Russian Terminators Arrive In Syria

Donate

Loading the player...

Written and produced by SF Team: J.Hawk, Daniel Deiss, Edwin Watson; Voiceover by Oleg Maslov

If you’re able, and if you like our content and approach, please support the project. Our work wouldn’t be possible without your help: PayPal: southfront@list.ru or via: http://southfront.org/donate/ or via: https://www.patreon.com/southfront

Early July 2017 saw the release of photos showing a single BMPT-72 “Terminator” tank support combat vehicle in service with the Liva al-Quds Palestinian brigade serving with Syrian government forces. So far there have been no indications the vehicle has seen combat use, and it also appears that the vehicle was sent to Syria mainly for combat evaluation rather than in response to any urgent tactical requirement.

The BMPT concept represents an answer to the need to provide a high volume of suppressive fire against enemy anti-tank guided weapons and static weapon emplacements such as machine-gun nests. While modern infantry fighting vehicles are usually armed with automatic cannon which can fill that function, their inferior level of protection means they are hard-pressed to truly accompany tanks and are instead forced to provide overwatch fire with anti-tank guided missiles which limits their ability to use their cannon. The use of anti-aircraft weapons, either purpose-designed vehicles or gun trucks with towed anti-aircraft guns mounted on their platforms, suffers from a similar limitation. The only way to get around these problems, which Russian forces discovered when fighting in Afghanistan and Chechnya, is to develop a heavily armored vehicle that replaces a tank’s main gun with automatic cannon. This vehicle was Obyekt 199 “Ramka”, which over the years matured into the BMPT-72.

BMPT-72 is, as the name implies, based on the successful and popular T-72 main battle tank chassis. This choice facilitates integration into T-72 tank formations from the perspective of mobility, maintenance, and training. Its armament consists of two 2A42 30mm automatic cannon with a total of 850 rounds in the turret, and two AG-30 30mm automatic grenade launchers mounted over the tracks and controlled by the two “bow gunners.” To deal with long-range threats, the vehicle carries four ready-to-fire 9M120 Ataka laser-guided supersonic anti-tank missiles with a range of up to 10km in the case of the most recent models and carrying either HEAT or thermobaric warheads, depending on mission requirements.

As of early 2017, the BMPT-72 is officially in service only with the armed forces of Kazakhtan, which took the receipt of 10 such vehicles between 2011 and 2013. The vehicle spotted in Syria deviates slightly from the Kazakhstani vehicles in that it carries only a low-light image intensification sight rather than a thermal imager, which makes the vehicle less expensive and is not a great handicap in Syrian conditions where it is not expected to fight duels with advanced MBTs equipped with thermal imagers. Its protection is also different in that it carries Relikt second-generation reactive armor and soft armor packages protecting the sides so far seen only on up-armored T-72B3 tanks in Russian and Belarusian service.

BMPT-72’s appearance in Syria coincided with reports that the Russian Ground Forces are about to procure a number of these vehicles themselves, most likely for use by brigades and divisions operating T-72 and T-90 MBTs. BMPT-72 was not part of earlier procurement plans because it was expected that units equipped with the new T-14 MBT of the Armata family will also include the T-15 heavy infantry fighting which was designed in part to fill the same niche as the BMPT. The T-15 prototypes shown at the 2015 Victory Parade carried an unmanned turret with a single 30mm cannon and 4 Kornet ATGMs, and automatic cannon with caliber of up to 57mm are known to be in development and testing for use on the T-15 and other IFVs.

However, the expansion of the size of the Ground Forces meant that T-72 and T-90 MBTs would remain in service for longer than expected, which in turn revived Russian interest in procuring the BMPT-72.

Donate

  • Solomon Krupacek

    BMPT-72 is, as the name implies, based on the successful and popular T-72 main battle tank chassis

    sorry, but t-72 was not successful and not a bit popular. for decades i have good friend, colonel, former leader of large tank units. the t-72 had too much failures and was very unshielded. it was planned for massive tank attack in west germany with short lifetime (i am talking not about shitty arab copies, but 1st class warsaw pact arsenal). the concept was like with t-34; massive usage, high losses, but break the lines. no miracle, that in t-90 had to change the whole concept.
    i am curious, how will serve this terminator miracle?sure is very vulnerable and in hands of arabs … :((
    they cowardly send 1 tank alone on the battlefield. probably will do the same shit with this equipment.

    • Manuel Flores Escobar

      M-60 patton is shit as we seen during first gulf war and Turkish operation in Al bad, Merkava also was an easy target for Kornets during lebanon war( many of them destroyed) and M1 Abrahms also is shit as we have seen in Yemen and Irak…Russia has T-90/ T-72B3 with Kontak5 and Shtora and both has stopped ATGM impact in Syria….for other side Terminator is deployed there to stop day or night Suicide cars attacks!…nothing else!

      • Solomon Krupacek

        merkava was not easy target.
        abramhs are 3 classes over t-72. not the same class. you make the same mistake if you were compare tigers with t-34

        the newest russian defence systems did not decrease the losse in tanks. check the statistics of saa.

        and again: here t-72s are in battlefield against infantry. and huge losses. i wrote, that the t-72 is shit in regular war. and this is fact. in almast all postscialist ountry were eliminated this series of tanks. absolutly failed type. better no tanks than t-72.

        you defend your ideology. a talk about pure facts.

        in fghanistan ussr had also huge losses of t-72. the goatfuckers destroyed them.

        • Jesus

          What good was a 60 ton Tiger stuck in the Russian mud when The T34’s swarmed it and volleyed 76mm shots until It was destroyed?
          Russians chose to build simple effective and reliable tanks in great numbers, while Germans over engineered their later tanks.

          The T34 was great and defeated PKW 4 easily, however German tactics and their 88 mm gun made the battlefield easier for their PKW 4, and they did well alongside with the Tigers.

          Abrams is not classes/generations over T72B3, it is a heavy hog, it relies on the sabot shot for 2-3000 meters for antitank engagements, it does not have reactive armor or active protection systems, while T72B3 can use the 125MM gun as a ATGM Launcher and engage enemy tanks at 6-7000 meters.

          Why don’t you brush up on some real data instead of your nonesensical russophobe diatribe.

          • Solomon Krupacek

            t-34 was also shit. compare, how many tanks lost ussr and how many germany. 10 t-34 versus 1 german tank. so, dont tell me anything about soviet tanks. a cold write book about them. check in your russian materials, how big problems had in the first years with t-34. the crew saw nothing! nothing!!! they were totally blind. weak cannon, weak shield. only the last series was good, whne ussr lost >60 000 of them.
            btw., you know niothing about soviet programs. befor ww2 there were extremly weak tanks. and on the table were different projects. t-34 was not good. everybody knew it. and planned anothe project, really good tank. but came the war amd had to choose between shit tank but in mass production or better tank but low production numbers. and stalin has chosen the first way.

            weak tanks, but tens of thousands.

            and similar was also with t-72. in tjat time brezhnev and his horde got all information about nuclear strategy of nato in europe, knew, where want use nuclear”mines” against soviet tanks. the t72 was born only for 1 purpuse: in thousands attack german plains and destroy the first line of nato fdefence. IN TAHT TIME FOR THIS KAMIKAZE purpose was good concept. but shit for everything else. good, that brezhnew died. so live your tankists. and exists the world.

          • Gary Sellars

            “t-34 was also shit.”

            The T-34 is universally recognised as the best tank of WW2, yet out resident fuckwit thinks he knows better….

            If he had an ounce of cerebral matter he would slink off into the shadows and regret his public idiocy, but like a true dumb cnt he remains utterly clueless and carries on regardless….

          • PZIVJ

            T34 did have it’s drawbacks: cramped turret, lack of a radio except in the command tank. But Russian factories sure could produce a lot of them!! These tanks where definitely not over engineered. The T34-85 was a nice upgrade.

          • Solomon Krupacek

            not the bset tank. only the ast version was good and equal to panthers. tigers were non plus ultra. this lavel the sovites did not reach during ww2.

          • Siegfried Mueller

            Sure, with the IS-2. The IS-2 was produced to destroy the Tiger.
            This tank can penetrate the armour from an Panther, at 400m with an 122mm gun.
            The schot went trough the whole tank and exit it on the back.

          • Jacek Wolski

            The Finns didn’t think much of the T-34 during the Soviet offensive from 9th June 1944 till 5th September 1944 https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/81b7af1bafe206d4758eb44ef13faa5dfb668ce337e7e49147bfd53596a9e024.jpg

          • Solomon Krupacek

            these facts the will ignre the Fanatic Horde :D

          • Solomon Krupacek

            who sa, that the best? i nread this only in soviet propaganda. was the famoust, far not the best.

          • Jens Holm

            Your comparision T34 against Tigers(+leopards) dont hold. very much was about germans couldnt effort to build enough of theirs fast enough.

            Germans also by that time lost the capability to make the best steel protection by “stahlveradler”) even they could be at least some from Turkey until Odessa was taken.

            You are not updated about how good T34 became as well. T34 got 76 riffels, but more important they after years of fiasco finally could improve grenades in a whole ned generation of firing range as well as in penetration.

            That meant they stopped producing their most heavy tank and later on replaced those with heavy JS tanks(Iosef Stalin).

            You also forget, that german warfare was much more based on movebale artillery as well as airplanes and the russians museum airforce almost wast wiped out until they could produce many and better ones.

            In the middle east You are too much focused on tanks and heavy armory, but You forget, they are only very well, if You cand handle and protect them.

            As written before, more primitive armies shouldnt have tanks. It much cheeper and visual support to have artillery as well as i give You much more firepower.

            You have moved a few kilometers east of palmyra after years of figting. Do that need selfpropelled tanks. No its not even need artillery as self propelled. The advances from Al Bab and down. Exact same thing.

            If You should destroy Tabqa and Raqqa in the same way, You have done with other – tanks are needed. No artillery from range 20 km is faster and cheeper and much cheeper as well.

          • Jesus

            I was not comparing the T-34 to the Tiger, I was comparing it to Panzer 4, the Panther being Panzer 5, and the Tiger being Panzer 6.
            I was saying that the T34 were very effective and superior to Panzer 4 tanks.

          • Solomon Krupacek

            boy, the frist 3 versions of t-34 were nothing against panzer4. only after 1943 were better.

        • Siegfried Mueller

          It depends what T-72 it is.The T-72 Ural has no longer a value against Abrams and co. Thats right, but the T-72B3 is very effective against chemical energy threats ,like the TOW and TOW2 in Syria. You can find a video on you tube, where a T-72B3 survive two hits from an TOW2 missile.The Abrams has been destroyed in Yemen frontal from an Konkurs missile. This Abrams was an M1A2S from the Saudi regime. Against kinetic energy threats the abrams was tested in the irak war,but old soviet export ammunition has no impact against the M1 Abrams.This ammuntion can penetrate at the most 340mm at 0 degrees.In conclusion we can say that, no one from this two tanks are testet against new APFSDS ammunition.

          • Solomon Krupacek

            You can find a video on you tube, where a T-72B3 survive two hits from an TOW2 missile

            and much more, when dd not survive 1 tow. and tows are old weapons. what about newer?

            The Abrams has been destroyed in Yemen frontal from an Konkurs missile
            yup. downgraded version.

          • Siegfried Mueller

            First,can you give me the source where a T-72B3 has been destroyed?

            Second:Yes i know, but it doesn´t matter ,because against chemical energy threats DU armor is not effective.
            All in all the M1A2 Abrams has the same specifikations like the M1A2 SEP3.
            Here a Picture for you from Yemen:

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/94ed6b7a8971615af807d40eb70bbc73afc247d7bb1388894a5cf667968a8dab.jpg

          • Solomon Krupacek

            in syria are only 2-3 peces of this version. but in ukraine were destroyed most of them ;) by ukraininas.

            the saudi abrams is jot full armoured tank.

            i dont understand, what want you??? i compared tanks, and t-72 is not able to destroy abrams. thats all, i told.

            i sat in t-72, it is shit on shit. steel coffin. you can me write what you will, my experiences i my! we sold out all of t-72s. we dont want this shit. czechs olet modernized some of them and now are selling out.

          • Siegfried Mueller

            Wtf…The T-72B3 can penetrate the armor from an M1A2 Abrams! The canon is the same as from the T-90A. The ammunition (svinetz 2) can panetrate 800mm RHA at 2km. That is enough to penetrate the turret from an M1A1 Abrams.
            The glacis and lower front hull from an M1A2 Abrams SEP can penetratet too from this ammunition.

          • Solomon Krupacek

            check the numbers. az 0°, which is impossible.
            btw., the turret has 1100 mm, so you failed. again. svinets can only shout queeee! :DDD
            important are also distances. abrams has better gun, from larger distance can destroy t-72

            otherwise, in syria tow destroyed modern t-90.

            i think, you simply do not want to see the reality. you glorify some weapons. i not. that is the big difference between us.

          • Siegfried Mueller

            The ammunition for the gun in the abrams has an penetrationrate from 760mm.
            Thats not so much better than the T-90 ^^
            The gun is not in a single point better.
            Not a single TOW has ever destroyed a T-90.
            Please give me the source if im wrong.
            Ps. I have the armour stats from this site:http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/abrams.htm

          • Solomon Krupacek

            Not a single TOW has ever destroyed a T-90.

            you lie

          • Siegfried Mueller

            Give me your source for this information.

            Your arguments are not acceptable without proofs!

          • Solomon Krupacek

            out the correct words in google. you are sitting before PC, you have time.

          • Siegfried Mueller

            Okay.. I found two pics.
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/0977b0080da5afa0a6e5a6304a37f1a1616fa2067d760f4b2ed6b5f9552a422b.jpg

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/1410949bc88544316cf8a3aa138ac478090855a507fec88b96b21cccb29bc54a.jpg

            The first is the T-90 which survive the Tow hit (you know this famous video).

            The other T-90 is not burning out.You can see it, because the fire leave only one hatch, the other hatch is not burning.Also no smoke leave the gun.So we can see,the Mg ammunitionbox is the only burning thing on this tank.

            The full story from this tank you can find here:https://twitter.com/WaelHussaini/status/823804485374013440

          • Kell

            They lost one (partial loss at least) but because of poor crew training, part of the outside caught fire and the crew did a runner leaving the hatches open, fire slowly spread and eventually went inside turrent causing more damage.

            https://youtu.be/7F9WJ5pgqlU

          • Kell
          • Solomon Krupacek

            otherwise, the xported/licensed t-72s had weaker armour. but everything else was unchanged.
            HERE:
            russian data about gun (better version) in t-72s

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2A46_125_mm_gun

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/125_mm_smoothbore_ammunition

            check the penetration ability, distances. and look for armour data of abrams. after that the data about abrms gun.

            practically t-72 is unable to destroy abrams.

            according to russinas :P

            bzw., in nato concept the mnost important anti tank weapons are choppers and planes. russia has only few choppers. if you let fight 100 abrmas and 100 t-72, the result is predicted.

      • VGA

        The iraqi Abrams are heavily downgraded versions.

        • Gary Sellars

          not heavily, they just lack DU armour, and does anyone really believe that the addition of some extra armour would have prevented all of those losses????

          • Solomon Krupacek

            yes. would prevent. armor ia salso an important part.

          • VGA

            The iraqi tanks are export versions of the M1A1. Latest version in mass production is M1A2 SEP.

        • Siegfried Mueller

          No its not! The DU armor is nothing more than paper against chemical energy penetrators like Kornet.

          • Kell

            Yes the DU mesh was to prevent the ceramic armor shattering with a low velocity cannonball style round the Soviets brought out in the 80s, mainly holds ceramic together for kinetic energy shots.

          • VGA

            Iraqi tanks are downgraded export versions of the M1A1, latest version in mass production is the M1A2 SEP

          • Siegfried Mueller

            Yes i know, but it doesn´t matter ,becouse against chemical energy threats DU armor is not effective.

    • Jesus

      Unlike earlier models of T72, these have second generation Relikt reactive armor, and an active protection system that makes them equal or better than Leopard and M1.
      The Relikt reactive armor can diminish the sabot shot significantly, by cutting the penetrator rod once or twice. Massive use of armored formations is a blitzkrieg mode of attack, hundreds of T72B3 accompanied by the a few hundred Terminators would destroy any NATO defensive/offensive position in Eastern Europe.
      The Terminators in Syria will be crewed by Russians for a full evaluation of this weapon’s capabilities and ways to improve on it.

      • Solomon Krupacek

        i knew, when here come our false jesus, he will write the most idiot comment :DDD t-72 was never in the same league with abrmas or leopards.

        • Jesus

          You are so dense, your density is getting close to the density of a black hole, T72 B3 are remodernized T-72 platforms, with better engines, gun, armor protection, sights and, reactive armor, active protection systems….etc, than tanks built 40 years ago.
          Leopards and Abrams are +40 years old, what modernizations have they seen?
          Leopard 2 has gone through development stages, only to find out that ISIS destroyed them with relative ease, while T90 has been unstoppable in Syria.

          For the money, T-90 is better value than Leopards or Abrams; T72B3’s capabilities are very similar to T-90.

          • Solomon Krupacek

            shit stays shit also after modernisation. also soviet enginiers told, it was a mistake and failed project.

          • Siegfried Mueller

            You support the discussion with nothing more than nonsense.

          • Solomon Krupacek

            sure. facts are fact, and yiou are too silly to accept them.

            did you live in that time,or not, little kid?!

          • Solomon Krupacek

            otehrwise, i suggest, read first something about t-72 and t-90. then you save us before your stupidities ;)

          • VGA

            The turkish Leos that were destroyed by ATGM left and right were two generations behind the current one.

            And the Abrams have also had several modernisations and a ton of successful combat operations.

          • Solomon Krupacek

            jesus is fanatic. in communism he would be politruc (political instructor, fanatic commie, who sent in gulag the not enough commie comrades). i have good nose for these animals.

          • Siegfried Mueller

            Yeah thats right, but the side armor at the turret is very weak on the leopard2a4 and also leopard 2a7. At these zones the leopard lacks an additive armor.In the turret side is also stored additinal ammunition.If the ATGM penetrate the armor and hit the ammunition, all crewmembers are dead.The blast doors will not help against this impact.

          • Jesus

            So they were Leopard 2 A4, instead of the Leopard 2 A7. Does Leopard 2 A7 have active protection system? Were they redesigned to overcome the flaws revealed in Syria? Yea, the Abrams underwent modernization, however, they still lack reactive armor and active protection systems. The 125 MM gun on the T72B3 would have very little difficulty piercing the side hull of the Abrams….and Leopard 2A7 as well.

          • Neo Anderson

            Chobham on m1 Abrams and Dorchester composite armor on challenger 2 much lighter and denser that RHA ,much more energy is needed for a kill .one enemy contact with British armor had 20 plus RPG strikes ,2 x RPG 29 strikes and an unknown soviet style ATGM strike on one challenger 2 in Iraq .all crew survived but the driver lost a toe. Western/Soviet have different approaches in armor and both have pros and cons.

          • Kell

            Yep the Brit Chobham Boffins take the cake so far

          • Jesus

            Successful combat operations against the Russian weapons manned by Russian crews?

          • Solomon Krupacek

            afghanistan? :DDDDDDDD

            chechen war1? t-72s died as flies in october :DDDDDDDDDDDDD

      • Kell

        Does relikt have built in shaped charges? How does it cut a KE dart?

        • Jesus

          I do not have the information regarding explosives used for Relikt reactive armor, when the sabot hits the reactive armor, one half of the sandwiched reactive armor generates a a lateral force against the sabot pushing it upward, then the reactive armor plate path intersect with the sabot round, cutting it or damaging it. Yes, I think they need a controlled explosive force to accomplish this task.

      • Derapage

        NATO has Bradley https://southfront.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/1-127-768×415.jpg

        Then it has GIS support whereas T-72 does not have it. The effectiveness of GIS was amply demonstrated during the Gulf war by Allied forces against Iraq.

        • Kell

          Whats GIS?

    • Johnson Malarkey

      @solomonkrupacek:disqus Think of it (BMPT-72) as a tank with latest anti-tank protection, but with anti-infantry capability rather than tank to tank combat. This sub-class if you will, is nothing short of superb for urban combat.

      • Solomon Krupacek

        i saw it on almasdaenews. check the videos. it is nothing. and the jihadists have only 1st generation tows. t-72 is absolutely nothing in reular war. i am happy, that gorbachev was covard and did not attack nato as brezhnev planned.

        • Tudor Miron

          What??? Cmon Solomoisha…humans can’t be THAT stupid.

    • Tony

      T-72 is probably the most widely used tank in the world…and in it’s latest versions still competive 40 years after it’s introduction..

      • Solomon Krupacek

        sure notm, baby. was shit version. did you sit in t-72?

    • Barba_Papa

      Considering how many were built it was very successful. As for its performance it depends on whose handling them. The Indians with their Russian gear have always outperformed the Pakistanis with their American gear. The Russians seemed happy with it and chose it over the seemingly more advanced T-80. And let us not forget that WarPac T-72’s, as fielded (and built) by non-Soviet states, were basically also dumbed down export weapons.

      • Solomon Krupacek

        look t-34 was build over 100 000. and was wrong tank. only the latest was good.
        t-72 was extremly vulberable. also in syyria lose saa weekly several peaces. and what would be in real war? choppers, jawelins, planes? t-72 is only diesel cofiin ;)

        • Tudor Miron

          Solomoisha… farting in the puddle again. You ignorance is only matched by your arrogance but hey, SF needs it’s own “local loony” and Solomoisha fills this role perfectly.

        • Daniel Castro

          It’s an ancient tank, even modernized it was not originally projected to face high precision ATGM, so what’s your point? We’ve seen turks lose plenty of Leopards in Syria too, murican tanks also destroyed in Irak and Yemen.

          The truth is tanks are hardly keeping up with modern portable missile technologies but still are needed to fight other tanks, this is reality of war, you shouldn’t expect to stay alive on a modern battlefield just because you’re inside a tank, you go there to fulfil your mission, which for tanks is destroying other tanks and fortified positions, they must rely on support to save them from ATGM.

          • Solomon Krupacek

            my point is to correct the info in article.

            and the fanatic losers began to jump :DDDD
            i took popcorn and am enjoying their faild tries :P

          • Daniel Castro

            Terminator for Syria makes sense, since it will be protecting 55s/62s/72s, it really doen’st need more armor than the 72, or else the enemies would just aim for the MBT instead of the terminator… The fact is you want to encourage them to aim at the IFV since it has better active protection and fastest reaction.

            And in the end the BMPT-72 is the best russia has to offer at the moment, the t-15 isn’t ready yet.

          • Solomon Krupacek

            this is not true:
            based on the successful and popular T-72 main battle tank chassis

            the t-72 was not successful and in warsaw pact was not popular among tankists. i was officer here and not you. ;)

            in my country is no one more.

          • Daniel Castro

            Depends on your definition of popularity and success, a lot of t-72s were sold so in that sense it was indeed successful and popular, tankists like you might not like them, but politicians don’t have to fight inside them, all they care are numbers, so they can buy tanks by the thousands to show off their massive army.

          • Solomon Krupacek

            look, you must learn 1 thing.

            within WP was no democracy. moscow told everything. moscow did nat allowed to produce t-72 with equal armor as the soviets had. it was simply forbidden. in my country we could have better armour than the soviets. was forbidden. in my country developed the electron ray method of production of mucrochips. moscow forbad this. we had to sell to japanee, and they bacame in 70ties to number 1 in electronics due to this technology. brezhnev told, electronics is only trap of west to let bleed socialist countires in bling street. the consequences knows everybody.

            so, NO ONE who was expert, liked t-72. this tank was very vulnerable and also dangerous for the crew.
            weaknesses:
            fragile (with many delicate moving parts and exlodable turrent)
            less armour
            underperformed gun (120mm. is generally recognized as suprior option to Soviet legacy 125mm. system)
            poor FCS (laser guide vs thermal image)
            not seperated ammo compartment
            weak engine, only diesel fuel
            t-72 could be good secondary BT together with one better type. like nazis had panthers and tigers.
            only t-72 as MBT was lost strategy. and the life showed it.

            another situation was in the 3rd world. they needed cheap tank against some rebels. they got it. both gulf wars, iraq-iran war and bekaa-valley showed, the t-72 is not game-changer factor in the battles. so simply. but the dictators loved this tank.

            now i am really courios, what will do the saa with terminator. i think, they will lose them quickly. :(

          • Daniel Castro

            You’re arguing with the wrong guy, I’m not questioning your info. I said soviet politicians gave crap about soldiers dying inside the tank and you know its true, so from their perspective everything was ok and the tank performed as they wanted.

          • Solomon Krupacek

            so it is correct :)

          • Kell

            Dont know I think they have Russian crews, depends on who’s fighting with them and if they are going against Isis dug in in Syrian Switzerland (East Hama pocket) they are going to be in difficult hilly terrain against a dug in and determined foe with multiple hillside and valley positions with interlocking lanes of fire, could be an “interesting” test for it.

          • Kell

            East Germany?

          • Kell

            Let me ask you a question since you have experiance with Soviet erra tanks –
            * If you were a soldure in Syria now and were being sent into a hard area like East Hama and you had a choice of Tanks T-72 or T-55 what would you choose?
            I ask because I have heard the T-55 is still popular with crews.

            Also some T*62s and T-55s have brow armour that is apparently quite effective.

            http://ciar.org/ttk/mbt/armor/armor-magazine/armor-mag.2002.mj/3BDDarmor02.pdf

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/cf904ed0e148c77ddf069f90760eb00d3f18e0dfee0eb1ef6c156c9b25ccd239.jpg

          • Kell

            T-62M surviving dierct hit on BDD armor.

            https://youtu.be/sO-jV_T8PXI

          • Kell

            You can buy a T-55 in the Czech republic for $45 000 with BDD armor and lazer rangefinder, pitty the NDF cant get a hold of these.

            http://www.mortarinvestments.eu/products/tanks-2/t-55-278

            Old tanks with this armor already fitted.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a8f3f86cb046511b7a82e3f96bbacae35d9c644048a069a5c4de3c21a7113c56.jpg

          • Kell
          • Jens Holm

            I vote for that. Im sure Turks didnt use their tanks well and made them victims too easy. As already in WW2 it was shown, that tanks in many kind of battles has to be protected hard by infantery, aircover a.s.o. They are very vuneroble just used as stationary artillery.

            Its my guess many, many tanks and other armed vehicles by SAA are hit, because they dont have fuel supply to move them, when they should – and that often.

        • Jens Holm

          Thats rubbish. Even the first very bad models was a shock for the many light weigted fast german tanks. Tigers and other kinds of heavy stuff wasnt in the streets.

          Germans thought they should fight against small canons in light armour exept from in the concrite fortification line.

          After that germans as well as russians upgraded. Not fair to compare. The heaviest german Mark IV was upgraded too during time.

          • Solomon Krupacek

            there was no shock. t-72 is slow tank and only on diesel, weak engine, no laser guide.
            littlle, boy, i remeber that era. you do not try to lie me. i know my life.

            and your fantasies, that t-72 was better then abrams…. :D

            dude, you ate clown.

          • Daniel Castro

            I guess he was talking about the t-34, that it was a shock for nazi germans.

          • Solomon Krupacek

            OK, i misunderstood.

            the reality with t-34 was:

            The T-34 had:

            No radio for inter tank or command communication
            No intercom for communications between the crew
            Poor vision devices to allow the crew proper situation awareness
            A two man turret that forces the commander to also operate as loader thus drastically cutting his effectiveness.

            Ergonomics

            The T-34 suffered from the unsatisfactory ergonomic layout of its crew compartment. The two-man turret crew arrangement required the commander to aim and fire the gun, an arrangement common to most Soviet tanks of the day. The two-man turret was cramped and inefficient [66] and was inferior to the three-man (commander, gunner, and loader) turret crews of German Panzer III and Panzer IV tanks. The Germans noted the T-34 was very slow to find and engage targets while the Panzers could typically get off three rounds for every one fired by the T-34.[61]

            Early in the war, the commander fought at a further disadvantage; the forward-opening hatch and the lack of a turret cupola forced him to observe the battlefield through a single vision slit and traversable periscope.[67] German commanders liked to fight “heads-up”, with their seat raised and having a full field of view – in the T-34 this was impossible.[68] Soviet veterans condemned the turret hatches of the early models. Nicknamed pirozhok (stuffed bun) because of its characteristic shape, it was heavy and hard to open. The complaints of the crews urged the design group led by Alexander Morozov to switch in August 1942[69] to using two hatches in the turret.[70]

            The loader also had a difficult job due to the lack of a turret basket (a rotating floor that moves as the turret turns); the same fault was present on all German tanks prior to the Panzer IV. The floor under the T-34’s turret was made up of ammunition stored in small metal boxes, covered by a rubber mat. There were nine ready rounds of ammunition stowed in racks on the sides of the fighting compartment. Once these rounds had been used, the crew had to pull additional ammunition out of the floor boxes, leaving the floor littered with open bins and matting and reducing their performance.[71]

            The main weakness [of the two-man turret of a T-34 Model 1941] is that it is very tight. The Americans couldn’t understand how our tankers could fit inside during a winter, when they wear sheepskin jackets. The electrical mechanism for rotating the turret is very bad. The motor is weak, very overloaded and sparks horribly, as a result of which the device regulating the speed of the rotation burns out, and the teeth of the cogwheels break into pieces. They recommend replace it with a hydraulic or simply manual system.[46]

            The problems created by the cramped T-34/76 turret, known before the war, were fully corrected with the provision of a bigger cast three-man turret[72] on the T-34-85 in 1944.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-34

            practically only 1943-44 version were better. bau also in that time, until end of ww2 more russian tanks were destroyed then germans.

            the last version of t-34 was much better then panthers. but never as good as tigers. and of course, the t-34 (last version) was much better then any actual western type. quarter million russian tankists paid with their life for this evaluation.

            the irony of life was, that gaermans when attcked france, the french tanks were much better then german ones. butz the german tactics, tank divisions, better training of crew brang them the victorys. and on easter front, where in the first 2-3 years were superior, lost the war :)

          • Daniel Castro

            I get that, but soviets needed numbers, so they made a lot of compromises to get that, probably they didn’t pay off or else they wouldn’t have made the last upgraded version, but that is the thing when experimenting with new designs.

            Still, the soviets would probably have lost the war without the t-34… and we both know Stalin didn’t give a fuck about battle casualties…

          • Solomon Krupacek

            as i wrote lower to jesus: soviets had prototype of better tank then t-34. but they had no production links. therefore chose the mass production of t-34. and won the war. with mass.

            Comparative figures 1941 Total
            Soviet Tank losses 20,500 83,500
            German Tank losses 2,758 25,584

            russia was able to produce 20-25000 tanks yearly and compensated the losses. germany was not ale to compensate the losses

            BUT if the war would begin 2-3 years later, the wolrd would not know t-34, but much better tanks. better then germans from the beginning.

          • Jesus

            Those numbers are not tank losses, they are personnel losses, the soviet numbers include civilians.

            If Russia produced 25,000 tanks a year……..to loose a 20 million tanks would have required a century of high intensity fighting.

          • Solomon Krupacek

            those numbers are thousands and not millions. alatogether SU lost 83 thouhend 500 tanks

          • PZIVJ

            The Germans where surprised that it was the best protected tank in the world in 1941 (against 37mm and 50mm guns). This forced them to upgrade to 75mm. Like PZIVJ. :D
            But the Germans also noted:
            T-34s operated in a disorganised fashion with little coordination, or else tended to clump together like a hen with its chicks. Individual tank commanders lacked situational awareness due to the poor provision of vision devices and preoccupation with gunnery duties. A tank platoon would seldom be capable of engaging three separate targets, but would tend to focus on a single target selected by the platoon leader. As a result T-34 platoons lost the greater firepower of three independently operating tanks.

          • Solomon Krupacek

            But the Germans also noted:
            T-34s operated in a disorganised fashion with little coordination, or else tended to …

            of course, when
            a) there was no radio, and also later only the officer had and was no chance to coordinate the fight
            b) not only visdion devices, but vison angles were big, big problems. they were blind.

          • Pave Way IV

            “…dude, you ate clown…”

            Krups! LOL

          • Solomon Krupacek

            :)

        • Barba_Papa

          Was the T-34 the wrong tank? It was a revolutionary design, with sloping armor and Christie suspension with wide tracks, perfect for the poor roads of the then USSR, a 76mm gun when most tanks at that time had smaller calibers. And the Germans loved it. They wanted to copy it and pressed any T-34 they captured into service. The only downside was its two man turret, which meant its commander had to do other things as well then scout for Germans, and was without radio. Which was the only flaw which still gave German armor still the edge. But the Russians were not alone in making this error, so had the French.

          If you look at post WWII tank design you see an interesting trend in tank design. The Germans, who fielded the best armored and best gunned tanks in the Panther and Tiger, came to the conclusion that heavy armor did not win them anything, when their opponents could field 10x as many tanks and they could only knockout 3 to 4 of them before losing their own tanks. So they went for a lighter more agile tank in the Leopard 1. Going for speed and numbers instead. Whereas the British, whose tanks during the entire war where actually the worst out of all, poorly armored, poorly gunned, now wanted a moving heavily armored bunker, and came up with the Chieftain, basically a British Tiger tank.

          As for Syrian T-72’s, we must not forget that the SAA used to be one of the worst armies in the world. It ranked amongst Saddam’s Iraqi armor and the Saudi army as the worst armies in the world. Which was why supplying the FSA and Jihadis with ATGM’s was such a game changer in the Syrian civil war. Because it took away the one advantage the SAA still had, heavy armor, even if handled very poorly. And basically export quality T-72’s.

          And then again we have the Indians who seem quite happy with their T-72’s, and who basically built on its design for their Arjuna design. And I think the Chinese have also copied and improved on the T-72 for their new designs. Like with everything it depends on who handles the gear, not so much the gear itself. Well trained troops with good motivation will do well with any gear, poorly trained troops with no motivation will lose regardless of how good their gear is. Just look at the Saudi army. Or the Iraqi army when they ran with their tail between their legs when ISIS took the Sunni triangle.

          • Solomon Krupacek

            barba papa, you are intelligent guy. why dont you want to undestand, what i wrote?
            in the beginning t-34 was piece of shit. in the last 2 years of war the 4th and 5th version were good. but never better than tigers. that is the truth. you also wrote, russian tanks wan, because were 10x more ;)

    • Tudor Miron

      Solomosha again wants to show us his deep knowledge… and again he only shows his stupidity and hatred to Russia :)

      For others: T-90 is a deep modernisation of T-72 and shares the same platform.

      • Solomon Krupacek

        yes, young loser, you were not on the world and i sat in t-72. you losers all can cry, be stipod fanatics, the t-72 was, is and will be shit. everybody knows. russia try to sell out and forget it.

    • Neo Anderson

      There is a good article on this site about how the s.a.a employ their armor you should read it! This isn’t standard warfare the Syrians have had to adapt and adapted pretty well!

    • Ernst Lindenberg

      Finns have found modernized version of T-72 actually slightly better than modernized German Leopard (not the newest one).

      • Solomon Krupacek

        as snow-craper? :))

  • Kell
    • Taraakenyon

      Google is paying 97$ per hour! Work for few hours and have longer with friends & family! !pg14d:
      On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
      !pg14d:
      ➽➽
      ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialJobsCash304MarketBlueGetPay$97Hour ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★:::::!pg14l..,.

  • Thegr8rambino

    very nice, i get so excited learning about new military vehicles and their features, capabilities and weaponry, especially russian :)))

  • as

    I see. Looking at the general capability of this vehicle they seem to want a quick sweep in the urban area of militants pocket using controllable and less destructive warfare

  • as

    A number of this will push the SAA advance much more faster. So long Israel or US didn’t interfere via airstrikes.

    • More

      as
      If you watch the video and read the article, the BMPT-72 is in Syria only for testing and evaluation.

      • as

        And the best way to find out of course to use it in combat.

        • More

          as
          You are welcome to believe as you like along with all the “Internet” Top Generals with self awarded Bravery Medals, LoL:)))

  • John

    I love the discussion on this thread; quite lively. :P

    I am actually looking forward to news on this vehicle. When Russia entered the Syrian War, it seemed like the SAA was getting whacked left and right from the ATGMs. That has definitely changed. While at the same time, NATO armored vehicles, seem to be getting cooked on the regular. Even with the Turkish army operating theirs, it seems better to hide them as artillery, than to actually use them to kick in the front door. All of this was unexpected for me and it revealed how puffed up western systems are compared to reality. I wish a good weekend to all.

    • Solomon Krupacek

      you are wrong. assad lost over 2 000 armored vehicles. against enemy which has no planes, onlyfew tanks and lot of very old, 1st generation tows. russia has put the newest technique against these guys. so, you see not the problem of nato countries, but the battle of 40 y old technique with newest.

      • as

        Nah a lot of their weaponry were straight from a us and iraq depot as well as the newly donated weapons from Obama and Saudis. More coming in from a number of European nation such as french, Belgium, Bulgaria etc via CIA programs through Jordan, Turkey, Israel and some from the loosely guarded Iraq borders. Furthermore the fighters flooding in straight from all over the world. They have no chance from such numbers alone by themselves and that was natural.

        Also last time i find out you can go travel to join the YPG quite easy so I’m guessing they would be the new proxies as the isis and numbers of militants linked to them collapsed and picked off one by one by Russians.

      • John

        Go Solomon! :)

    • Brad Isherwood

      Syria’s home built Bird Cage* ATGM jammers work!.
      China should have tossed in funding and bought into Patent for these.
      Knock them off assembly line.
      So ya….Wal-Mart ATGM jammer.
      Syria would have survived high hundreds of Tanks, Shilka and BMP’s + 1000s of Soldiers and allies Alive.

      Syrian war has been a cruel learning curve….
      Russian junk tanks might have lasted longer…… if they had the Wal-Mart Bird Cage : )

  • as

    Seems like some people fail to understand that BMPT72 isn’t a tank but a heavy IFV.

  • χρηστος

    i bet we will see it in combat