Talk:T-72 tanks in Iraqi service

Overall make-up

In my opinion this page should be cleaned up, especially the scans, if they're kept at all, should be moved to sources.The page is very unorganized, compared to other pages describing tanks. I suggest structuring it into Production, Features(armor, gun, engine and other equipment) and then to move on to its history in the Gulf War. As well I doubt the sense of conclusion, this sounds like some kind of personal study.

Not only that but there is POV language scattered throughout this article that borders on the familiar: "that honor goes to"; "utterly outclassed". 76.10.147.14 (talk) 06:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree 100%. This entire article is not written in an encyclopedic style. Most of it seems to focus on the U.S. Army's experience fighting against this vehicle. It's also much too detailed -- why would an article on an Iraqi tank have particular vehicle numbers and commanders of U.S. Army vehicles, some of which the author concludes were not even knocked out by the tank that is (nominally) the subject of the article? I agree with the original suggestion -- someone who knows enough about the vehicle should reorganize the article into sections comparable to other tanks: Design, Production, Features, Operational Experience. This last should be an overview of the operational experience, written NPOV (who is the "enemy" depends on who's writing), and leaving out the detailed descriptions of what happened to various U.S. Army vehicles. Save the names and vehicle numbers for Soldiers magazine. Darkstar8799 (talk) 12:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

IF this should be I'd place it at the end of the article. This kind of conclusions and speculations also appears at the end of the "vs the M1 Abrams"

Also added a headline for your discussion ;-)--Scalestor 21:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

General Discussion

Does this tank even exist? The only place I have ever read about this tank are forums on the internet and this article. I have never seen an official document from the US DoD or any other government that mentions this tank. And when I was in the US Army, preparing for deployment to Iraq I never heard about "Lion of Babylon" tank. Since I worked in the S-2 it was part of my job to know about the enemy weapons systems and I never heard of this.

Unless there are links added that prove this tank existed then this article should be deleted. If it does exist, it still needs links documenting the claims about it's armor and how it survived hits from TOW and Javelin missiles. DarthJesus 02:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I deleted all of the external references. One was a dead link, one was a site dealing with Gulf War syndrome which has no relation to this article, the steel-beasts link was not related either and was advertising, the link about the Battle for Baghdad Airport doesn't mention the Lion of Babylon tank, and the other site does not mention the tank either. So basically all of them were un-related to the article. DarthJesus 18:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Have you red the article?. Have you red that the Lion of Babylon was a t-72 copy, and NOT an original design?. O.K., you think that the article should be deleted, but following the same judgment, any reference about the Yugoslav M-84, as another T-72 locally-built version, also should be deleted. Any article about the Zero WWII fighter must be erased too, since this was just an Allied codename for a japanese plane that actually NEVER existed, its original name being A6M Zeke. Do you know how many Scud missiles fired Saddam in 1991?. NONE. The ballistic missiles launched by Iraq were modified Scuds, the Al-Hussayn, whose range doubles that of the original soviet weapon. The US Army tends to use WWII or Cold War names for some weapons in order to avoid confussion and simplified the identification of the foe's assets; that's the reason behind the few references you have found to this tank as Lion of Babylon. They often mention just the Republican Guard's T-72. You can title this article Iraqi-built T-72 if you like, but this doesn't change a iota about the facts described here; that the iraqis assembled, modified and used in combat a soviet type of MBT. In the other hand, I agree with you about the external references, these were too general; for the reader is enough with the encrypted notes and bibliographical sources. Best Regards.

DagosNavy

• Did you read what I said? I said unless there are links provided that prove it existed then it should be deleted. So far you have provided absolutely no links at all that mention that Iraq manufactured it's own tanks. None. I don't care about the other, weapons you mentioned, I only care about this one. So unless you provide a link that says Iraq manufactured it's own T-72's then this article should be deleted. DarthJesus 05:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• Just click the first encrypted note in the article about the Taji steel plant and the spare parts imported from Poland. There is a CLEAR reference to the iraqis ASSEMBLING T-72 (this wiki article never said the iraqis MADE a complete line of production).

If you are too busy to click the note, to open the link and then search the paragraph, I will transcribe it for you: And in a separate production unit built by Kloeckner Industries of West Germany, Iraqi tanks were being rebuilt. In addition to retrofitting older T-54 and T-62, Iraqi officials say they began to assembly the newer T-72 in Taji in early 1989, in a license agreement signed with Bumar-Labedy of Poland. They called the new tank the Asad Babil, or Lion of Babylon. http://www.kentimmerman.com/news/tdl16.htm#prof If you are still full of doubts, there is another link, this one supported by two reliable sources I guess you must know: CNN and Jane's World Armies. http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1998/iraq/equipment/

DagosNavy

Ok you've done the minimum: provided verifiable proof that the Iraqi's did build T-72's. Now we need links proving your claims that the Iraqi-built T-72's were inferior to what the Russians were building, that there were T-72's surviving hits from TOW and Javelin missiles and that the Iraqi's were using old, inferior ammunition. I've heard these claims many, many times on various forums across the internet, but we need verifiable proof that they are true before you can put them into this article. DarthJesus 04:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• I'am glad you did agree that the iraqi tank really existed and was not just a wild fantasy of my mind. I added two bibliographical sources where i found the data about the basic T-72 armour. I guess that's the same for the iraqi version.

Additionally, I attached both an encrypted link and a bibliographical note referring to a couple of cases where the Lion of Babylon armour defeated two American large shaped charged weapons. On the other hand, I must concede that there were some confusion about Javelins bouncing off any Iraqi armored vehicle; this came from a misreading of the article about Baghdad Airport's Battle. But one of the sources (Scales) suggest that, previously to the TF 1-37 assault against Tawakalna (1991), some T-72 survived Hellfire strikes, even becoming mobility kills. So, I did change the text in the appropriated form.

As for the differences between the basic model and that built in Iraq, you can just go to the wiki article about the different types of T-72s. One of the advantages over the M1as, had the iraqis built or import the latest version of the tank (in 1990), it would had been the AT-11 Svir gun-fired AT missile, capable of matching the range of the 120-mm sabot round. They would be also fitted with night-thermal vision and the ultimate russian computerized laser range-finder. You must also noticed that the training of the iraqi tank crews was poor in comparison with that of the soviet ones.

DagosNavy

It was common for the export version of T-54/55 and T-72 tanks to be lacking some features, like NBC protection, or the most up-to-date armour. All of the tanks firing ATGMs through the gun were produced in versions lacking the feature (e.g. T-72B1 is a T-72 without ATGM), and I think these were typically the ones exported.

The Iraqi T-72 is just a simple model of T-72, but since there's so much written here, it's definitely appropriate to have a separate article under the Iraqi name. —Michael Z. 2006-07-17 16:53 Z

The assertion that the Iraqi T-72s are 'nowhere near' the performance of their contemporary Soviet counterparts is demonstrably false. The Iraq T-72M1s are the export equvalent of T-72As. Cruder, but comparable. Against a marginal threat like the old 105mm tungsten this might make a difference, but 120mm DU sabot would kill a Soviet T-72A or even T-72B with K-1 just as easily. -Jon Chin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.225.72.201 (talk) 10:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Reactive Armor

Are you sure the Iraqi tanks had reactive armor? Ive never seen a photo of that and I don't believe the Iraqi's ever bought it. DarthJesus 16:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• There is a well-known example of that: a modified T-55 called Enigma by coalition sources. Its appliquè armor defeated several shaped charge's hits before being stopped by helicopter strike, late Feb 1991. This is the link to some pics of this tank: http://tanxheaven.com/t55enigma/t55enigmapic.htm

I acknowledge that I can't assure you that all the Asad Babils were fitted with reactives, so I´ve introduced the subsequent changes to the text. I also added a brief paragraph in the Armor section about how the iraqis could have obtained ERA (possibly its first Kontakt version) from the Polish T-72m1 (Source: Jane's Armor & Artillery. 1988/89). Jane's includes it in the Polish version for export (remember the Iraqi T-72s parts for assembling were provided by a Polish company), but I agree with you, I've also never seen an Iraqi T-72's photo showing ERA. After all, it's possible that the standard T-72 frontal armour was capable of defeating American ATGMs by itself. DagosNavy

• Better later than never!!. I found a link where an American Commander in the field claims that some Lions were likely reinforced with ERA during the last battles for Baghdad: http://www.highbeam.com/library/docFree.asp?DOCID=1G1:141213121

DagosNavy 00:55, August 9 2006 (UTC)

Why Challenger 1 and Iranian MBTs are not included

Only talking about combat performance compared to the M1 and Bradley seems a little American centric. Did it ever encouter the Challenger? Did it see combat during the Iran-Iraq war? 145.253.108.22 11:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• It seems highly improbable that the Challenger 1 engaged Iraqi Armored forces equipped with T-72s in Desert Storm, since the Brit. 1st Armoured Division crossed the southern section of the Iraq-Kuwait border, where were deployed only regular Iraqi Army units displaying Type-69s and T-62. The same thing for the 2003 Invasion of Iraq.

As for the Iraq-Iran war (1980-1988), as expressed in the article, the refurbished and up-armored Iraqi T-72 known as Asad Babil was operational from the period 1988-1989 (the first of them completely assembled in a production line was actually operational in January 1989). The T-72s that faced the Iranian Army were of the very basic model for export, without any armor or misile countermeasures improvement.

DagosNavy Jan 24, 01:52 (UTC)

Updates

• More stuff added to the Armor section: Some innovations introduced by the iraqis taken from a Russian website, and a case of an Iraqi tank defeating a Javelin; after all, there was no misreading of the article about the Airport's Battle, as I thought before.

DagosNavy 00:05, August 29 2006 (UTC)

• A redundant pic of the stripped Abrams removed and replaced by an interesting image of a sabot round (it seems to be 125 mm) used as IED with a makeshift aiming device consisting in three blocks of concrete.

DagosNavy 03:26, Sept 18 2006 (UTC)

• Invasion of Iraq section cleaned up. Addition of an Air-to-Ground battle between Asad Babils of Medina Division and Apaches from the US 11th Aviation Regiment. Mostly speculative statement about the Abrams disabled by machine gun fire moved to the DShK article.

DagosNavy 04:04, Oct 14 2006 (UTC)

• Two images of Abrams allegedly damaged by Asad Babil removed for copyright problems. Still available by external link. Added another photo, this one possibly showing B-23.

DagosNavy 04:26, Nov 19 2006 (UTC)

• Section´s headers, references, and footnotes cleaned up by Satori Son. Addition of features table and other minor changes.

DagosNavy 02:25, Jan 02 2007 (UTC)

• Clean up of the section about the Abrams. The tank described in the damage assessment as hit by an Iraqi T-72 almost certainly DIDN'T belong to TF 4-64, and was NOT struck in the battle of Rumeilah. Its identity still remains a mystery. Go to Abrams article discussion page (Tanks disabled section) for further clarification. Reports about another disabled 1st AD tank (D-24) likely shot at by a Lion coming soon.

DagosNavy 04:12, Jan 31 2007 (UTC)

Huh?

Is it just me, or does this article seem to be, well, for a lack of better phrase, trying too hard? I mean it goes on for several paragraphs about how it might have damaged an Abrams, and the conclusions section description of how American's where unsuccessful for not destroying more(!) enemy forces made me chuckle out loud. 70.101.32.218 04:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, The citations about how the Iraqi T-72 in some incidents might have or, in at least one case, did damaged an Abrams are all of them from American sources, so I see no reason for you to chuckle about it. I could understand your attitude (regarding a trying hard) if the paragraphs were unsourced, but that's not the case. I think the importance of this article is to show a glimpse of the only type of tank that faced the M1s in real combat with some chance of inflicting harm upon them.

The same thing for the conclusions section; all the references about a US overwhelming but hollow victory come from American authors. Don´t let to be fooled by the CNN images of 1991. By the time of the Coalition's ground offensive, the Iraqi Army was in full retreat, if not running away in panic. Only the Tawakalna Republican guard division hold up its dug-in positions for a time before facing total annihilation. But the US Army failed, by far, to achieve something near to a complete encirclement or destruction of the bulk of Saddam forces. If you have some doubts about, read the footnotes.

And, please, the next time you post to a talk page, sign up your comments as a registered user.

DagosNavy 00:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a good and valid query. What is particularly noteworthy about this client-copy T-72 that cannot be covered by a few paragraphs in the main T-72 article? It would make for an interesting article for niche publication (where you could speculate freely) or perhaps the beginnings of a dissertation...as it goes, however, it's a rambling and not very good encyclopedia entry.

As it happens, registration is not a prerequisite to comment or even edit, it's just preferred.--84.71.15.48 21:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I insist, my anonymous friend, this "monkey model" of the T-72 was the biggest thing which faced M1s and Bradleys in battle, so the article is focused mainly on that aspect of the tank. For the Soviet T-72, yes, we have the main page, but remember that no Red Army tank has confronted an American tank in open action, never. Your claim of "rambling" makes me laugh; this article has a good number of published and reliable primary and secondary sources with a citation for almost every paragraph, so your claims of "speculation" are, to be lenient, out of place. If you want, you can discuss it with the guy that rated this article as a "B" class (who is an established and respectable Wikipedian).

DagosNavy 00:20, 02 November 2007 (UTC)

How is a discussion of how Iraqi T-72's 'might have' damaged an M-1 relevant? -Jon Chin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.225.72.201 (talk) 10:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Chieftain "smoothbore"

"The Iraqi engineers tested this reinforcement against smoothbore 120 mm Chieftain tank guns in 1989, apparently with some success."

Chieftain tanks do not have smoothbore guns and never have done but have rifled 120mm guns. Also, not sure if a HEAT round was ever actually created as standard loadings for most (if not all) Chieftain users was a mix of APDS(APDFS) and HESH rounds.

• Oooops!. Good point. The Chieftain's L11A is certainly a rifled gun, surely I was thinking of the Abram's Rheinmetall 120mm Gun at the time of the edit. About the type of ammo used in those tests, the Russian source mentions различными боеприпасами, which means with different ammunitions, so we can only guess if they fitted some kind of HEAT round to the gun standards. In any case, the HESH warhead creates a shock wave, whose power is likely to be scattered or deflected by a spaced armor plate. Thanks.

DagosNavy 12:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Armor section

I removed a few lines about combat preformance of the Lion of Babylon, because they're outright misrepresentations of the actual events. The first, about the Lion "defeating" a Javelin ATGM, is completely false, unless the Lion has some sort of secret technology that forces missiles to miss their target. Unless someone can justify essentially stating: "the missile missed, but it's still somehow relevant to discussing the tank's armor" it shouldn't be re-added. Also, the second incident that described a Lion being attacked by 3 TOW missiles from a Bradley is another misrepresentation. Of the 3 missiles, one missed, one hit the road wheel and effected a mobility kill, and the third missile, which hit directly, destroyed the tank. Again, unless the Lion has a force field that can deflect missiles, and it's somehow magical that a road-wheel hit didn't completely destroy the vehicle, it isn't relevant. The incident where a 120mm round from an Abrams impacted the turret at point-blank ranges and didn't penetrate is, on the other hand very relevant, and the types of incidents that should be included. Parsecboy (talk) 20:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi DagosNavy. I saw the revision you made to the section in question, and I'm still somewhat concerned with it. Again, it's with the near-miss bit. I'm no expert on anti-tank munitions by any stretch of the imagination, but from my understanding, HEAT rounds generally aren't an "area-effect" weapon; they're supposed to turn a cone of metal into essentially an elastic dart that penetrates armor and create spalling inside. Therefore, I don't see how a near-miss could really be notable, unless you could prove that the tank in question was actually equipped with the Chinese-made electro-optical countermeasures, and that it actually did fool the Javelin. I would think that's nigh impossible to prove, so I really think the section should go, as it's just speculation right now. Anyways, I look forward to your comments on the issue. Parsecboy (talk) 01:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Parsecboy. I was editing a response to your former comments when I found this new one! :). I acknowledge that the tank EOCMs are not properly pertinent to the armor, but I also think they are worth to mention there as a possible explanation for those "mysterious" cases of misses or near-misses. I think the statement should stand, making clear that it's just a possibility, according to the available sources.

Yes, you are right, shaped charge ammunition is not suitable for the so-called "indirect fire". The examples of damage in the tanks despite the misses, however, proves that those weapons certainly generate a shock-wave (besides the jet-effect) capable of producing some area-harm and shrapnel. I don't remember the source, but during the first phase of Iraqi Freedom, Iraqi soldiers used RPGs as mortars. The fact that damage was effectively done on the T-72s and the tanks still survived shows that their armor worked in some degree against last generation ATGMs. The Gulf War is plenty of T-72s and other Iraqis tanks reduced to smoldering hulls by indirect fire (artillery and MLRS). Therefore, my opinion is that near-misses also count.

DagosNavy 01:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I suppose that's reasonable. After taking another look at the section, I think it's ok. Between the two of us, we've worked it into a better version, and that's what matters, right? As for the RPGs-as-mortars, the Iraqis were still doing that while I was over there from 2005-2006, so no additional source is required, at least for me anyways :) Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 01:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

It's OK, man, and thanks for your first-hand account (about the RPGs). Greetings.DagosNavy 00:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Combat performance:

quote:

The only chance for the Asad Babil against American tanks was to lure them to close range combat, or trying to ambush them from dug-in positions. But even in those conditions, the M1s usually prevailed, as proven in circumstances like the Battle of 73 Easting,

/end of quote

Nice to see people talking out of their asses, what the hell has this to do with anything, in "73 Easting" Iraqis were themselfs ambushed, having a lunch break and out of their vehicles, so this whole line is irrelevant and i suggest it be removed from the article.

Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.231.217.247 (talk) 02:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Whole line now corrected and well sourced, boy.--Darius (talk) 23:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Combat Performance neutrality disputed.

The author of the "combat performance" section does not appear to have sufficiently grasped the concept of the type of information that should appear in an encyclopedia. The wording in the entire section clearly expresses the author's POV. I will attempt to clean it up later. --24.190.217.35 (talk) 17:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

One year and still waiting, my anonymous mate...--Darius (talk) 23:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, some of it is a mix of OR, and some is beside the point. I might try and rationalise it if I get the enthusiasm. Hohum (talk) 00:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, then you're the IP guy...great.--Darius (talk) 01:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

No, but still great ;) Hohum (talk) 02:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

It's OK, Cheers :)--Darius (talk) 02:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

"Furthermore, there is evidence of a direct hit in the encounter at Mahmoudiyah in 2003, when a 120 mm HEAT round from an Abrams impacted on the front of an Asad Babil turret at point blank range without producing a massive explosion. The tank was eventually destroyed by an armor piercing round.[63]"

I can't see how this is even worth saying. A HEAT round didn't catastrophically explode a T72. In the context it's put in the article, we're making it look like it was due to the armour, when the source says nothing about this at all. Such OR/Synthesis isn't allowed. Hohum (talk) 22:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Hohum. The section is only intended to provide examples of combat situations in which the armor of the Iraqi T-72 may have work. We are not making the assertion that the rounds were defeated outright (I removed "defeated" from the current text), we're just taking account of cases in which US or coalition's ordnance failed to achieve catastrophic damage on Iraqi T-72s. Therefore, any mention from reliable sources of a T-72 surviving a direct hit is worth to be cited in the article, even in the cases were the tank became a "mobility kill". Remember those incidents of M-1s crews unscathed after a direct hit are usually put as examples of the reliability of the composite armor, despite the "Abrams" being knocked down.

The statement is not OR or SYN because: 1) it mirrored exactly what the cite say (i.e.: there was not a massive explosion after a direct hit), 2) the intention of this examples is to show what according to reliable sources is a "may be" and let the reader to decide, not to advance a position (either that the round was defeated outright or that the tank was actually penetrated by the heat jet and the crew killed, without appreciable effect).--Darius (talk) 01:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Because of the context, it is currently weakly synthetic (which is an improvement). It looks like it is intended to show that the HEAT round was made less effective because of the additional armour. Removing the word "furthermore" would reduce this somewhat. Because the source used doesn't relate the armour upgrade to the lack of effect, it would really need a caveat like "Although possibly unrelated to the additional armor..." but this would make the whole example hardly worth including.

There are worse problems to worry about with the article, so it might be worth concentrating on them if we can't agree on this rather minor issue. Hohum (talk) 01:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. There are worse problems to worry about with the article, you're right. First time I edited it, I was a newcomer to WP, thus I wrote a large amount of essay-like text, disregarding some WP policies, especially OR and some off topic issues. I hope we can fix it. Regards.--Darius (talk) 02:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Undefined Acronyms

Do not use undefined acronyms, especially if you are doing so because 'it is common knowledge and everyone who reads this article will/should know it'. In this article are numerous references to IFVs. A reader should not have to look up on google or elsewhere what an IFV is. Use the full term when first reference followed by the acronym in parenthesis. Use of the acronym can then follow in the rest of the article. example: IFV (Infantry Fighting Vehicle). I had to look it up. Providing a link to a relevant wikipedia article is not enough. Give the full name first (and provide the link via the full name). I am fixing this today. But to all the military buffs please remember this for other non-military enthusiasts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theshowmecanuck (talk • contribs) 14:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Moving to Lion of Babylon (battle tank) to avoid confusion with the ancient Babylonian symbol of the Lion of Babylon

This needs to be moved, the name Lion of Babylon should be reserved for the ancient Babylonian symbol of that name.--R-41 (talk) 18:20, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

T-72M or T-72M1

The current version of this article descirbes the Asad Babil as licence produced T-72M tank. According to Zaloga (M1A1 vs T-72 Ural) the licence produced model "Asad Babil" was a T-72M1. The article also uses the SPIRI arms trade register as source for the number 250 - 300, although licence built tanks are not imported. --EndlessUnknown (talk) 13:20, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I think they were assembled, rather than license built (from scratch), which may mean they show up as being imported. (Hohum ^@) 17:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

According to Zaloga the assembly from knock-down kits was sheduled to start in 1989. These knock-down kits were bought from Poland (not the Soviet Union), after the Soviet Union did stop direct support and sales to Iraq when the West started to support the Iraq during the Iraq-Iran war. At least 100 T-72 were bought directly from the Soviet Union in 1979/80. In 1991 the Taji tank plant was destroyed, having been upgraded the same year by Burmar-Labedy. --EndlessUnknown (talk) 18:30, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

"I was there!"

I lol'd: "The large aerial strike was repulsed (Um,NO it wasn't. I was THERE. Please stop spreading Iraqi propaganda.)with one Apache brought down"

That's cool, but the original writer has a source, whereas you are alone in your claim. Discuss your disagreement here, find some people who agree with you, quote them, and then maybe it can read "It is disputed whether the large aerial strike was ultimately repulsed by the Iraqis, although one Apache was brought down". --moeburn (talk) 10:39, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Article Improvements

Based on the above suggestions, input, and discussions, I have performed a few edits that clean up the page substantially. The extreme amount of unrelated information, puffery, and undue weight has been removed. In addition, a host of copy editing mistakes have been rectified. Yes, the edits are drastic, but this page has been in dire need of major work for years.

Some of these sources might be a bit of a stretch, but there really isn't much information about this tank out there. Cheers, --Stratocaster27^t@lk 06:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Did this tank exist, or didn't it? Make your mind up, Wikipedia!

The introduction and first section state it's disputed whether even a single "Lion of Babylon" T-72 was ever built. Then other sections talk about combat performance and encounters with M1 Abrams and Bradleys. Which is it? If there is any doubt this tank ever existed, how can Wikipedia talk of "combat performance"? 190.194.223.134 (talk) 00:11, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

This article should be split into one about the speculative Lion, and one about T-72s used by Iraq

90% of this article isn't about the Lion of Babylon, whose existence we can't even confirm, it's about T-72 operated by Iraqi units. Some of those were maybe modified by Iraq, or at its request. The whole article mixes the two, which isn't helpful. It would be better to have two articles, or have it the other way around: turn this into an article about Iraqi T-72s, with one sections discussing the (potentially non-existent) Lion of Babylon. Cortador (talk) 12:19, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree. This article talk about a project to locally create a T-72M1, which never came to fruition. The article even mentions that polish officials said that the tank was never made. It is very confusing that it goes on to talk about it's "combat history". I believe that the combat history was confused with polish produced T-72M1 that were in Iraqi service. (the article even mentions that lion Babylon is often incorrectly used to refer to all T-72s, so someone probably fell victim to this blunder) I think that there should be a split for the lion of Babylon and T-72s in Iraqi service. StupidTankNerd (talk) 01:17, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@StupidTankNerd I created a move request. I don't think this move is particularly controversial, but I wanted to go through the formal process just in case. Cortador (talk) 08:50, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 5 July 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Cortador (talk) 06:57, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

---

Lion of Babylon (tank) → T-72 tanks in Iraqi service – This article is currently named "Lion of Babylon", which was the name of an Iraqi project to manufacture/assemble T-72s locally. No tanks may ever have come out of this project. However, the article body primarily talks about T-72s that Iraq had simply acquired from other countries. Confusingly, the term "Lion" is still used frequently in the article, suggesting to the reader that these are tanks from the Lion of Babylon project, even though few (if any) of the cited sourced actually refer to these tanks as Lions. I suggest that we rename this page to "T-72 tanks in Iraqi service", as this is what the article is actually about, and introduce a section named "Lion of Babylon project". If we can find sufficient reliable sources, we can then spin that section off into an article specifically about that project. Cortador (talk) 08:48, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Support per nom. {{replyto|SilverLocust}} (talk) 05:09, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.