Loading AI tools
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the T-72 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 90 days  |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg)
The text states that the T-72 was exported to Finland, among others. This is not strictly true: Finland obtained its T-72s used from post-unification Germany, from old East German stocks that Germany was selling off cheap along with other former East Block equipment. They were in use in the 1990s and early 2000s before being replaced by Leopard II A4s purchased used from Germany and A6s purchased used from the Netherlands.--Death Bredon (talk) 15:42, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Someone Add the variants of t72 with details on this wiki page plz Yak edito (talk) 16:39, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
So, that's an actual thing now? Stardude82 (talk) 18:46, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- Wikipedia vandalism has been a thing for a long time, you can't expect a page about enemy's country military to not be vandalised or made biased by some idiot because anyone can edit
- cope cage is an emotional meme and shouldn't be on the page unless those cages are proven to be not effective against drone dropped munitions which they're designed for. DeiDrah23 (talk) 11:20, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- A consensus has formed supporting including "cope cage." See Talk:T-90. Schierbecker (talk) 23:29, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:22, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
At the end of the section describing the automatic loading system of the T-72, the following is stated:
'The way that the unused rounds are stored in the autoloader system has been exposed as a flaw, as observers have noted that penetrating hits can easily set off a chain reaction that detonates all of the ammunition. The result is the turret is blown off resulting in a so-called "jack-in-the-box" explosion. This vulnerability was first observed during the Gulf War.'
This section is misleading and poor quality:
- The phrase 'unused ammunition' is confusing to me. Ammunition stored in autoloaders is generally referred to as 'ready ammunition' or something similar, to differentiate it from stowed ammunition in storage racks. This is also a meaningless differentiation, as 'used ammunition' is only present in the T-72 for as long as it takes to exit the barrel. The main section of the shell casing is consumed by combustion, the projectile leaves through the barrel, and the metallic stub base of the casing is ejected from the turret. There's nothing inherently harmful about this phrasing, it just strikes me as very odd.
- The description of the possibility of a catastrophic kill from ammunition fire is heavily misrepresented here, as it implies that the T-72 is unusually prone to ammunition fires, and as it implies the primary safety compromise in the T-72 that leads to ammunition fires is either inclusion of an automatic loader, or how rounds are stowed in it. This is not the case. The automatic loading system of the T-72 is an asset to the resilience and survivability of the T-72, not a detriment. The position of the automatic loader in the tank, low and central, places it in the zone least likely to be struck by a potential penetration, as hits to a tank tend to be on the turret or upper front plate. The way the rounds are stored is actually safer than contemporary autoloaders such as that of the T-64, as they are stored horizontally and thus have a smaller profile and extend upwards less into the tank. The central position also means any fragments are more likely than any in any other position to have to travel the furthest possible distance, possibly through other equipment in the tank, before striking ammunition, losing velocity, losing heat, and decreasing the probability that the ammunition is hit or ignited. The placement of a majority of the tank's ammunition in the safest possible position in that tank cannot be called a flaw in good faith, especially when almost every tank following Western design, barring the Abrams and very specific modifications of others, have hull-stowed ammunition racks in significantly less safe positions, such as right next to the driver, and with no blowout panels. And this extends to the T-72; it, too, has spare ammunition stored there. But I have rarely if ever seen this feature described as a flaw, nor other forms of ammunition stored without blowout panel. Even ammunition stored in significantly less safe positions, such as the T-72's turret spares, is not noted as a 'flaw'. And all of this is without mentioning a great many incidents of the T-72's autoloader demonstrating great resilience to damage, nor without mentioning the survivability gained from the smaller profile and additional spare weight to take up with additional armor that the autoloader allowed. Tankograd's article on the subject is a good read for well-researched information relevant to this; https://thesovietarmourblog.blogspot.com/2017/12/t-72-part-2.html#prot
- The turret is not inherently blown off as a result of an ammunition fire in the T-72, nor any other tank for that matter. It is a common result of a catastrophic ammunition fire, but it is only a possible result, and is far from a certainty. Additionally, even in modern tank design, it is far from unique to the T-72. A good example of this can be seen from Turkish losses of Leopard 2a4s, which can be seen to suffer losses the same phenomenon. Any significant amount of ammunition stored in such a manner that it is not well segregated from the crew and not properly ventilated with a blowout protection system can cause this, it is not a particular flaw of the automatic loader in the T-72.
- It also seems odd to emphasize the loss of the turret as a major component of how this is a problem. If a catastrophic ammunition fire has been triggered, the crew isn't going to be affected by whether or not the overpressure was so spectacular that it tore several tons of metal from its mounting. If it is not segregated from them, they are going to die instantly even if the overpressure 'only' blew hatches open.
- The linked CNN article given as a source is flagrant propaganda. I don't respect it enough to say much more than that, the title alone degrades my mental health.
I won't be making any edits at the moment, as I am unfamiliar with Wikipedia's edit structure and procedure and do not wish to make changes without at least discussing it with someone more familiar with Wikipedia's structure and edit policy (and to confirm I'm not a dumbass), so responses would be appreciated 12.172.184.210 (talk) 10:36, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Where did we suddenly get that 5ft 4in is the maximum height for a T-72 crew? What happened to the citation that was on this page for a really long time stating official regulations that 5ft 9in (175cm) was the maximum height for the crew? Magellan Fan (talk) 22:11, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- I'm new to this page and don't know the history of the editing. I can say however, from first hand experience, that a 5' 9" person (me) can barely fit in the tank even with the hatch open. My shoulders were only a few inches short of the hatch ring!
- Perhaps I have a long torso, I don't know, but there is absolutely no way I could drive one of those!
- It also might have been a T-62 that I tried to sit in, I'm not sure and it was a long time ago at Ft. Irwin when they were first setting their OpFor units for desert training. I was a 113 driver at the time. Mofo80503 (talk) 19:54, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- That's a fair point. I've sat in the commander's hatch of a British Abbot and could barely fit as a 5'10" person even though the Abbot is about the same height as the Abrams. If I tried closing the hatch, I definitely would've had to bend my neck downwards. Magellan Fan (talk) 04:56, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
Wikiwand in your browser!
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.
