will ukraine have a t72

[emccabe]

will ukraine have a t72 i dont think i saw it on the list

[Ghost of Charlemagne]

AFAIK Ukraine only uses T-64s and T-80s, though they do have some 1000+ T-72s in storage.

[emccabe]

if they have them why not use them

[YankeeDog]

if they have them why not use them

Because a tank doesn't drive, maintain, fuel, and fight itself. They can only field as many tanks as they can train crews and logistically support in the field.

And if you have more chassis than you can field, it makes sense to reduce the number of types you keep active; easier to support and maintain 2 tank types than 3.

[emccabe]

true but i thought the t72 was a better tank so it didnt make sense to use the t64

[YankeeDog]

true but i thought the t72 was a better tank so it didnt make sense to use the t64

That's a good question and one I don't know the answer to. I suspect they lack spare parts or ammunition or some other critical component to keep a sufficient number of T-72s running. But I don't actually know.

[Stagler]

Uncons in a later module may do...I hope.

Also, T-64 is better tank than T-72. Up until 1990 at least. Depends what model T-72s they have.

[Sgt Joch]

my understanding is that the T-64 was a better tank than the early T-72s, but was more expensive to make and maintain, so the Russians decided to use the T-72s as the standard tank. The Ukrainians still use it and the Russians appear to have a certain number in storage.

[LukeFF]

true but i thought the t72 was a better tank so it didnt make sense to use the t64

The T-72s are all in storage, because all of the parts needed to maintain them come from Russia, and hopefully you know how relations are between Russia and Ukraine.

[Sgt Joch]

regarding the Ukrainian T-72s "in storage", abandoned and left to rust might be a more accurate description. I don't know how many are still serviceable.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2572149/Stunning-images-huge-abandoned-tank-graveyard-Ukraine-machines-come-retirement-tensions-Russia-continue-escalate.html

[Sergei]

Soviets had basically two lineages of main battle tanks after T-54/55. Malyshev Plant in Kharkov (Ukraine) made T-64's then T-80's* and now T-84's. UralVagonZavod in the Urals made T-62's then T-72's and now T-90's. T-64 and T-80 were superior to T-62 and T-72 but they were more complex and expensive and Red Army kept them all to themselves, not even sharing them with Warsaw Pact allies, let alone selling them to Arab armies.

Wikipedia mentions some advantages that T-64 had vs. T-72, of course YMMV with different modernized versions:

• The automatic loader is hydraulic, not electric, thus is much faster (loading cycle of 6 to 13 seconds), more reliable, and less sensitive to jolting when running off-road. It also has a "sequence" fire mode that feeds the gun with shells of the same type in less than five seconds. It is also able, in the modern versions, to turn backwards to keep a good speed at the end of the loading sequence.
  
• Driving seems much less exhausting for the crew, thanks to assisted controls and a more flexible suspension. (Perrett 1987:43)
  
• The ammunition is stowed at the lower point of the turret shaft, minimizing the risks of destruction by self-detonation.[citation needed]
  
• The tank commander's cupola provides good vision, the antiaircraft machine gun can be operated from inside the turret; the commander can also control the main gun sight if necessary.

More on the auto-loader differences:

Like the earlier domestic-use-only T-64, the T-72 is equipped with an automatic loading system, eliminating the need for a dedicated crewmember, decreasing the size of the tank, and hence the mass.

However, the autoloader is of noticeably different design. Both the T-64 and T-72 carry their two-section 125 mm ammunition (shell and full propellant charge, or missile and reduced propellant charge) in separate loading trays positioned on top of each other; but firstly, in T-64, 28 of these were arranged vertically as a ring under the turret ring proper, and were rotated to put the correct tray into position under the hoist system in the turret rear. This had the disadvantage of cutting the turret off from the rest of the tank, most notably, the driver. Accessing the hull required partial removal of the trays. T-72 uses a design that has lower width requirements, and does not isolate the turret compartment: the trays are arranged in a circle at the very bottom of the fighting compartment; the payoff is the reduction of the number of trays to 22. The second difference was that in the T-64 the trays were hinged together and were flipped open as they were brought into position, allowing both the shell/missile and propellant charge to be rammed into the breech in one motion; in T-72 the tray is brought to the breech as-is, with the shell in the lower slot and the charge in the upper one, and the mechanical rammer sequentially loads each of them, resulting in a longer reloading cycle.[43]

*T-80 was also manufactured by Russian plants, but despite rumours the supposed Black Eagle was dropped. As was T-95. The next Russian MBT is going to be T-14, which despite the name is not a development of T-10 but T-90 - and that way it's a bastard grandgrandchild of T-62.

[Ghost of Charlemagne]

Wow, those tanks sure aren't looking too good.

The T-64 and the T-72 made up the Soviet two-tank strategy. The T-64 was the advanced tank which equipped elite divisions (Guards), while the T-72 was meant to be the mainstay of the tank fleet equipping regular tank divisions and motor-rifle divisions. Later on the T-80 replaced the T-64 as the most advanced tank in Soviet army, while the T-72 remained a "mainstay-tank" (and export tank).

I believe the T-72 wasn't produced in Ukraine, only the T-64 and T-80, and that is the reason why the Ukrainians didn't continue using them.

Damn, Sergei - you beat me to it.

[akd]

Ukraine is bringing some T-72Bs back into service to equip national guard units. These tanks are probably being drawn from those allotted to a 200-unit contract with Ethiopia for upgraded T-72s, so they have definitely maintained an ability to service and refurbish T-72.

http://defense-update.com/20110610_ethiopia_t72.html#.VGO0p8nHuO0

[MikeyD]

I had heard/read somewhere that Ukraine was busily refurbishing some 40 tanks a week in an attempt to make up for attrition over the year. Those 40 tanks a week gotta come from somewhere. T72's probably not their first choice but they don't have much of a choice.

[DMS]

They use a lot of T-72s.

[BlackAlpha]

They use a lot of T-72s.

I haven't checked for combat footage the past 3 months or so, but previously I only really saw what looked like T-64BVs. On their parades I also saw newer tanks (T64 Bulat and T80/T84).

[Stagler]

Ukraine only has T-64 in service. All T-72B from old Soviet army days are out of service, instorage, or for sale, up until the civil war.

[DMS]

I haven't checked for combat footage the past 3 months or so, but previously I only really saw what looked like T-64BVs. On their parades I also saw newer tanks (T64 Bulat and T80/T84).

I didn't count %, but I see it on photos from time to time. It is simplier and may be more reliable than T-64.

[BlackAlpha]

I didn't count %, but I see it on photos from time to time. It is simplier and may be more reliable than T-64.

Ok, but news media often post random photos in their news articles.

[sburke]

Ukraine only has T-64 in service. All T-72B from old Soviet army days are out of service, instorage, or for sale, up until the civil war.

civil war? What civil war? Oh you mean the invasion and insurgency Moscow created.

[Sgt Joch]

no politics please, we all know where that will end up.

[Cuirassier]

no politics please, we all know where that will end up.

Though sburke is of course correct...

[Sgt Joch]

Though sburke is of course correct...

I disagree, the situation is too complex to be reduced to simple catchphrases.

However, it is really BFC's decision whether to allow political discussions or not.

[sburke]

Though sburke is of course correct...

no Sgt Joch is correct, this thread is better off staying on topic. Sorry

[DMS]

Though sburke is of course correct...

Politically correct.