In Syria, noticed the "explosive" T-72 "Ural"

Syrian army uses outdated version in battles with terrorists tanks T-72 "Ural", which are very dangerous for their crews, writes Messenger of Mordovia.

“The fact is that this very early version of the T-72 model of the mid 70-s is very unreliable by modern standards, armor. In addition, the fire protection systems have long since developed their resource and, according to military experts, these tanks are real bombs on tracks, ”says Dmitry Lemeshko’s publication.

According to him, a good hit "leads to the explosion of poorly protected ammunition, and the car, as a rule, turns into a pile of scrap metal," which happened more than once.

There were, of course, unique cases in which obsolete armored vehicles "caught" rocket-propelled grenades without serious consequences. But such cases can be considered an exception.

According to the characteristics of survivability, these variants of T-72 essentially lose to tanks T-55AB and T-62М. “Therefore, Syrian tankers fighting on such vehicles can be considered real heroes ... or suicide bombers,” the author concludes.

Comments

[vorobey]

These machines are used as a sniper rifle .. that's all ..

and how many such cars have been noticed? one?

The level of training of Syrian tankers has grown .. but everyone is on fire, even super-duper-protected

[MoJloT]

EPT of course, they are completely safe, there is nothing to worry about.

[72jora72]

EPT of course, they are completely safe, there is nothing to worry about.

In complete safety, no where to be.

[MoJloT]

vorobey (Sashka) just changes comments on the go, in his latest version, mine seems strange. In the original, his koment looked like this:

These machines are used as a sniper rifle .. that's all ..

And nothing else.

[vorobey]

Quote: MoJloT

Vorobey (Sashka) just komenty changes on the go

complements you mean.

[MoJloT]

Addition implies that you change the comment from the one that was to a new (augmented).

[vorobey]

Quote: MoJloT

Addition implies that you change the comment from the one that was to a new (augmented).

you can change your own .. if you wanted to say something else ..

[vorobey]

Quote: 72jora72

EPT of course, they are completely safe, there is nothing to worry about.

In complete safety, no where to be.

I repeat, fighting is generally unhealthy.

[Doliva63]

Quote: vorobey

Quote: 72jora72

EPT of course, they are completely safe, there is nothing to worry about.

In complete safety, no where to be.

I repeat, fighting is generally unhealthy.

It's right!

[Vadivak]

Quote: vorobey

These machines are used as a sniper rifle.

With 125 mm cartridge

[vorobey]

Quote: Vadivak

With 125 mm cartridge

high-explosive fragmentation round ..

[Vadivak]

Quote: vorobey

high-explosive fragmentation cartridge.

[viktor001]

T62 - the best tank to fight with the broads, of course, from old Soviet cars, cover with grilles, rubber-fabric screens and contact - and generally clean
in general, Syrians are not interested in fat under the conditions of "total ass" any armored vehicles are suitable, the tank must drive, shoot, and be super-repairable, MBT Revolutionary if the Syrians vry can use it.

[vorobey]

Quote: viktor001

T62 - the best tank to fight with the broads, of the old Soviet cars, of course,

I dare to object .. T55 .. he has a gun more precisely at long ranges ..

[viktor001]

the gun, when used against Babahs, does not require much accuracy, here the question is whether the tank is resistant to being shot from ptura with the possibility of subsequent restoration of the car, I don’t know about 55ki, but in Syria the T62 shows much greater survivability than the T72 the Syrians praised the tank, but they don’t fat, absolutely

[vorobey]

Quote: viktor001

the gun, when used against the Babahs, does not require much accuracy, the question is whether the tank is resistant to being shot from ptura with the possibility of subsequent restoration of the car, I don’t know about 55ki, but in Syria the t62 shows much greater survivability than the t72

the survivability of 55 and 62 is approximately the same, I myself adore 62 .. there, if you wish, you can push the floor of China into the tower ..

72 loses survivability due to hydraulics .. hydraulic drives including transmission and BKP and oil burns, God forbid ..

We tried trophy T55 three times a fly to set fire. to no purpose .. in the end, they just lifted the mission and threw a grenade there ..

[Doliva63]

Quote: vorobey

Quote: viktor001

the gun, when used against the Babahs, does not require much accuracy, the question is whether the tank is resistant to being shot from ptura with the possibility of subsequent restoration of the car, I don’t know about 55ki, but in Syria the t62 shows much greater survivability than the t72

the survivability of 55 and 62 is approximately the same, I myself adore 62 .. there, if you wish, you can push the floor of China into the tower ..

72 loses survivability due to hydraulics .. hydraulic drives including transmission and BKP and oil burns, God forbid ..

We tried trophy T55 three times a fly to set fire. to no purpose .. in the end, they just lifted the mission and threw a grenade there ..

For her, for 62! Exhaust tank however

[vorobey]

Quote: Doliva63

For her, for 62! Exhaust tank however

for me, she’s the opposite as a girl - the first .. so probably my favorite ..

[otstoy]

Nevertheless, the 115 mm shell is obviously more powerful than the 100 mm, i.e. when firing high-explosive high-explosive T-62 is more effective. And the engine is more powerful.

[vorobey]

Quote: otstoy

Nevertheless, the 115 mm shell is obviously more powerful than the 100 mm, i.e. when firing high-explosive high-explosive T-62 is more effective. And the engine is more powerful.

Well, yes, but in principle there is no difference that 100 or 115 flies into the hut .. it's just easier to throw 100mm from the rifled barrel into the window .. there’s less dispersion ..

[otstoy]

Judging by the conflicts in Chechnya, Syria and Libya, the T-62M is really better than almost all modifications of the T-72, T-80 and T-90. It would be worth considering returning to service, the benefit of them is still full in storage

[vorobey]

Quote: otstoy

Judging by the conflicts in Chechnya, Syria and Libya, the T-62M is really better than almost all modifications of the T-72, T-80 and T-90. It would be worth considering returning to service, the benefit of them is still full in storage

don’t get excited about the conclusions .. The T62 is really inferior in terms of the complex of weapons, the stabilizer is stiffer and the withdrawal is big .. it is good for fighting barmalei, but it will not be able to compete even with old abrams and leopards .. and inferior in maneuverability ..

[viktor001]

You can compete with abras and leopards when you have a good projectile, here even if you have armata, but there is no good projectile, you can immediately go to rest

[viktor001]

as a tank as a whole it is not better, just against the broads the car shows itself better, but what did the T80 not please? tank is significantly better than t72

[otstoy]

T-80 at the beginning of the first Chechen burned a lot. They have the same problem as the T-64, when getting on board leads to an explosion of ammunition. Therefore, the second Chechen war was fought mainly on the T-62.

[viktor001]

board = blasting T64-T72-T80-T90 for everyone, there’s something different, the T80 is nimble, flew out - dolbanul-flew back, it makes no sense to stand still on course T80

[vorobey]

Quote: otstoy

T-80 at the beginning of the first Chechen burned a lot

burned a lot due to the stupidity of the application .. and the T80 kept RPGs up to three hits and left the battle on its own .. it’s from the original source .. Chechnya passed me, I already taught in another department then, but classmates burned and died there .. with Igor Grigorashchenko studied in the same company .. The T80 is really better, but more expensive in service and manufacturing, plus the requirements for mechanical drive skills are higher there. But the problem is similar to the T64 due to the fact that the charging mechanism there is used in a design different from the T72

[Doliva63]

Quote: vorobey

Quote: otstoy

T-80 at the beginning of the first Chechen burned a lot

burned a lot due to the stupidity of the application .. and the T80 kept RPGs up to three hits and left the battle on its own .. it’s from the original source .. Chechnya passed me, I already taught in another department then, but classmates burned and died there .. with Igor Grigorashchenko studied in the same company .. The T80 is really better, but more expensive in service and manufacturing, plus the requirements for mechanical drive skills are higher there. But the problem is similar to the T64 due to the fact that the charging mechanism there is used in a design different from the T72

The eye rejoices when reading a professional!

[Bad_santa]

Caution Mat. The instructor explains to the cadets not from books, but from life experience. Hopefully not banned https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05HqjYOF8gw

[ANCIENT]

As if the Syrians have a large selection of equipment! Make the most of what they have!

[Ivan Tarava]

Well, Russia is helping Syria in the fight against terrorists. Can’t it put modern tanks in the quantity in which there is a need?

[viktor001]

in theory, for local conflicts it’s easier to re-preserve obsolete machines, upgrade a little, cover everything with a lot of things and you can send

[vorobey]

Quote: Ivan Tarava

Well, Russia is helping Syria in the fight against terrorists. Can’t it put modern tanks in the quantity in which there is a need?

That's just the T55 and T62 m now going there .. I admit that the old T72 from the storage bases .. because judging by the photos, the rangefinders are still optical and not laser .. without good preparation, it’s hard to shoot from it even at 1500-1700m .

[Captain Pushkin]

Quote: Ivan Tarava

Well, Russia is helping Syria in the fight against terrorists. Can’t it put modern tanks in the quantity in which there is a need?

It costs money. And not small ones.

[bogart047]

You can just crush the mass, is not it? With this approach, the individual qualities of one machine are not so important. But to create a sea of ​​fire for such a machine is quite possible.

[avdkrd]

In my opinion, the article is complete nonsense. T-72 even in the basic configuration, significantly superior to T55 T62, at least because of the presence of multilayer armor, mobility and power of the gun. For all major performance characteristics. The power of of 125mm is also not a couple of 100mm and 115mm. Such a wonderful set of letters: a successful hit "leads to an explosion of a poorly protected ammunition, and the car, as a rule, turns into a pile of scrap metal" .... But nothing that a successful hit turns any tank into a pile of scrap metal. In general, the message of the article is incomprehensible. The presence of Syrian troops T-72 Ural, a priori, is better than without it at all. Comparison with the T-55 and 62 is incorrect, but their presence is also much better than the absence. The absence of DZ is certainly sad, but the Syrians know how to fight and use equipment. The introduction of such unprepared tanks is more likely a necessity, but why did the Urals suddenly become a bad tank? It is clear that it is inferior to modern versions in all respects, but what now pour gasoline over it and burn it? Why the fire protection system didn’t please the aftor is not clear at all - what kind of resource is it, is it an engine or a gun? Of course, if this system has not been serviced since the day of release, then its performance is in doubt, but where does such data come from and what does the resource have to do with it? Not an article, but a.

[otstoy]

YOU are trying to challenge the obvious fact that the T-62M in the Syrian war was the best tank. / that is what the Syrians themselves say.
By the way, Afghans also prefer the T-62M, even if they are offered the T-72.

[Hog]

The fact is that this very early version of the T-72 model of the mid-70s has very unreliable armor by modern standards.

What is it like? Cracks on hit or something else?
Maybe they wanted to say about its low security due to the fact that the tower is just made of cast armor, and not combined? Then what does reliability have to do with it?

[APASUS]

The Syrians have no choice at all that ours give away for free, that is what they use. In essence, Syria is not able to purchase weapons

[unignm]

eeeee and to T64 or T55 generally can not be approached?

[Tomato]

It's horrible! How can you. Asad urgently needs to put the latest technology, the best, in bulk money, which is a pity.
And there is one more suggestion. Conduct a referendum. Who is for the war in Syria to the bitter end - a special tax is introduced. 25% of income - from salaries, pensions, etc. Of course, only for those who voted.
Well, it won’t help, so you can unfasten 50%. Take Kiev, fight with mattresses. This is a holy thing.

[Zomanus]

Well, most likely they do not bring these tanks to the front, but they beat because of shelters.

[gukoyan]

"... uses an outdated version of the T-72 Ural tanks ..."
It’s not a big deal to get a “corner” defense and the whole business)
Moreover, I haven’t heard something about tank battles in the SAR for a long time.

[Sarcasm]

Happy Holidays! More objectivity t-55 and t-62 do not even go on board)

[Yarhann]

Why the heck, these shit experts climb with their findings. The oldest equipment in Syria is used from all sides of the conflict exclusively as self-propelled guns - the OFSom palnul rolled out - rolled up, by the way, the ACacia self-propelled guns are also often used by direct fire. With such a tank application, it can only be hit by another tank with more or less decent means of detection and guidance, defeat from shots and other guided weapons is impossible simply because they do not have time to aim and the rocket does not fly. For justice, it should be noted that obsolete tanks are used by all parties to the conflict. Let them see how they use t 54, t62 and old versions of t 72 which are without DZ and the rest of the body kit. And let them look at the tanks that are participating in the assault on the positions of how they are hung and how they are hung up - maybe then such crazy delusions will cease to be published.
Enough to consider the war sitting on the couch and trying on all the weapons in a spherical vacuum, relying solely on the performance characteristics. Watch the video from different sides of the conflict now it can be full that it stirs in your head ....

[otstoy]

So dear man, modern and subsequent wars will use tanks solely to support infantry. The era of tank breakthroughs and throws for tens of kilometers has ended. Now a group with 10-15 anti-tank systems will burn any number of tanks attacking not in infantry support tactics.
Of course, single tank battles will remain, but mainly in the form of tank duels.

[Yarhann]

the infantry group, even with anti-tank systems, always needs tanks or other armored vehicles - corny for movement and the possibility of somewhere to hide - the tank, both during WWII and now and in the future, has been and will be a means to storm fortified areas.
But the tank throws and breakthroughs it was and will be - the task of getting out as quickly as possible and the position is still in place, and the tank as the fastest most armored and heavily armed vehicle so far out of competition just the same BMP goes with it - that’s all - Watch the video of the use of tanks and infantry fighting vehicles in Syria it is full.
The tank is equally good at attacking fortified areas as well as at its defense.
Another thing is that now wars are much faster with a constant change of position with the enemy going behind the enemy lines and so on - there’s no time to sit on the defensive for a long time because large groups of tanks don’t use it, but it’s ideal as reinforcing a motorized rifle brigade. Modern tanks are much more effective and deadlier than their predecessors in BOB, but they are many times more expensive, because each tank can’t give you have to save.
Well, the fact that 10-15 ATGM will burn any number of tanks well, so one tank will destroy any amount of infantry with this approach in a spherical vacuum. If this were the case, in fact, now there wouldn’t be in one army of the world there wouldn’t be tanks of heavy infantry fighting vehicles and so on, but there would be only one armored personnel carrier with an airborne landing - but this isn’t just because a tank easily destroys this armored personnel carrier with a landing in which and these same calculations go with ATGMs.
The task of the tank was and still is the fight against enemy armored vehicles, the suppression of firing points, the destruction of ATGM, mortar, and other calculations - a modern tank has such powerful bipod detection tools on board that it leaves little chance for them to shoot first.

[vvalery]

Unfortunately, the Bulletin of Mordobia and the Military Harbor has stupid so-called experts. Unlike the T-54, T-55, T-62 and T-64, the T-72 (even the Urals) is more reliable, progressive and more convenient. Also cheaper is the T-64 (from HTZ). And although the T-64
at the time of adoption in 1968 was advanced T-72 "Ural", but was unreliable and very expensive. Therefore, after the collapse of the USSR, the T-64 remained only in Ukraine, and in Russia it was scrapped ..., and the T-72 in 1973 became the "BASIC" and is produced not only in a dozen countries, but also in the RF itself POR. see https://vk.com/video401438313_456239090

[Bad thing]

It seems that the whole “military education” of the experts of the Mordovian messenger consists in reading articles from Wikipedia and games such as WOT and the “Armata Project.” The song is generally not a source of information about the PPO system, apparently about reloading the cylinders, replacing the squib cartridges and testing the sensors.

[Bad thing]

Quote: Ivan Tarava

Well, Russia is helping Syria in the fight against terrorists. Can’t it put modern tanks in the quantity in which there is a need?

Together with trained crews? Where to get everything they want in sufficient quantity?

[Usher]

Is there a choice?