Talk:T-72

message: The text states that the T-72 was exported to Finland, among others. This is not strictly true: Finland obtained its T-72s used from post-unification Germany, from old East German stocks that Germany was selling off cheap along with other former East Block equipment. They were in use in the 1990s and early 2000s before being replaced by Leopard II A4s purchased used from Germany and A6s purchased used from the Netherlands.--Death Bredon (talk) 15:42, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Export to Finland 

message: Someone Add the variants of t72 with details on this wiki page plz Yak edito (talk) 16:39, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Variants of the t72 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:22, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: At the end of the section describing the automatic loading system of the T-72, the following is stated:
'The way that the unused rounds are stored in the autoloader system has been exposed as a flaw, as observers have noted that penetrating hits can easily set off a chain reaction that detonates all of the ammunition. The result is the turret is blown off resulting in a so-called "jack-in-the-box" explosion. This vulnerability was first observed during the Gulf War.'
This section is misleading and poor quality:
- The phrase 'unused ammunition' is confusing to me. Ammunition stored in autoloaders is generally referred to as 'ready ammunition' or something similar, to differentiate it from stowed ammunition in storage racks. This is also a meaningless differentiation, as 'used ammunition' is only present in the T-72 for as long as it takes to exit the barrel. The main section of the shell casing is consumed by combustion, the projectile leaves through the barrel, and the metallic stub base of the casing is ejected from the turret. There's nothing inherently harmful about this phrasing, it just strikes me as very odd. 
- The description of the possibility of a catastrophic kill from ammunition fire is heavily misrepresented here, as it implies that the T-72 is unusually prone to ammunition fires, and as it implies the primary safety compromise in the T-72 that leads to ammunition fires is either inclusion of an automatic loader, or how rounds are stowed in it. This is not the case. The automatic loading system of the T-72 is an asset to the resilience and survivability of the T-72, not a detriment. The position of the automatic loader in the tank, low and central, places it in the zone least likely to be struck by a potential penetration, as hits to a tank tend to be on the turret or upper front plate. The way the rounds are stored is actually safer than contemporary autoloaders such as that of the T-64, as they are stored horizontally and thus have a smaller profile and extend upwards less into the tank. The central position also means any fragments are more likely than any in any other position to have to travel the furthest possible distance, possibly through other equipment in the tank, before striking ammunition, losing velocity, losing heat, and decreasing the probability that the ammunition is hit or ignited. The placement of a majority of the tank's ammunition in the safest possible position in that tank cannot be called a flaw in good faith, especially when almost every tank following Western design, barring the Abrams and very specific modifications of others, have hull-stowed ammunition racks in significantly less safe positions, such as right next to the driver, and with no blowout panels. And this extends to the T-72; it, too, has spare ammunition stored there. But I have rarely if ever seen this feature described as a flaw, 
nor other forms of ammunition stored without blowout panel. Even ammunition stored in significantly less safe positions, such as the T-72's turret spares, is not noted as a 'flaw'. And all of this is without mentioning a great many incidents of the T-72's autoloader demonstrating great resilience to damage, nor without mentioning the survivability gained from the smaller profile and additional spare weight to take up with additional armor that the autoloader allowed. Tankograd's article on the subject is a good read for well-researched information relevant to this; https://thesovietarmourblog.blogspot.com/2017/12/t-72-part-2.html#prot
- The turret is not inherently blown off as a result of an ammunition fire in the T-72, nor any other tank for that matter. It is a common result of a catastrophic ammunition fire, but it is only a possible result, and is far from a certainty. Additionally, even in modern tank design, it is far from unique to the T-72. A good example of this can be seen from Turkish losses of Leopard 2a4s, which can be seen to suffer losses the same phenomenon. Any significant amount of ammunition stored in such a manner that it is not well segregated from the crew and not properly ventilated with a blowout protection system can cause this, it is not a particular flaw of the automatic loader in the T-72.
- It also seems odd to emphasize the loss of the turret as a major component of how this is a problem. If a catastrophic ammunition fire has been triggered, the crew isn't going to be affected by whether or not the overpressure was so spectacular that it tore several tons of metal from its mounting. If it is not segregated from them, they are going to die instantly even if the overpressure 'only' blew hatches open. 
- The linked CNN article given as a source is flagrant propaganda. I don't respect it enough to say much more than that, the title alone degrades my mental health.
I won't be making any edits at the moment, as I am unfamiliar with Wikipedia's edit structure and procedure and do not wish to make changes without at least discussing it with someone more familiar with Wikipedia's structure and edit policy (and to confirm I'm not a dumbass), so responses would be appreciated 12.172.184.210 (talk) 10:36, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccuracy in the autoloader section  

message: Where did we suddenly get that 5ft 4in is the maximum height for a T-72 crew? What happened to the citation that was on this page for a really long time stating official regulations that 5ft 9in (175cm) was the maximum height for the crew? Magellan Fan (talk) 22:11, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Height limit for T-72 crews 

message: Removed the following sentence from the article: 
During the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine the cages proved ineffective at defending the tanks and were removed.Mounting cage armor on top of Russian tank turrets proves useless. Army Recognition. 26 May 2022.
Reasons for removal:
1. The source linked does not back up the blanket statement that cages were "removed from tanks" - in point of fact, cages continue to be a common feature of tanks involved in the conflict to the current day, and have been deployed on tanks outside of the conflict.
2. The source sited does not actually in any way examine the effectiveness of the cages at defending against any specific munitions, aside from claiming they are ineffective without siting any logic or evidence. Evidence for and against the effectiveness of cages remains anecdotal - though their continued widespread adoption by both sides of the Ukraine conflict, as well as non-participant militarizes may offer some solid circumstantial evidence in their favor.
3. The source sited falls far short of a "neutral" point of view. 108.52.112.198 (talk) 02:54, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poorly supported statements on roof cages