Ssnake Posted July 28, 2020 Share Posted July 28, 2020 He only wrote about the armor composition. The addition of missile guidance is pure conjecture on your part, Jim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KV7 Posted July 28, 2020 Share Posted July 28, 2020 (edited) He only wrote about the armor composition. The addition of missile guidance is pure conjecture on your part, Jim.Presumably he thinks it can fire tube launched ATGM due to presence of 1K13-49 rather than TPN-1-49-23. Edited July 28, 2020 by KV7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Interlinked Posted July 28, 2020 Share Posted July 28, 2020 It's actually very interesting. Those are indeed T-72As, and they do indeed have the 1K13-49 sight and they had the missile guidance system fitted for troop trials in 1984. Supposedly, 50 of them were made. You can even find T-72AVs with the missile guidance system. It's not a combination that you often see, but it definitely exists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KV7 Posted July 28, 2020 Share Posted July 28, 2020 Have the GLATGM ever been used in combat ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Interlinked Posted July 28, 2020 Share Posted July 28, 2020 I think at least one T-90A in Syria fired a missile at a building or a cluster of people. I'm not sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Warford Posted July 28, 2020 Share Posted July 28, 2020 He only wrote about the armor composition. The addition of missile guidance is pure conjecture on your part, Jim. Maybe I misread his comments...it looked like he was saying the tank in that photo is a T-72A...it also looks like that tank (the one in the photo), is a missile-firer. Anyone...correct me if I'm wrong here; is the tank in that photo a missile-firing tank? Also, I've never seen that turret frontal armor arrangement (with the two visible and larger cavities = "Super Dolly Parton" T-72B/T-72B1), associated with the T-72A. I fully support the theory, in fact I'm pretty sure I was the first to bring it up on TankNet, that variations not only happen, but are common place, where the users might not be aware of the change. The issue here is that these comments are about defining characteristics...which normally, don't change. If I'm wrong...I'll be the first to admit it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Warford Posted July 28, 2020 Share Posted July 28, 2020 It's actually very interesting. Those are indeed T-72As, and they do indeed have the 1K13-49 sight and they had the missile guidance system fitted for troop trials in 1984. Supposedly, 50 of them were made. You can even find T-72AVs with the missile guidance system. It's not a combination that you often see, but it definitely exists. Interlinked; that is a great photo...one I've never seen until now. Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ssnake Posted July 28, 2020 Share Posted July 28, 2020 As others commented above, you seem to have been right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Galbraith Posted July 28, 2020 Share Posted July 28, 2020 Did anything like this happen with the T64 or T80? I'm wondering if it explained the lack of missile capability in the T64B1? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Interlinked Posted July 28, 2020 Share Posted July 28, 2020 Omission of the missile firing capability in the T-64B1 and T-72B1 was deliberate. The main factor was cost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bojan Posted July 28, 2020 Share Posted July 28, 2020 (edited) Maybe I misread his comments... Jim, only thing I claimed is that there were several configurations of T-72A, last one being almost identical to a T-72B, but still designated T-72A. That last one was pictured. As other have noted, some (very few in the grand scheme of things) late production T-72A and AV got missile control equipment. Transition from T-72A to T-72B was gradual, more and more features being incorporated to T-72A until at one moment someone said "Call it T-72B". Edited July 28, 2020 by bojan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Warford Posted July 29, 2020 Share Posted July 29, 2020 Maybe I misread his comments... Jim, only thing I claimed is that there were several configurations of T-72A, last one being almost identical to a T-72B, but still designated T-72A. That last one was pictured. As other have noted, some (very few in the grand scheme of things) late production T-72A and AV got missile control equipment. Transition from T-72A to T-72B was gradual, more and more features being incorporated to T-72A until at one moment someone said "Call it T-72B". Bojan; again, I understand the issue with multiple and likely un-advertised tank variations...and I agree that the primary tanks were improved gradually over time. But, the claim that the tank in the photo you posted is a T-72A is new information (to me at least). That means that some T-72As look almost exactly like T-72Bs and have the same capabilities, including the missile guidance equipment and (at least from the outside), the same turret frontal armor arrangement. So, how are these still T-72A tanks? What makes them T-72As at this point? Based on that photo, the defining characteristics that make it a T-72A are long gone... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Galbraith Posted July 29, 2020 Share Posted July 29, 2020 This must have made calculating CFE totals fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Interlinked Posted July 29, 2020 Share Posted July 29, 2020 Bojan; again, I understand the issue with multiple and likely un-advertised tank variations...and I agree that the primary tanks were improved gradually over time. But, the claim that the tank in the photo you posted is a T-72A is new information (to me at least). That means that some T-72As look almost exactly like T-72Bs and have the same capabilities, including the missile guidance equipment and (at least from the outside), the same turret frontal armor arrangement. So, how are these still T-72A tanks? What makes them T-72As at this point? Based on that photo, the defining characteristics that make it a T-72A are long gone... That's a very good question, because these tanks had the Object 184 code, like the T-72B. However, this wasn't unprecedented, because the T-72A was initially known under the code Object 172M-1, and then later it took on the code of Object 176, which originally belonged to an earlier prototype modification of the T-72. The only reason why it would be incorrect to refer to these late T-72A tanks as "T-72B" is because the T-72B did not exist until the government said it existed on 27th of November 1985. Even the manufacturer sometimes refers to tanks built in 1984 as "T-72B"s. For the sake of easier differentiation, I'd say that those late T-72As from 1984 cannot be considered T-72Bs until they receive a set of Kontakt-1, because that's the primary distinguishing factor. Everything else was pretty much the same: turret, hull, gun, autoloader, transmission, engine (V-84 began mass production in 1984), FCS, and so on. It also seems possible to differentiate between 1983 and 1984 models of these late T-72As by the type of smoke grenade system they have. The ones from 1983 had the 902A system like the initial T-72A from 1979 had, whereas tanks built in 1984 had the 902B system with the grenades clustered on the turret side in preparation for adding Kontakt-1. PS: all of these late T-72As are known as "Совершенствование Т-72А" ("Improved T-72A"), which was the research topic that led to the T-72B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DB Posted July 30, 2020 Share Posted July 30, 2020 I wonder how they expected to manage the logistics train for all this semi-documented variation. "Sorry comrade, we only have the old FCS spares..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Interlinked Posted July 30, 2020 Share Posted July 30, 2020 Well, they didn't really differ much from the other T-72As built in the same period, and the T-72B1 didn't differ much from these late T-72As. For example, the two tanks in the photo I posted both have the same FCS as other T-72As from the same period (early '80s). TPN-3 night vision sight and 1A40 sighting system with an add-on lead calculator module. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bojan Posted July 30, 2020 Share Posted July 30, 2020 I wonder how they expected to manage the logistics train for all this semi-documented variation. "Sorry comrade, we only have the old FCS spares..."Hence use of the inventory numbers. You don't order "T-72A gunner's sight", you order "Item 54643-2347889-7853433" and everyone is (for most part) happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavin-Phillips Posted July 30, 2020 Share Posted July 30, 2020 I was thinking of those BRIXMIS teams myself, imagine how hard it must have been to identify one tank type from another with all these different variations? It must have made tank identification by model a real pain. This must have made calculating CFE totals fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Galbraith Posted July 30, 2020 Share Posted July 30, 2020 Well they didn't get the T72 in GSFG Gavin. But it certainly makes you wonder if this kind of practice may have turned up in other Soviet afvs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bojan Posted July 30, 2020 Share Posted July 30, 2020 IIRC T-80B had different glacis layouts depending on the year of production and so did T-64Bs. Don't remember exactly about turrets, but IIRC T-80B used two different turrets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Warford Posted July 31, 2020 Share Posted July 31, 2020 T-72B glacis armor arrays also varied apparently (see photos below)... This is a very interesting discussion; it looks like much of the vehicle ID effort back in the day was not exactly correct. In the scheme of things it was close enough (if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck well, it's a duck), and the fact that the late-late model T-72A was virtually identical to what was recognized as the T-72B, meant for ID purposes, it was a "T-72B." That said, we would all like to be as accurate as possible... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corinthian Posted September 9, 2020 Share Posted September 9, 2020 (edited) I'd like to say that this thread is very very informative and helps in my T-72A circa 1984 build a lot. Thanks Bojan for pointing me to this thread. Edited September 9, 2020 by Corinthian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now