For years, Russian tanks were somewhat legendary wonders. Tales of these metal giants rolling through Europe or roasting the Middle Eastern sands gave them the image of being impassable armored force’s mascots. But now their reputation has gone down the drain with today’s wars i.e. in Ukraine, Syria, and even before in Iraq. The very same tanks in particular the T-72 and its progeny are reportedly the most destroyed under the present warfare conditions.
Built for Offense, Not Staying Power
The T-72 was conceive using Cold War as its background. Contrary to most Western tanks, this one was not built for every situation; hence its fast breakthrough design was to be the main feature allowing other troops to go through afterward. To make production lower and faster, engineers had the tank equipped with an autoloader. As a result, fewer crew members were necessary. Its small height made it less vulnerable and its simplicity made it quite easy to operate.
One former commander basically summarized it as “quick, simple, effective and cheap.” The conception method that was used went on to be one of the features characterizing Russian designs after that. The improvements were made to weapons and armor but the fundamental structure stayed the same. However, the nature of war had changed over time and the military had not adapted in the same way.
Brutal Lessons from Recent Conflicts
The last ten years have been a bad time for Russian-made armored vehicles. The number of destroyed T-72s, T-80s, and even the newer T-90s in Ukraine has exceeded thousands. Many were eliminated not by avant-garde technology but by old tanks that were supported by modern anti-tank missiles. Photos of burnt-out Russian armor lying on fields and roads have become the conflict’s iconic image.
It was more or less the same with Syria. The Syrian armed forces lost several T-72s mainly because the tanks were run into by insurgents carrying only one weapon-their hands. On the contrary, the Western-designed Abrams tanks that were deployed in Iraq and the Gulf region encountered minimal critical damage even under the most persistent and fierce fights. In fact, even Russian-stated sources have reported the degree of survival between the two sides.
A Design that Endangers its Own Crews
Perhaps the major shortcoming is the manner in which the ammunition is kept in Russian tanks. In the T-72 series, the shells are located in a rotating carousel that is directly under the turret whereby the crew is. When a single penetration occurs along with a chain reaction, the total turret is set exploding in an event which soldiers call the “jack-in-the-box” effect.
Western tanks such as the Abrams or Leopard are constructed in a different way. Their ammunition is placed in compartments that are armored and have blow-out panels. In case the worst happens, the explosion force goes outward through the blow-out panel rather than ripping through the crew compartment. This one design feature has saved the lives of a vast number of Western crews while a large number of Russian ones have been killed.
Training and the Human Factor
However, it should be noted that it is not only the armor that determines the outcome of the battle. Quite often the crew’s proficiency, discipline, and leadership even matter more than the machine itself. In Iraq, operators of poorly trained T-72 tank crew were not able to confront Western units. The same shortcomings have also appeared in Ukraine and Syria where inexperienced crews, bad communication, and panic when under attack have caused heavy losses to the forces.
One of the popular battle scenes that went viral which showed the importance of this was the instance of a U.S.-made Bradley Fighting Vehicle that used accurate fire to hit the weak rear armor of a contemporary Russian T-90M, thus making the Russian crew abandon the tank almost at once and a drone finishing the task. Several experts argue that Russia hardest trained tank crews have been wiped out at the beginning of the battle, hence the replacements have only undergone a little training to be able to cope with the intense fight.
How Western Armor Stacks Up
As for designs like those of Western such as Leopard and Abrams, they are characterized by heavier weights, higher prices, and better optics and armor systems. The quality of the crews that man them coupled with design gives them a much higher degree of survivability. The Bradley can be seen as an infantry fighting vehicle (technically) rather than a tank, however, it has had an impressive record against Russian armor where it was able to achieve that result due to the advanced targeting systems and skilled operators.
The Larger Lesson
Failures of Russian tanks in modern wars should not be solely attributed to design features. It is a combination of antiquated concepts, unwise engineering decisions, and the realities of the modern battlefield – drones overhead, precision missiles, and educated tactics.
The T-72 was designed for a type of war that is not there anymore. When the importance of survivability, adaptability and crew training rather than just the number of tanks has been emphasized, these tanks have been in trouble. The past few years of Ukraine, Syria, and Iraq have spoken one truth bigger than any other: quality not only quantity is the one that decides which side endures and which one burns in modern war.