Canadian T72M1 Tank

Is there not a story of when they got off the boat / train one got pushed and was some how left in gear it started and gave every one a good chase, read that some where.I have been to camp Borden to see the tank collection saw that cut away T55 and was even able to sneek in to the driver's hatch( I am 5,11) and the top of my head stuck out above the hull,my knees in my chest and grinning ear to ear. It was the high light of the visit, so many tanks in one place got to go back. And I all so read that they came over here battle ready, full kit. Thanks for this thread love reading about this stuff.
 
The T-72 was designed to be easy to learn for troops who were conscripted and who could not wait to get back to being civilians. It was intended to be robust and 'easy to maintain', and used 'old technology' in engine and drivetrain. It was also designed to be operated by the 'norm' tanker soldier, who was selected for his lack of height. Thus the average Cold War Warsaw Pact tanker was around 5ft 6in - better would be an inch or so shorter. With that in mind, the vast majority of tanks crews that I saw in the WGF were Asiatic or Near-Asiatic, due to their usual lack of height. That choice of crews came back and bit the Russians in the ass when they went into Chechnya with guns a-blazing. The opposition between the ages of sixty and twenty consisted mainly of ex-tankers, who knew, and vigorously exploited the weaknesses of the tanks that they have been brought up to drive.

The result was the débacle in Grozhnyy, where the city's main square was filled with over a hundred destroyed AFVs in one morning...

That spiffy carousel autoloader, too had its 'little foibles', principal among which was the habit of not only loading the projectile and charge, but, like the old BMP-1, the left arm of the nearest crew member.

tac
 
Seems to me there was a sentinell article on all this back in the day.

If I recall correctly, after the wall fell, Canada sent a small team into East Germany to choose examples from a vehicle dump in E Germany. Seems to me the number was something like 265 or 365 pieces, or something in that region, identified by chalking "Canada" on them. They were spread around to various museums and bases. Here in Shilo we ended up with a 152mm SP howitzer, a tracked SA6 launcher, and a wheeled MRL. There were also a bunch of smaller pieces as well. It may well be from that batch of equipment that the tanks came from as well.
 
stencollector said:
Seems to me there was a sentinell article on all this back in the day.

If I recall correctly, after the wall fell, Canada sent a small team into East Germany to choose examples from a vehicle dump in E Germany. Seems to me the number was something like 265 or 365 pieces, or something in that region, identified by chalking "Canada" on them. They were spread around to various museums and bases. Here in Shilo we ended up with a 152mm SP howitzer, a tracked SA6 launcher, and a wheeled MRL. There were also a bunch of smaller pieces as well. It may well be from that batch of equipment that the tanks came from as well.
Click to expand...


No, the T&E tanks did not have anything to do with the German gift of Ex-WP tanks and equipment to the Government of Canada and DHist/DND. It was along the same lines as a "gift" from the Germans who where glad to divest themselves of the unwanted vehicles but had not tie in to what DHist at DND went and got. Matter of fact I seem to recall something about that museum load being written up in the old Sentinal. In a subsequent batch of vehicles four BMP2 came to Canada for trials (read destructive testing).



Another bit of misinformation is someone was mentioning the tank needing a hammer to shift, No the tank had gate shifting seven forward, one reverse and sailed along at 60KPH (I do believe we went faster on occasion). Very cool to see at speed on snowy ground with brick sized chunks of packed snow and ice fly off the tracks. The only time I could ever see a hammer in the drivers position would be to smack the four dogs holding the escape hatch closed to exit the tank out the bottom. Shifting was never an issue on a T72.
Being a straight forward and rather simple vehicle to keep in the field, it can even be called "agricultural" in nature it was amazingly robust. I had to retrieve the T72 that the Gagetown museum had been given by T&E for one of their trials and deploy with it for a trial. The tank had sat, unloved and unattended to for a year filling up with rain. In one hour I had the tank running again which sort of blew my mind. I very much doubt any Leopard of the day would have started up like that T72 did.

^009 coming back to life
One of the rewarding things of being in the field with the T72 was the amazing degree of latitude we where given as the things where just so weird to see driving and being used as an enemy force till T&E needed to shoot something at them (like the Leopard Mid Life Extension)120mm to 105mm, ADATS, TOW2B, etc. C Sqn RCD took great pleasure in seeing them and it was not uncommon to be tracked by Leopards WAY, WAY out of any conceivable arc. Tank gunners did love tracking us to say the least. The thing was everyone said that the 125mm muzzle end was very visible even at 2,000 M and it was sobering to think if they where looking down the pipe then the T72 gun was also looking back at them and if you ever see the 125mm AP round or HEAT round I have great confidence it would have ripped through the Leo C1


^ Awaiting the order to advance across the inner German border at the Fulda Gap or the Hof Corridor with thousands of other Warsaw Pact tanks and APCs and make the race to the English Channel sweeping NATO aside along the way...............that or head back to the hanger after a day buzzing around the training area.
 
Last edited:
Well not a Leopard, but we have one of the modern Jagdpanzers here in Shilo. The Germans left it behind, and it sat at the main gate for a decade or two. Then it went to range control for another decade. A couple of the museum guys went down, dumped in some fuel and slaved it and away it went. Turned out it had the hull plugs in so it sufferred some water damage to the generator, whch as it turned out was similar to the leo generator. The new generator is now in, and hopefully on Monday the pack goes back into the hull.

On our SA-6 launcher, to go along with the normal diesel engine there is also a small turbine engine buried under the engine deck. I imagine it's purpose is as a generator when the main engine is off, but it does not seem to be the simple WP design that I expected.
 
Cool thread. I remember the talk in the Cadet corp seemed to always drift into fighting T72's. Nice to know there are still some around to see.
 
mark k said:
Cool thread. I remember the talk in the Cadet corp seemed to always drift into fighting T72's. Nice to know there are still some around to see.
Click to expand...
You may find this interesting the old T72 fighting in Syria, hardly great "tank country" and lavish use of fire.
[youtube]YD8yTGCMkLg[/youtube]
 
Good to get the inside story.

In fact, contact Clive Law at Service Publications in Nepean, ON. He is always looking for new titles, and the T72 tales are right up his alley. This way, you will be able to prove to your high school guidance counsellor that you turned out to be a productive member of society.
 
buzzmagoo said:
Is there not a story of when they got off the boat / train one got pushed and was some how left in gear it started and gave every one a good chase, read that some where...
Click to expand...

HAHAHAHA > If that happened today - Putin's revenge. I can just imagine Harper fear mongering about Russian robo tanks.
 
Quote Originally Posted by buzzmagoo View Post

Is there not a story of when they got off the boat / train one got pushed and was some how left in gear it started and gave every one a good chase, read that some where...
HAHAHAHA > If that happened today - Putin's revenge. I can just imagine Harper fear mongering about Russian robo tanks.

I am sure there is no end of stories, oft told, that take on a life all there own, like guys throws Stens in windows so the little gun will dance about killing everyone inside. No, none of these tanks went on any wild drive by tow starting or any other form of start up (electric, air start or by towing) what a T72 WILL do is jump forward about 3-4 feet when started so one NEVER stood directly in front or behind it and certainly never be in a position to be crushed by it on start up.
 
The T72 hasn't been consigned to the museums just yet. It is still in service with the Russian Army and others and shouldn't be dismissed as an obsolete POS. The Cdn Army still "fights" it in OPFOR training scenarios.
 
Lots of t-72's sitting around rusting in current/former depots, awaiting re-activation maybe in case of war? I always thought that keeping older equipment around was better than destroying it. Even if it isn't "good" enough for frontline use, they can be used for rear echelon security/reserve duties. Better an old tank than no tank at all....

Thanks OP for this interesting thread.
 
zupermann said:
Lots of t-72's sitting around rusting in current/former depots, awaiting re-activation maybe in case of war? I always thought that keeping older equipment around was better than destroying it. Even if it isn't "good" enough for frontline use, they can be used for rear echelon security/reserve duties. Better an old tank than no tank at all....

Thanks OP for this interesting thread.
Click to expand...

Sherman was no crown jewel, but it won a lot of battles. ;) Most interesting thread I can remember.

Grizz
 
At New Years hangover party we talked about tank movies and this Israeli guy started ranting about the tank they had before the Merkava. It was a hilarious rant about how it was designed in every way to kill or make the lives of the crew worthless. He was a tank commander and said it was nothing but an armoured coffin. I'm trying to remember the name he used but it was American.
 
Silveragent said:
At New Years hangover party we talked about tank movies and this Israeli guy started ranting about the tank they had before the Merkava. It was a hilarious rant about how it was designed in every way to kill or make the lives of the crew worthless. He was a tank commander and said it was nothing but an armoured coffin. I'm trying to remember the name he used but it was American.
Click to expand...

There is no tank, incl the Merkava, that is impervious to anti-tank systems. Prior to developing the Merkava the IDF used both the re-engined Brit Centurion and the US M48/M60 MBTs. Both were sound tanks with good mobility, firepower and main guns that could and did maintain superiority over the Russian T54/T55 and T62s that were used by the Egyptians and Syrians during the same timeframe. The IDF had an overall edge due in large part to their better trained and motivated crews and superior tactical leadership. The M48 and M60s tended to be used in the Sinai while the Centurions were used on the Golan front where they were more adept at negotiating the lava terrain. The Centurion was the preferred tank. Many felt that it offered a better chance of crew survival due to it`s electric turret drive in comparison to the US tanks which used hydraulic drive with a high possibility of flash fires due to vaporized hydraulic fluid resulting from a hit in the turret.

I saw quite a few M48 and M60s which were KO`d in the Sinai, many of which were draped with guidance wires from multiple infantry fired Sagger ATGM engagements. After the comparatively elegant armoured battles of the 1967 war the IDF became convinced of the superiority of the tank on the battlefield to the point that they neglected their infantry and artillery in a doctrine of combined arms operations. Having tanks go it alone against infantry operated ATGMs cost them a lot of tank losses in the Sinai. Had their tanks been supported by indirect artillery fire support and infantry these could have neutralized a lot of the ATGMs which proved so deadly. The lack of mobile artillery support also cost the IDF a lot of aircraft losses to Egyptian SAM systems when they attempted to go against Egyptian penetrations across the Suez Canal. The IDF did relatively better on the Golan plateau where they were able to use prepared defilade positions and engage the Syrian armour with long range tank gunnery where the Centurion excelled. Numbers still mattered though and the Syrians were able to make gains by flooding the IDF to the point where they were badly attrited. Last minute armoured reinforcement and air support ultimately told the tale. Another big issue was the fact that the Egyptians and Syrians did not have leaders with the tactical agility to recognize success and to then exploit it. This was complicated by their training in Soviet tactical doctrine which directed things from top down and left no initiative to commanders at lower levels.

The Israelis developed Merkava with a heavy emphasis on armor protection followed by considerations of mobility and firepower. This is the eternal triangle of tank design; you only gain in one of these 3 aspects by giving something up in one or both other areas. At the end of the day you can develop a huge 100 ton tank which is pretty much proof against anything, but which then becomes a logistical and tactical liability by reason of limited mobility and employment (lack of suitable tank transporters and adequate bridges, strategic mobility and fuel and maintenance issues).

Tanks are still key to maneuver warfare and can dominate the battlefield by reason of their inherent characteristics of protection, firepower and battlefield mobility, but they must be used in an all arms context with continuous indirect fire support, infantry, engineers and logistics support. Armoured people sometimes neglect the need for continuous indirect fire support from artillery with a somewhat arrogant faith in their own gunpower. Artillery support is essential to neutralize more lighly protected mobile ATGM systems which often operate from defilade at extended ranges where they are comparatively immune to direct fire from tanks. It`s also a no-brainer to ensure that infantry support is available when operating in wooded or built up areas where hand held AT systems are a big threat. We learned all about this the hard way this when our tanks went up against both the long range 88mm guns and the short range Panzerfausts in North Africa and then in NW Europe 70-75 plus years ago.
 
Big enough IED and nothing is safe. Taliban got one of our Leopards that way. Always wondered what role a Battle tank had in that war? :confused:

Grizz
 
Afghanistan was/is not preferred country for heavy mechanized and armoured operations where in many places vehicles are canalized to roads in valley bottoms and have little opportunity to maneuver and use their firepower at extended ranges. They are also highly vulnerable to hand held anti-tank weapons, obstacles and IEDs in such terrain. The Russians learned this the hard way during their time in Afghanistan. The terrain in some areas is more open though which did allow limited numbers of tanks to be used in maneuver operations, blocking positions and convoy escort/route security. When insurgents are flushed out into the open tanks can do good work when positioned to interdict and block their escape routes (the old hammer and anvil idea). The Cdns, Danes and USMC saw some benefit to using limited numbers of tanks in their areas of operations and did so with some success.

Vietnam was not suitable tank country either, but the terrain was suitable for their use in some areas. Tactics and equipment are generally selected depending on the nature of the enemy and the terrain as well as ones own capabilities and the assigned mission.
 
XRCD011 said:
The thing was everyone said that the 125mm muzzle end was very visible even at 2,000 M and it was sobering to think if they where looking down the pipe then the T72 gun was also looking back at them
Click to expand...

Holy cats, I'd soil myself in two seconds flat seeing that stare back at me!

Did the instructor make you stick a cleaning rod down the hole to PROVE it safe lol?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom