulf war & were the most feared of all Iraqi tanks however, the majority of what were thought to be Iraqi T-72s are actually 'Saddams' or 'Lion of Babylons' which were made out of cheaper steel & corners were cut on technology & sights. Distinguishing features of Iraqi built examples of Saddam & Lion of Babylon are a different suspension system & track link for desert conditions & extra searchlights fitted to the turret. Some Lion of Babylon Tanks were fitted with Chinese jamming equipment, a electro-optical interference pod. However T-72s were in the minority as the ~350 Lion of Babylon & Saddam tanks outnumbered the T-72. It was Saddam Hussain's perception that they were a superior model to the standard T-72; he was wrong. This meant Iraq's best divisions were armed with the Lion of Babylon rather than the T-72. Only lower echelon divisions were armed with T-72 'Monkey Models' with less combat experience & training. Iraq only employed roughly 50 T-72M1s (this figure is disputed) It is calculated that Iraq had 500 'T-72s', ~100 Saddam Tanks, ~250-500 Lion of Babylons (Lower end of that figure is more realistic), this made up a significant proportion of Iraq's armour as they had at least 1,500 tanks.

comment added by T55Storm (talk • contribs) (Resigned 15:33, 19 July 2015) — Preceding unsigned comment added by T55Storm (talk • contribs) 15:56, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with removing any mention of monkey models, this is not an academic or technical description of any one variant. The rumour that Iraqi attempted to manufacture their own M models with inferior armor substitutes is just that, and no evidence of Iraqi-made T-72 vehicles exists in the literature. By and large, most Iraqi vehicles were Polish made M1 models. No "monkeying" around. 99.227.191.246 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:22, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

The Iraqi T-72Ms use ZBM9 shells+penetration of 245 mm

The Iraqi T-72Ms use ZBM9 shells (1973-Year of removal from service in the USSR), penetration of 245 mm at a distance of up to 2500 meters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.218.183.39 (talk) 17:51, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

References

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)

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)