Late T72 vs. US armor

[Darkmath]

Some of you here would know I regret Syrian army doesn't get the last russian/german High-tech tanks.

In CMSF, the best syrian MBT are modified T72.

As for now, I am hardly convinced late T72 vs. M1A2 would be a "balanced" challenge (I know, in fact tactic turn the balance into your favor ).

IMO, the problem with T72 would not be its weaponry, as deadly as 120mm but less accurate, but its armour.

However, I don't have any more info than that.

So, how valuable are the late T72s in CMSF in a duel against US armour, in comparison with T72B , which is equal to T80 in protection and weapon terms, not included in CMSF?

[Sergei]

If you want perfect balance, try Abrams vs. Abrams. Or T-54 vs. T-54.

I'm no good at assessing the qualities of the tanks, so I'll just copy and paste from the manual:

T-72M1V (2001)

A Russian upgrade package was added to some base T-72M1 models to give them greater offensive and defensive capabilities. The package adds 3rd generation Kontakt-5 reactive armor, upgraded suspension, more powerful engine, improved 125mm gun capable of firing ATGM’s, remotely operated AAMG, combined gunner/commander thermal imaging system (night vision range is approx 3000 to 3500m), new fire control computer and stabilization system and GPS. The new Kontakt-5 was, at the 176 Combat Mission time, able to defeat M1A1 Abrams depleted uranium (DU) rounds apparently, however the current Abrams SABOT rounds have largely overcome this problem. Perhaps as many as 100 or so of these upgraded vehicles are still in service with the Republican Guards Division. (NOTE – adding the “V” and “2001” designations are our idea since there is no specific designation for this upgrade)

T-72M1V TURMS-T

This is the top of the line Syrian tank and it is a very capable vehicle indeed. It combines the improvements of the 2001 upgrade with the Italian TURMS-T fire control system. The end result is a tank most similar to the Czech produced T-72M4. It includes a day/night stabilized commander’s panoramic periscope sight, gunner’s stabilized sight with thermal imager and laser rangefinder and digital fire control computer. The digital fire control computer downloads data from the tank’s meteorological and wind sensors, together with the tank attitude, barrel wear characteristics, ammunition and target data. The computer calculates the fire control algorithms and is used to control the gun, the sighting systems and the laser rangefinder. Not surprisingly, this highly sophisticated tank is only found in the Republican Guards Division. The number in service could be as high as 200.

[ July 18, 2007, 04:30 AM: Message edited by: Sergei ]

[MikeyD]

And remember these are the days of 'asymetric warfare. its not tank versus tank, its tank versus IED, sniper team versus irregulars. ATGM versus Stryker. deep penetration Special Forces versus convoy units. Its messy out there.

[Darkmath]

Yes, but we expect conventionnal warfare too , for the sake of diversity.

[panzermartin]

A well placed pair of T-72s would take out a single M1 easily I guess.

[dima]

Originally posted by Darkmath:

...the problem with T72 would not be its weaponry, as deadly as 120mm but less accurate

Actually based on my quick glance through russian sources and discussions about T-72 penetrating Abrams from the front - it can't. So then even if it had the first shot and hit that doesn't mean a kill.

Can CMSF testers share, in game does T-72 gun penetrate Abrams front hull or turret?

[Darkmath]

In other hands, I read on wikipedia during Gulf War 1 that an Abram was unable to penetrate another M1A1 front armor.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by dima:

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

...the problem with T72 would not be its weaponry, as deadly as 120mm but less accurate

Actually based on my quick glance through russian sources and discussions about T-72 penetrating Abrams from the front - it can't. So then even if it had the first shot and hit that doesn't mean a kill.

Can CMSF testers share, in game does T-72 gun penetrate Abrams front hull or turret? </font>

[Amedeo]

A 125mm armed tank would be hard pressed in penetrating (frontally) an M1A1(HC) or an M1A2 even if armed with the latest 3BM42M Russian APFSDS, and I presume that the Syrian army have no access to something newer than 20 years old designs like the 3BM42 or the 3BM26.

The Kontakt-5 ERA equipped Syrian tanks are the only ones that might have a chance against armour piercing 120mm ammunition. But only if in CMSF US tanks are mainly equipped with M829A1/A2 APFSDS rounds. The M829A3 should typically go through even K-5 equipped T-72s.

BTW, is the 105mm gun on the Stryker MGS able to fire the best 105mm APFSDS round (the M900) like the latest batches of the M68 gun mounted on the M1 tank or is it restricted to fire the less capable (and less hot) M833 round?

Regards,

Amedeo

[dan/california]

The M829A3 has been in full rate production for several years, I can't imagine they would send anything else to a full bore shooting war. My bigger question is does it rip a BMP-2 into small pieces or just make a couple of glowing holes and stain the crews shorts badly. Of course if a crew member is between those glowing holes.....

And yes I know 125mm is the same for Bradley and Stryker.

105mm is marginal for later T72, that was the driver for the 120mm upgrade in the first place.

[Battlefront.com]

I've seen T-62s do a number of Strykers, but we're talking flank shots of course. The point is that the Abrams is best at very long distances with the threat firmly in front of it. Almost no chance of killing it (though systems damag is still very likely). However, remember that tanks aren't the only threats the Abrams face. A nicely landed AT-4 will do the trick too, not to mention an AT-14.

I know M829A3 is simulated in CM. AFAIK it isn't a magic bullet against later T-72s with ERA, but the Abrams still has the advantage. We also simulate modern munitions such as 3BM42 on the Syrian side. They bought rounds fairly recently and you'll find them with Republican Guard TURMS-T (not sure if other T-72s get them).

BMPs and BTRs prove the notion that they are utterly useless if there is an Abrams in the neighborhood. Point, shoot, kill... it's really nasty. At least the Strykers can hope more for a miss than the Syrians can. But, of course, a Stryker hit by even a T-54 is done for.

One interesting thing is to see what the casualties in a Stryker from a Syrian tank or heavy ATGM hit. We're used to reading about most soldiers escaping Strykers, Bradley, and AMTRAC hits either unscathed or lightly wounded. Not so when you have a 120mm shell ripping through the vehicle. Casualty rates are very high. Much like a WWII M3 or SPW 251 being hit by a tank.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Remember folks. The strength of the Abrams isn't that it can shrug off all threats. Nope, it's strength comes from the probability that it can handle whatever doesn't get crushed by combined arms (air, artillery, infantry, etc.) and general battlefield factors (demoralization, lack of enemy C2, etc.). When Syrian tanks and well emplaced ATGM teams are found in CM they simulate stuff that the combined arms net and other battlefield factors missed. Historically this has not happened very often so there aren't a lot of examples to draw from in real life.

Steve

[mystro]

Whats it take to knock out a track, especially since a cripple can change things faster *sometimes then a kill and throw an offense into a defence.

Don't the Syrian type factions have long range 50 cal like sniper rifle which could damage/cripple track? It'll sure be interesting seeing what weapons will be available..have I missed the complete list?

[MikeyD]

I think MBT tracks are designed to survive .50 cal... at least a few impacts. I did see a photo once of a rusting M3 Grant that had been a target for decades of .50 cal mg practice. The hulk basically looked like a dog's chew toy!

No heavy sniper rifle for Syria in the game. One thing they DO have though is the 73mm SPG-9 recoilless rifle. Its the closest equivalent on the modern battlefield to the old WWII anti-tank gun. The US really fields nothing similar, unless you include the comparatively wimpy AT4 throw-away recoilless LAW.