Any ex-/current T72 tankers out there?

[MikeyD]

This board pulls in people from all over and the T72's not been a Soviet secret weapon for a long time. Any ex-T72 crew out there? I'm in the middle of a debate about about a couple T72 details.

First the autolader.

I'm of the impression that its a pretty efficient piece of equipment (much western criticism of the autoloader sounds like quibbling to me) but I hear Russian manuals prohibit tanks from keeping a round chambered for quick-reaction firing. First, is this true, and second, what would a typical quick-reaction time then be between spotting a target, loading and firing?

This might be a more appropriate topic for the T72 game forum but that forums isn't exactly hoppin' these days. And when CMSF comes out we'll have plenty of opportunity to play with virtual T72s

[ April 19, 2007, 09:54 AM: Message edited by: MikeyD ]

[John Kettler]

MikeyD,

One of our Finns (forget which one) has, I believe, served on or been around the Finnish T-72 models. I distinctly recall this very matter's having come up in one of the rudel.dietrich Syrian TO&E threads. Try "Finnish T-72s" as a search phrase.

The no round up the spout rule is one I certainly have never encountered, not even during my threat analyst days, but I have heard the remarks from back then (left in '89) about autoloaders attempting to grab and load arms, coveralls getting caught in the mechanism, and the like. Would have to check, but I believe the gun has to go to full elevation before the autoloader can work, after which, the barrel must then be dropped to firing position and traversed onto the target. One heck of a reloading status indicator if true!

Regards,

John Kettler

[SgtMuhammed]

I don't think the 72 has to elevate the barrel. I know the 62 did but like you it has been a while since I had to worry about such things.

I think a lot of the kinks have been worked out with the auto-loaders. One of the main reasons why the Israelis and U.S. went with a human loader was to have the extra guy in the crew. Maintaining a tank is a lot easier with an extra back and pair of hands. The auto-loader didn't give any increased rate of fire so it was felt that it was better to have the extra man.

[rudel.dietrich]

I have ridden on top of a former east german T-72

Does that count?

[Battlefront.com]

I sat in one just before a Javelin scattered it all over the place. Does that count? (thankfully they were kind enough to tell us to get out of the tank before they shot at it!).

The autoloader has an advantage in terms of the size of the tank. I've been inside a T-54/55, T-62, and T-72. The space inside the T-54/55 and T-62 was significantly roomier than a T-72. The profile of the T-72 compared to the others shows why.

Coolest tank I've ever been in is a Swedish S-Tank (which isn't technically a tank), which happens to also be a design made possible because of an autoloader. The S-Tank is like being in the cockpit of a plane rather than in a tank. You climb into a seat surrounded by gizmos and that's it. No moving around.

I've never been in an Abrams but I did use SIMNET and the driver's pod at Ft. Knox. Both of which are 1:1 scale, so I can say for sure that an Abrams is like a spacious palace compared to any of the other tanks mentioned above.

Steve

[rudel.dietrich]

When I first joined up Germany still had quite a bit of ex soviet stuff lying around from the GDR days

I believe we had about 3 dozen T-62s and T-72s still in operation by the late 90s.

The T-72 I rode on top off was used to haul stuff around and get the Leos when they got stuck in mud of threw a track.

One T-62 I saw had its turret removed and a square carriage with railing welded in its place.

It had a mini crane and a trailer hitch (is hitch the right word?) welded to the back.

It could haul several tonnes of equipment and the crane could lift boxes up to several tonnes I believe.

I doubt any are still operable.

But getting the east back on its feet was a massive and expensive undertaking and it keeping some of the older stuff around

I got to sit inside both models and steve is correct.

The T-62 has alot more room.

You could tell both models were built for mass production and neither for comfort or getting the crews back alive.

Alot of the ex soviet small arms and a few APCs are still in use with former GDR city police forces.

Every now and then you will see a BDRM or even the odd BMP parked at a police station for use with SWAT teams

[Sixxkiller]

Arent you on vacation yet?

[RMC]

I'll have to check sources at home, but I recall reading somewhere that autoloader tanks tend to have about half the ROF of a tank with a human loader (at least for the first few minutes until fatigue sets in).

The other factoid floating around in my head is that the autoloaders would sometimes attempt to load the gunner instead of a round.

I sat in a former DDR T-72 at Fort Irwin about 15 years ago. I'm 5'11" (180cm) and it was very cramped in the gunner's seat. I would have had to tilt my head to the right to get the hatch closed.

[Glukx Ouglouk]

Originally posted by RMC:

I'll have to check sources at home, but I recall reading somewhere that autoloader tanks tend to have about half the ROF of a tank with a human loader (at least for the first few minutes until fatigue sets in).

That's only true for T-72-like autoloader tanks... Tanks with an autoloader in the turret neck (French Leclerc, Japanese Type 90, Russian project Black Eagle...) can have a very high rate of fire (theoretically 12rds/min for the Leclerc for instance).

Furthermore, not all ex-Soviet/Russian tanks have equivalent autoloaders : the T-64 and T-80 have a different one (better but more expensive) from the T-72 (and I don't know what's worth the one used on the T-90). But they do all work on the same basic principle though, and problably suffer from the same problems but to a different extent.

[Battlefront.com]

RMC,

I'm just about the same height as you and had the same problem. I read somewhere that the "max" height for a Soviet tanker was 5' 8", which disqualifies both of us It's too bad because I would love to own a T-72. Just doesn't make sense to own a tank that you can't button up in without head trauma from the first bump while driving

Oh, and anybody that suffers from claustrophobia would do well to stay far, far away from BMPs. When I first got in one I thought "I didn't know the Soviet Army was composed entirely of midgets (this was before it became politically correct to say "little people )". That is one tiny little troop compartment!

Steve

[MikeyD]

I'm reminded of stories how the Stryker MGS turret crew stations were NOTORIOUSLY cramped! Scarcely enough room for one of those under-height Russian tankers, forget about lanky Texas farmboys. A total redesign of the turret basket had to be undertaken just to get a couple extra inches of elbow room for 'em.

[flamingknives]

Strange. When I sat in the commanders position I had a fair amount of room (didn't try to close the hatch though, and had the seat right down) and I'm 6'1".

Warrior or Spartan didn't feel much more spacious.

[Battlefront.com]

T-72? Impossible unless you're mostly legs The driver's seat was a better fit for me.

Steve

[RMC]

I remember a story from a Paris air show back in the 80s when the Soviets were demonstrating a T-72. When it stopped its maneuvers, the commander climbed out and he was a lanky 6'4 or something. Those in know wondered what kind of contortionist he was to be able to fit himself in there.

Anyway, back to the autoloader and stuff. Gluxk, I appreciate that autoloader technology has improved over time, but for the game at least, we'll be dealing with Syrian T-72 that most likely have not gotten any upgrades in that department.

Weapons and Tactics of Soviet Army (revised edition 1987) by David Isby has this to say about the T-64/T-72:

The T-72s "cassette" autoloader, containing 23 rounds, is mounted on the turret floor and rear wall. The remaining ammunition is stowed in racks behind th turret basket (three rounds) and, continuing the Soviet practice of using diesel fuel to protect ammunition, in indentations in the fuel cells (13 rounds). The carousel is of a two-layer design, with the charges above and projectiles below, each in its own cassette.

...

The earlier basket autoloader design was used on the early T-72 and T-72A and the T-64 and T-64A; the T-64 version may have differed. Both basket and cassette have the ammunition stowed with the projectile noses pointing towards the center and the charges standing vertically behind them.

In the cassette system the shell and then the charge are placed in front of the rammer and seated into the breech with one motion of the rammer. In the basket system the carrier must first grip a round and position it behind the power rammer, which seats it in the breech. The process is repeated for for the charge, the rammer then moving again to load both projectile and charge before the automatic breech closes.

With both types of autoloader, the gun automatically elevates to load, as on the BMP, and the expended stub casing is automatically ejected through a port in the turret back, as in the T-62. Malfunctions are still common.

According to several reports, however, 125mm autoloaders, especially that used on the original T-64, do not always work as they should. The ejection port is frequently misaligned, requiring the installation of a shield against rebounding brass inside the turret....it is known that T-64 units in Group of Soviet Forces Germany were not, as of 1979, using the autoloader. It is not known T-72B and later models have ever suffered from these problems, or whether they are confined to the T-64-style autoloader.

It is possible that movement over rough ground or the shock of a non-penetrating hit on the tank can misalign the autoloader. If that happens, going to manual loading is difficult, as the gunner has to load both shell and cartridge by hand, reducing the rate of fire to no more than 2rpm.

The other downside of the T-72 autoloaders in the exposure of the ammo when the tank is penetrated often resulting in catastrophic kills.

Zaloga's Tank War - Central Front Nato vs. Warsaw Pact (1989) talks about 12 rounds per minute as the US standard and Soviet autoloaders being only capable of 6 rounds per minute.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by RMC:

Paris air show... Soviets were demonstrating a T-72.

:eek:

[Sergei]

Originally posted by RMC:

Zaloga's Tank War - Central Front Nato vs. Warsaw Pact (1989) talks about 12 rounds per minute as the US standard

Is that for the 105mm or 120mm gun?

[RMC]

Originally posted by Sergei:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by RMC:

Zaloga's Tank War - Central Front Nato vs. Warsaw Pact (1989) talks about 12 rounds per minute as the US standard

Is that for the 105mm or 120mm gun? </font>

[jjhouston]

Working models of T-72 autoloader and ammo carousel by 'Dejawolf', the tank artist for Steel Beasts Pro (links at bottom of page):

http://www.dejawolf.com/steelbeasts/gallery/t72M1.html

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

T-72? Impossible unless you're mostly legs The driver's seat was a better fit for me.

Steve

T72M - the one they have at the Bovington Tank Museum. It wasn't comfortable or roomy, but I fit in and was able to look through the observation devices without too much problem, other than the fact that you can't see much out of them.

The coupla was locked down, but I don't think that I would have been able to traverse it more than 60 degrees off the centre line

[John Kettler]

RMC,

Looks like my memory was actually right--for a change! The gun does go to max elevation for reloading, making for quite a telltale. U.S. tank gunnery standards are demanding and the ROF practically involves virgin sacrifice.

jjhouston,

Astounding ! Does Steel Beasts Pro do all its modeling to that level of detail? Wonder how they're treating the peculiar composite armor on the T-72?

All,

Soviet Cold War era height standards for tankers were for no more than five feet five inches tall. This allowed a smaller tank to be designed, with significant savings not just on the all-important tank height, but on the total armored envelope, in turn yielding a lighter tank than otherwise while sporting a powerful cannon.

Regards,

John Kettler

[ April 21, 2007, 01:11 AM: Message edited by: John Kettler ]

[flamingknives]

It was this one.

[jjhouston]

Originally posted by John Kettler:

Astounding ! Does Steel Beasts Pro do all its modeling to that level of detail?

No. The level of detail of an individual vehicle's model is dependent on the requirements of the military customer who paid for that vehicle's inclusion.

The Leopard 2A5, for instance, has a more or less fully functional turret interior because the purchasing army wanted it. No-one has yet purchased the Pro version with a requirement that the gunner's and commander's stations of the T-72 be modelled. So even though Dejawolf's models are apparently finished, the T-72 interior has not yet been coded into the 'game'.

Wonder how they're treating the peculiar composite armor on the T-72?

The developer has a tool for modelling terminal ballistic effects. I believe they use the best available open source information plus educated guessing to model the armor protection and damage.

http://www.steelbeasts.com/index.php?categoryid=13&g2_itemId=193

http://www.steelbeasts.com/index.php?categoryid=13&g2_itemId=196

http://www.steelbeasts.com/index.php?categoryid=13&g2_itemId=199

[Bigduke6]

First, the WIKI quote:

Autoloader

The T-72's autoloader design is not based on the faster, but more complicated autoloader in the USSR's domestic-use-only T-64 tank series (the T-72's is horizontally auto-fed, the T-64's uses vertical actuators). These systems are fast but prone to malfunctions if not maintained properly. Even if properly maintained they can be relatively unreliable. It takes between 6.5 and 15 seconds to load a new shell into the main gun, depending on the current position of the autoloader carousel. The autoloader must crank the gun up three degrees above the horizontal in order to depress the breech end of the gun and line it up with the new shell. While autoloading, the gunner can still aim because he has a vertically independent sight. With a laser range-finder and a ballistic computer, final aiming takes at least another three to five seconds, but aiming is pipelined into the last steps of auto-loading so it proceeds concurrently. The T-90 autoloader (further modification of T-72) has a 'sequence' mode. When it is enabled, the loading mechanism continuously loads the 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. Refilling the autoloader with new shells is a real maintenance burden and requires great attention to maintain the specified sequence. but it should be noted that the average rate of fire for this type of carousel automatic loader is quoted to be 8 rounds per minute. Trained T-72 crews find reloading not much worse than loading other tank types; the separated cartridges are easier to handle.

So that's a claim the gun does not go to full elevation to reload.

Second, I've talked to more than one T-72 tanker about the vehicle, and here my impression, although I didn't ask any one about detenting the main gun while reloading.

1. The gun is friggen accurate, if you can see it, you can kill it.

2. This is of course if your sitting still. Shooting on the move and scoring is much more a close range thing.

3. Vison slits suck, it's the biggest problem with using the vehicle, although the tankers I talked to were complaining about how infantry dismounts (usually irate Islamic ones at that) were invisible, rather than an M1A1.

4. The auto-reload is alot better than T-62, provided you pay reasonable attention, the thing is not going to stick your arm in the breach.

5. Nobody said anything to me about maintaining the auto-reload machine. Make of that what you will.

6. If you stay sighted on the target, so will the gun. I guess this means whatever distance the gun elevates for reloading, it goes back to where the gunner was pointing once it reloads.

7. Loading the carousel is by SOP, but crews will violate it if they think it's in their interest - usually by bagging AP for HE. This can come back and bite the crew if unexpected targets show up.

8. I have met more than a few Soviet tankers taller than 5'5". I suspect that like most Soviet "rules", just because they wrote a height standard down doesn't mean they took it seriously.

[John Kettler]

Bigduke6,

I spent over 11 years as a threat analyst, and in that time, and at no time since until seeing your post, had I EVER encountered ANY indication that the T-62 had an autoloader. This site here seems to take the same view.

http://www.armscontrol.ru/atmtc/Arms_systems/Land/Tanks/Main_Battle_Tanks.htm

There is mention here of an automatic shell ejection system, but that's hardly an autoloader.

http://www.rickard.karoo.net/articles/weapons_t62.html

Did you type "T-62" when you meant "T-64" or some other nomenclator?

Regards,

John Kettler

[Battlefront.com]

He must have meant the T-64. Easily confused. The T-62 has a dedicated Human loader, just as the T-54/55 before it.

I could certainly fit in a T-72's commander's position, even with the hatch down, but it would be far from comfortable while moving and over time. Remember, when bouncing up and down over terrain certain physics demand that the commander bounce up and down as well Not a problem if you have a few inches of headroom to spare, not so good if you are already almost touching to start with.

Steve