And you think T-72s are dangerous when the old monkey model AMX-30s slaughtered them in the Gulf War. Get with it guy, the T-72 has proven time and again it is no match for modern armour and that is in essence what the Type 99 is, a modernised T-72. It will end up the same against modern armour as it did against yesterdays armour in the Gulf War...
You are typical teenage Armand You know, do You even read books?
Iraqi T-72's were export, downgraded monkey models! Western armor never faced T-80U, or T-72B, even T-64B was more advanced and dangerous than T-72M or T-72M1.
Do You even know how many different T-72 variants were made in Soviet Union? With Your incredible "knowledge" You probably don't know how to see external differences between T-72 and T-80.
And the most funny thing is that there was never builded such thing as export monkey variant of AMX-30, not to mention that AMX-30 never saw combat against T-72 tanks! Please tell me what sources are You using? Do You use any sources? Any book? Anything credible? Or these are only Your fantasies.
I lost any patience, so I will say this only once. Shut the fuck up, go back to school first, then read books, and when You gain some knowledge, then back to discussion, because I and probably also others are tired to talk with such concrete head, with absolutely 0 knowledge.
The T-72's bad performance wasn't just because the T-72 had flaws. Rather Saddams Tank Crews were not trained well, that could also be factor. Saddam's troops did not command the battlefield. The US did, from the air and ground. It was complete retreat. A well trained crew can create ambushes like Damain said but a an army that is properly prepared to use these weapons ie India knows how to change tactics when needed.
The T-72 is still formidable given its gun, although less powerful than even the T-90's and has defeciences in ranges greater than 2.5 km but considering the cost of the tank, and weight (T-72 can be carried by Il-76) this weapon paints a larger picture. It is in no way on PAR to match the sheer power, and protection of NATO's tanks. Nore was it designed to go 1 on 1. Rather the cost would allow WARSAW to field 3 or so T-72's for every M1A1.
Soviets did not intend on having the T-72's go and take on mechanized infantry or Europe alone. The SOviets considered artillery, massive numbers of them and ATGM.
Sorry Jat, this is wrong, I am currently working on article about T-72 tank, I can post a fragment of it here, this will explain why and how T-72 was designed.
History of development and active service.
The real history of T-72 is rarely known to the public, most people known T-72 only from media news about Middle East conflicts, others see it as a cheap mobilization tank for Soviet Army, but truth is much more interesting.
Everything started in late 1950's when Soviet MoD started to seek solutions for future replacement for T-54 (Object 137), T-55 (Object 155) and T-62 (Object 166) tanks. Because of it's earlier successes (T-34/85, T-44 and T-54) task for development of new tank was given to one of the most creative and brilliant Soviet tank designers, Alexander Morozov. The road to new tank was going through Object 430 prototype, that was later modified to Object 432 that was finally fielded as T-64. T-64 was truly revolutionary design, it was very small and light tank, weighting only 37-38 tons, but had superior protection to any tank manufactured then in all countries being tank manufactures. Armed with 125mm smoothbore gun vehicle had superior firepower to any other tank, and was also very mobile with it's 5TD Diesel engine. However there was one problem, reliability was poor because vehicle was completely new technology, difficult to handle, especially in Soviet Union where soldiers were mostly simple conscripts from villages and were not well educated. T-64 was designed in Kharkiv (Todays Ukraine), but there were also other design bureaus and tank factories in other cities like Leningrad, Nizhny Tagil, Omsk and Chelyabinsk, so everyone wanted to have it's part of cake. Technical problems with T-64 led MoD and Politbiuro to decide that alternative, less risky solution is needed. So then Leonid Kartsev step in to action. He led very ambitious design bureau in Nizhny Tagil, and in fact lost earlier competition for new MBT with Morozov, back then, he was working on Object 166T and Object 167M prototypes derived from T-62, the first one was propelled with Turbine engine (suffix T means Turbine), but overall tests were not very succesfull. Object 167M was propelled by Diesel (legendary W-2 derivative) but also had some new features like composite armor (but it was still rather simple construction, with cast outer and inner layers with alluminium filler), vehicle also had autoloader.
However Kartsev needed to resign from his current work because MoD and Politbiuro decided that new tank will be just T-64 tank with simpler engine. Prototype was designated Object 172 and was propelled with W-46 Diesel engine. Kartsev however did not want to just redesign T-64, he wanted to design completely new tank, similar to T-64 tough. Besides the engine, Kartsev seen problems also with suspension and autoloader of T-64. He and his team used their own autoloader that is different than Morozov's team autoloader.
T-64 autoloader is basket type and modular design, it is also integral element of turret. In this autoloader propellant charges are stored vertical, and projectile horizontally, also ammunition cassettes can be demounted from autoloader by crew if needed. Kartsev's team autoloader is not integral part of turret, so when turret is taken off hull, autoloader cassettes stay in hull. Also both propellant charges and projectile are stored horizontally.
This new tank was designated Object 172M, it used new suspension that used big road wheels, also other elements were different, vehicle was fielded in 1973 and designated T-72, later it also recived name Ural.
"
Note, this is my work, please do not use it in any of Your work without permission, it is fragment of article currently still in development. This is only demo version, there still can be, and probably are, mistakes and errors.
The T-90 is a redesign of T-72 for greater performance, its almost physically the same machine, however it differs in that electronics have become cheaper, and more widely accesible.
Original T-90 is indeed T-72B on steroids, however T-90A is a much different vehicle with a bit more commonalities to other project designated Object 187.
While I agree that front armour of the T series is pretty heavy, it is also not the only spot tanks need armor as the Russians have learn't seeing the NEW T-90AM which has alot more armour on the side turret.
Side turret and hull armor is supplemented by dynamic protection, still no composite armor over turret sides, mainly because dynamic protection is light and very effective.
While we can say great things about the T series, ie autoloader they have shown poor performance, expecially when it comes to protecting the crew, and in any war, the crew is more valuable than the tank. IMO.
There is nothing wrong with autoloader, reason of most catastrophic losses was ammunition stored outside autoloader in hull, this problem at least partially was solved in T-90MS.
Seems to me its an increase in side armour more than anything else, according to sources, the Ammunition as been moved from the floor. I don't know how its possible.
What You mean? How they moved ammunition from hull ammo racks? They just bolted armored ammo box to the rear of turret and put there ammunition earlier stored in hull outside autoloader cassettes, the same was done in T-84M Oplot-M.
Isn't the price of Arjun the highest? someone has just pointed out, more expensive means better, Arjun should be the best.
Price have nothing to do with tank being better or worser.
