Is T-72 Obsolete???
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 окт 2024
- Is T-72 obsolete? Today we take a look at most modern T-72 variant in Russian Army to find the answer.
Patreon: / redeffect
I no longer own the discord server. There is another one I made for Patreon supporters, if you want you can check it out.
Sources:
gurkhan.blogspo...
topwar.ru/9680...
gurkhan.blogspo...
gurkhan.blogspo...
gurkhan.blogspo...
"T-90 Standard Tank" by Steven J. Zaloga 
Авто/Мото
Little correction, when I talk about acceleration, I didn't translate properly, it says that the acceleration is reduced by 2-3 seconds, not that it actually takes that much to accelerate. Sorry everyone, won't happen again :(
Ok nowe lok at the T 73 D
Sory T 72 Deagman
(M95 Degman)
LOL - I was thinking, I have a 650 HP (610 Torque) supercharged V8 in my 5,200 lb truck, and it wasn't much quicker than a 78,000 lb tank...I was like wtf... that tank is quick as hell, I want my money back.
Everything is fine. We really like to explode :)
Old, but not obsolete.
What bout modernized t 72?
T-800
I understood that reference
Even T55 is still very useful when used properly..
Our variant was the polish PT-91M.. it share the same design but new meterial and equipments.
Tonk is tonk. If it protecc + attack, it can be lethal.
yos
yos ma boiii
why yiu all coppy my yos ?!
True.
Suddenly Ivan and his t-34: kills modern MBT from side
It can punch a hole in the front of modern MBTs if not used by idiots and if in in proper tactical conditions. I'd say any tank that can do that is not completely obsolete.
Meanwhile western tanks used by Arabs and Turks are getting shredded to pieces by AT missiles from the cold war, proving there is no such thing as a bad tank anymore, just badly used tanks.
i think that a bad tank would be considered one that has its integrity poorly designed and needs too much mantainance, example: T-84 "Oplot"
That’s because they are using the inferior export versions of the western tanks
XDDD Now where have I heard this before?
Im pretty sure US exported Abrams (exported to Iraq) is pretty sub par. Its protection is no where near the normal varients of abrams
The Soviet Union also sends worsened export versions of its armored vehicles. The difference in quality there is even greater than that of Western export versions.
I'm sure modern T-72 is quite decent. But the T-90 is a big improvement
Still prefer the T-80
The T-90 is just a later modification of the T-72.
Just like the T-72A and T-72B
T-90 IS a T-72
T-90 IS a T-72
@@habe1717 Yeah but too modernized to be considered one. Sure, the T-64, T-72 and T-80 are basically the same tank but the T-90's turret is actually rather different.
That question is easy to answer. The original T-72 was designed as a relatively cheap mass production tank for a scenario in Europe. That means storming with a lot of tanks in European land envrionments, which would be left behind if put out of action. Look at the numbers produced back then. For more serious threat the ranks would have been filled with much more expensive T-64 or later T-80, or T-72BU (T-90). Essentially the Soviets followed the tank doctrine of WW2 with the T-34. A Tiger or a Panther or an 8,8 Flak could take out a lot of them, but not these masses.
Now the Russians exported a lot of these cheap T-72's to many countries which had to face modern US-Tanks, modern Isralei Tanks etc., often even downgraded T-72 export versions in terms of optics, electronics etc. Combine that with inferior crews in these countries. A T-72B with GDR German tank crew was another thing compared to a T72A with Egyptian tank crew.
That's it. An ordinary T-72 was never meant to engage an Abrams or a Leo-2 one on one in the first place. While a relatively well equipped GDR tank platoon of T-72B's could engage Leo-2's with much better chances.
Air superiority and communications superiority in these Middle East conflicts plays another important role.
Delusions delusions..
You forget to mention that even the US use the helicopter to destroy the tank.
the exported T-72s also had downgraded armor. The ones for the Soviet army had some composite armor. The ones exported to places like Iraq and so forth did not. Same as how Saudi M1 Abrams tanks are crappier than the ones the US Army uses (plus the US probably spends more on training for the crews).
Smartest internet comment ever.
@@izil1fe salty :)
With Trump demanding that Nato countries start spending more on defence, upgrade kits for older tanks is a good way to field a capable force. The Israelis showed how to do it: take an obsolete tank design, e.g., the Sherman or the Centurion, then upgrade the engine and main gun. Voila, the Super Sherman M51 that was quite effective against T62s or the Sho't that dominated the battlefield. Well trained and led crews are essential. The old M60 has several commercial upgrade kits - big roomy tank that has space to upgrade.
That's essentially all the Magach line is...it's M-48 and M-60 tanks they upgraded the stuffing out off...
Looks like he has a bigger chance for second term now that he was right with russian threat
A monent of silence for those who think that abrams tank is unstopable🤣
Lol Abrams ain't the best tank in the world. RPG would like to have a say
@@Tales41 that’s only because US tanks don’t utilize ERA for some reason. If even the original m1 Abrams had era strapped to it that would make it just as effective at stopping any rpgs or heat based projectiles as any Russian tank. If you took the era off the Russian tanks they would be even more susceptible to rpgs than the abrams
The only reason why Abrams has such a reputation is because its has *never* gone against anything that had a chance against it like anti tank hellicopters modern anti tank rockets and missiles or a tank with an actually trained crew
@@dirckthedork-knight1201 fax
@@dirckthedork-knight1201 That and it's a great tank, crewed by competent trained crews in an excellent combined arms team. Where is this fantasy force you bring up can truly take it on?
One thing to remember: Never ever underestimate Russian hardware. Period.
It's weird, you never hear about a car brand from Russia everyone is crazy about but the AK-47, The T-34, The IL-2, T-55, T-72...the list goes on. And they seem to hold their field value because as someone commented elsewhere a country may not have the latest greatest tank but their neighbor doesn't either so a T-55 might be the perfect solution to their border problem, etc.
Never underestimate your opponent or their gear. Look at the freakin' Technical...who would have guessed.
You're missing the point.
Car brand? Did you hear about Sherp?
Russian brands" Lada, Zaporozhets, Niva, Kraz, Kamaz, aaand Izh for motocicle. that's all that we have
Also the t-55 has atgms allowing it to destroy entire convoys of abrams from complete safety
T-55 doesn't stand a chance against an Abrams...need to clear that thinking right out of your head.
It's not just the tank that the T-55 is up against...it's the drone that spots them relaying the information via satellite to the tank leader who then takes control of the guns on the other Abrams in the unit and fires all guns simultaneously at the T-55(s). And that's if A-10s aren't loitering nearby.
It's a whole other head...
T-55s are still not obsolete, and are fighting on battlefields right now. Rifled 100mm D-10 tank gun is used as a "tank sniper" to clear nests in urban warfare.
T-62s are specifically used in urban fighting and are preferred over T-72s as they are more mechanically reliable and less damage prone in heavy rubble.
@Alex T a big gun is always useful
@Alex T tanks don't only fight tanks
Alex T SAA specifically uses T-55 in urban warfare, because it is smaller, more maneuverable through street rubble, and rifled 100 gun is more accurate the smooth bore 115mm and 125mm.
When i comes to "professional modern army", T-90s and Armata in the 2nd and 1st lines, while to date nothing stands up to Armata.
Alex T You are either ignorant or just another Hasbra troll. Merkavas got the snot knocked out of them by ATGMs in Lebanon, and have never faced any modern tank in combat.
Alex T THat's why SAA tanks are specifically modified with ERA and spaced armor.
Love how people judge the T-72 mostly by how it performed with the Iraqis, who didn't use it to it's full potential with better training and not using them as stationary turrets.
Iraq was such a genius during the war that they literally used most of their tanks and APCs as static cannon folders.
Also the Iraqi APFDS rounds were obsolete & made from steel.
The T-72 is a fine MBT especially when it's manned by a well trained crew and it's fighting in it's element, In the Gulf war Saddams forces were not well trained, especially it's regular army units. The open desert is not the optimal environment for this tank when it's going up against a M1A1, or A2, the M1'a gun, optics, imaging, far exceeded anything the Iraqi's had, the Americans were as well trained as any nation could possible get, it was like shooting fish in a bucket, the T-72's didn't stand a snow balls chance in hell. In a hilly, close in, trees like area with lots of cover the T-72 can be vary lethal against any tank, it's again crew training and who see's who first. Out in the open range I would not want to be a T-72 tanker going up against a M1 MBT. Back in WW II, Russian T-34's took a horrible beating by the Krauts Mk IV's, Panthers and Tigers. The Krauts were out numbered substantially but leveled the battle field with superior training, tactics, optic, RADIO communications and better cannons, it was the failure of the tanks themselves in not being as robust as the Russian tanks, a Russian tank gets knock out then in most cases it can be washed out, fixed in the field and put back into service the next day, the Kraut machines took up to two weeks minimum to re-field their machines, the T-72 is a lot like the T-34.
@@oveidasinclair982 well the T72 at gulfwar are mostly asad babil(downgraded local copy)that can be penetrated by a 25mm autocannon from the front
Rick Moreno Nah. Us Fought in Korea, ended in a stalemate. US fought in Vietnam, lost. US still fights in Afghanistan with no victory to be seen. When the US faces an equal opponent, it fucks up.
Hey, pretty awesome that the T-72 finally received an automatic transmission! To be honest, the manual transmission on the previous models was not very kind to junior drivers. (:
I though Russian, but I understand that the U.S. Army and in most of its u.s. tanks better than our, I can tell why. It's a 90s ....and the collapse of the Soviet Union. fortunately now begins to improve defense of Russia
That's right and the T-72B3 One of the improved defense
It's powerfull in syria
If the Russian Federation had more money they would be way better suited. Super tanks mean nothing when you only have a handfull and no certain means to replace them
@@sosaboi3585 awesome👍😎
well imo Russia at that time must improved their economy first, not the military, but that has some drawback, the military would not be advanced as the western who had better economy.
but these recent year Russia tried to improve the military, they did pretty good, but not good as western counterpart.
my opinion though, i think Russia must improved their economy, and Putin who tried to cut the military budget did the right thing.
i am not Russian, i only read from media and articles and assess this information to this opinion so i could be wrong
I guess "combined arms" is a dirty two word phrase in comment section about tanks :D
So true
Its always the tank on tank rather than combined arms warfare or anti tank tactics, its like war is solely won by tanks
I've been noticing that a lot lately in "discussions" (triggered arguments) about topics like this. It's kind of annoying
lol I was abount to comment abount it
americans like to say the word but not talk about it because they know our infantry equipment aircraft helicopters infantry transports artillery and everything else is better
Damn, Russian military technology is extremely interesting. Thank you for making these videos!
You forgot to mention the weakest part of the T-72:
The not good trained crew.
True
A tank is only good if the crew knows how to use it well.
"mobility on par with modern tanks" reverse speed 4kmh
all weapons are obsolete when used in the wrong way
The problem with T-72 is that even with modernizations, the basic tank is the same. Without ERA or with ERA defeating ordnance, the tank armor itself is like paper to modern weapons. The other problematic issue is the autoloader which isn't up to par with modern autoloaders. It is bit slow, it limits the length of tank rounds because of its design and as there are lots of rounds in autoloader carousel, the tank tends to cook off when penetration occurs.
The same thing Western said about the old RPG and this one still destroying the US MBT🤣🤣🤣🤣
Only because the tanks are used poorly and don’t have era like the Russian counterparts. US tanks also have way better survivability for the crew. I’d rather operate a tank that I can walk away from if it’s destroyed rather than a tank that would go up in flames killing myself and the rest of the crew.
@@ICECAPPEDSKY I mean no tank is unvulnerable to the RPG7.
Most are resistant to it, and RPG7s even with modern munitions cannot penetrate the latests Main Battle Tanks even to the side.
However, they can detrack tanks, they can jam the turrets even with non penetrating hits. Hits to the back of the turret will go right trough, hitting the back third of the tank from the side is likely to kill the engine, and even shooting the more armored parts like the side of the turret can result in kills with multiple shots. Remember, ERA only protects against the first hit.
The RPG7 is very old tech,and it's not the terror of tanks anymore. But well organised and trained infantry formations can still kill main battle tanks with it.
When people say RPGs they think of Iraqi or Syrian insurgents, but trust me you wouldn't want to have Russian soldiers with RPGs get in your proximity if you're in a tank.
I like to take the time to point out that the turret essentially being 1984 vintage really puts a ding into any honest comparison between this and the M1.
The Abrams has received upgrade package upon upgrade package upon upgrade package, and yet it is all well and fair to treat its design as being generally superior against a tank turret that has had virtually no upgrade in like 30 years.
The same people who get pissy at the whole Saudi export comparison dont seem to comprehend that the T-72 base armour being around 500-600mm effective against APFSDS is actually really good for a tank that has NO DU in its armour, when compared to an equivalent 1984 pattern M1 (like the M1IP) which has only around 450mm effective against APFSDS. Point is, the only reason why the successive Abrams turret armour was good and T-72 turret armour was bad was that the US decided to keep upgrading the turret, whereas the Soviets and then the Federal forces did not. You're not comparing tank designs at that point, you're comparing what people are doing with their wallets.
If we are comparing designs, then the turret armour on individual marks and models is redundant due to the fact that you can ALWAYS just bolt on more armour. You can do that with an Abrams, so you can do that with the T-72 as well, just as with ANY tank. It's just a question of IF it has been done or not.
Also, seeong as how we are comparing tank DESIGNS at this point, isn't that fact that the T-90 series is essentially the same sort of design as the T-72 except with a newer gun and DU armour kind of making the comparison between marks and models redundant anyways? The Abrams started with no DU in its armour, a 105mm gun and all, yet its still treated as the same tank as the M1A2 - just that the A2 is a newer version, and yet its turret required replacement and even the A3's are getting an entirely new power pack in the form of a conventional turbodeisel engine. The T-90M is basically this to the original T-72, whilst still being fundamentally the same tank and yet all of a sudden it's a completely new tank and the comparison is therefore invalid? That's called getting hung up on a technicality my friends.
the US nomenclature doesn't make much sense to me. Instead of saying "M1A3 blah blah," why not just have it be the "M1B"? Also why is it the M1 when it came after the M60?
This ^, I've always loved the Russian MBT design, and clearly the basic pattern they've been using since the T54 has worked and continues to
@@danielkorladis7869 since they were working on the Abrams and it only came about in the late 70’s they should’ve called it the m70 or m80 honestly. Idk why it’s called m1 either
@@danielkorladis7869 that’s why I prefer the Soviet naming system at this point. It’s way easier to know the tanks point of creation since the rough date is in the name. And prototype tanks were just called the Obj. (Insert number).
I love the turret ejection system on the T-72.
It's a feature that all 4uddian tanks have! Lol!
Hindsight being 20/20...well...I respect RedEffect for not removing some of his past content from RUclips.
I will throw a bone or a lifeline or whatever. I think the problem with the T-72 in Ukraine is more about being crewed by unmotivated and minimally trained troops unused to fighting a "near peer" opponent. And being led by an unimpressive officer corps. And being road-bound because they attacked during the rasputitsa.
America ditched the last of its M-60 Patton tanks years ago. And nothing in the Russian inventory, save perhaps those few Armatas, is equal to an Abrams or LeCerc or Leopard.
Training , moral , aps , and t-72 will be good
@@mbtenjoyer9487 T72 is essentially designed for a conscript army. The crew is not ment to be well trained.
Everyhere the T72 tanks goes its basically dead. Every army in the world has weapons and tactics to deal with the T72 tank. Militaries around the world have used the tank. There is just a massive amounts of atgm and other weapons that will have zero issues dealing with the t72.
@@GodKitty677 that’s not true
@@mbtenjoyer9487 The way to ukraine war is going there wont be many t72s left.
"The biggest advantage that the T-72 offers any operator is the fact that it is essentially designed for a conscript army and thus easy to operate and maintain." - T-72: The Russian Tank Getting Blown to Bits in Ukraine
I drove this tank when I was in Kubinka/Moscow. It was unbelievable
Yes it is unbelievable
T-72 is one of the best tanks created and it can be even deadly if the crew knows how to operate such a monster. With good crew even the worst tanks can do really well in battle.
Laughs in javelin
Its a crap
How can someone take a person that writes 'gets smoked' seriously? Even in middle school that was a stupid turn of phrase...
Cool profile pic where to get?
Jus wait till u get smoked on mincwaft 1v1 me Sherman is best tank
get smoke and rekd!
jrfi orn, how can someone take someone serious who gets very bitchy over someone using the term "get smoked" cannot think how this could possibly trigger you so much unless you still hold much of a middle school attitude towards life
It's not the best tank, but there are a lot of them and it's cheaper to retrofit old tech than to create new tech.
Michael Poon That’s why Armata is not being produced. Russians can still resist the Western technology with their older, however modernised technology.
This is actually the official reason.
@@scudb5509 more than 100 armatas will be deployed till 2024 (i think, maybe earlier). It is official. I dont think it is a lot, but it is not nothing. Keep in mind that it is a command tank.
@@scudb5509 Russians don't need to resist Western technology. We aren't attacking you guys. We aren't warmongering retards like RT makes us to be.
You illegally invaded Iraq, supported the coupe of Libya's leader, sell weapons to the Saudi's to bomb funerals,supported removing Assad from power via coupe, support a Ukrainian government that spent $2 million a day to kill it's own people, moved equipment closer to Russia's border, sanction Russia, blame them for "rigging" your election, sanction Iran, talk negative about them daily on MSM, broke agreements between the two countries forcing their hand to make Hypersonic missiles. In what world do you live in?
@@gregorylouis617 1. Even though we shouldn't have gone to war, at the end of the day Hussein was still a tyrannical leader who killed his own people and supported terrorism. Iraq was like another North Korea back then but without the nukes. Also, Busch was our worst president by far.
2. Yemen was taken over by Houthi's militias in 2014 and they are evil, brutal, and kill their own people. Because of this, we gave friendly nations the weapons necessary to keep balance there. Without the US, Yemen would be in an even worse situation: nationalinterest.org/blog/middle-east-watch/yemen-bad-it-would-be-worse-without-us-involvement-26801
3. As for Libya, Gadhafi wasn't a good leader either. Gadhafi led a coup against King Idris in 1969 and then purged thousands of people. Libya used to be a beautiful, free and prospering country under the King until the communist revolution. NATO just tried to bring that back but it failed because rival groups are still fighting today.
4. Assad is also a horrible person who kills his own people and oppresses them. I know because I've spoken to Syrians about this. The only reason Russia cares about Syria is because it allows Russia easy access into the Middle East.
5. The United States has nothing to do with Ukraine. Ukraine is fighting Russia all by itself because it wants to join the EU but Russia won't let it.
6. I admit we shouldn't put missile-interception equipment near Russia's border. We don't appreciate Russia flying nuclear-capable bombers over our border though in a dick-waving contest.
7. I also think putting sanctions on Russia is stupid since Russia obviously didn't hack the elections. It's just another reason why I hate the Democrat party.
8. We don't plan on invading Russia, we just don't trust them. We don't like how they annexed Crimea, we don't like how they are trying to annex Ukraine when Ukraine simply wants to join the EU, we don't like how Russia is threatening us with nukes, we don't like how Russia is joining their military with communist China.
China is very oppressive of their own people and it is illegal to be religious or have free speech there. People there also have to live near nuclear waste and die from radiation but the government doesn't care. They also spend all their money mass-building worthless buildings instead of helping their people. They also censor everything.
It seems we are at war with evil leaders.
TL;DR America isn't perfect but our country is just trying to fight evil dictators.
Has the T-72B3 seen conflict? (Ukraine maybe) how did it fair? And yeah it's ridiculous to try & use desert Storm as a example. Those T-72's were either T-72M1's , or Babylon Lions. Both tanks are 3 & 4 steps Downgraded from the T-64. and had 1970's tech in them. It's like saying "The Fokker Triplane was no match for the F-15"
Yes, T-72B3 were tested in real combat situation in Ukraine. As was the t-90! And they were involved in tank on tank battle against Ukrainian T-64BM, and their upgrades and t-80's.
They were superior in those engagements, knocking out dozens of Ukrainians tanks. 2-3 T-72B3 were lost and 1 captured and then recaptured by DNR soldiers.
No T-90 lost was reported, from either side (Russian sources don't recognize the deployment of any of those tanks in the conflict) sources from this numbers were independent investigations and a paper called "lessons learned from Ukrainian conflict" who is from a research and information institution from or with close links to NATO.
Side note: because all sides deployed tanks with reactive armour, anti-tank weapons were mostly ineffective and tank on tank role claimed the primary role in this kind of engagements.
@@tiagosantana8765 mmm i am interested
U have some links bro? :)
t72b3m bitch
@@lukabogdanovic4658 ne vjerujem brte
T72b3 je video akciju ali b3m nije
Samo nisam čuo za tank vs tank borbu
Iako ruski t72b3 lagano unistava sve što ukrainci imaju
Samo me interesuje kakva je borba bila
Here you can see the document
www.scribd.com/doc/274009061/Lessons-Learned-From-the-Russo-Ukraine-War
As for the amount of t-72b3 destroyed there is several channels that cover the Russian "hand" in the conflict, but I think I saw that on Ukraine war awareness.
Enjoy
Honestly people don't like russian tanks like this for two reasons. Russiophobia and video game depictions
Shit bro I'd argue videogames like russian tanks, in War Thunder (arguably the most popular/realistim to mainstream ratio tank game) All Iconic russian tanks even the T55 are given stage and shown how effective they would be if not used by untrained arabs or chechan rebels, Even an arcadey game like battlefield depicts the T90 on the same level as the m1
On battlefield bad company 2 its says t90 is much stronger than a m1 Abrams
@@tr4il98 i agree with all except that war thunder is realistic...good joke mate
and because russians selled a lot of tanks to other countries without the best ammo or the users didn't know how to use them
Video games?. Nah ever heard people say "Russian bias"?.
The joy of watching this in 2022...
t-72 is the most beautiful tank. Period !
3 years later and we're seeing T-72's and even T-90's being obliterated by infantry launched AT weaponry designed in the 80's. Fair to say it's outdated
And? Any tank in that situation would end up the same
Even m1a2 or any nato tanks
@Adam of Good if you’re tank gets bogged down there no point to stay when being overwhelmed by rpgs n atgm
@@rogue__agent5884 The javelin is from the US, they're most likely not going to design something that can destroy their own tanks like it does with the T-72. The ammo placement in the T-72 is awful, hence why the turret gets blown skyhigh whenever a round penetrates the tank
@@brentschellekens4151 it’s not the same javelin from 1996 it’s still being upgraded
Plus it can penetrate a m1 Abram knock out the tank crew , injuring them or killing them
U don’t need to hit the ammo to kill m1 Abram crew
You realize that even Abrams or Leopard can't?
Problem with comparing M1 with the T-72 is that they are completely animals. The T-72 is a much lighter, and therefore more mobile (As in can actually cross bridges in Europe, which the M1 is often not able to). This of course comes at the cost of protection and capacity.
I still yearn for a video where M1 abrams and T72s fights alongside each other
Seeing the comments at the beginning and with the current situation, yeah poor t72
these things are still good if you have good tactics, if we had t72s in iraq we still would have won because we know how to do combined arms warfare, the russians would still be losing in ukraine even if they had Abrahams, because they dont field combined arms tactics
agree with you
Simple answer is yes. They poping like champagne corks.
T72 turret go wee
Well it is 50 years old. Would you fancy driving a car from the 1970's
I was a T84 driver which is same shit as T72 B2(not sure). Tank is like 600 mm frontal so these days if another tank wants you terminated you are gonna be gone in short time. These days all tanks got like 800mn APFSDS penetration so bounce that is possible 3 km + distance. There is one thing that T72 does better then any tank with human loader. Those shells simply fly in gun bridge, gunner just press button and if drum under is at right shell type, shell goes in gun so fast that no human being can open door, pick up shell, put it on gun bridge and press button for rammer and lock. Loading time is much faster on autoloder then human loader. also autoloder doesn't get exhausted.
About weight adventage, 45 ton tank can be loaded on any commercial semy truck trailer. 45 ton can be driven on any bridge don't have to check max bridge load. 1200 hp on 45 ton is much better then 1500 hp on 80 ton tank. Mobility is much better then on abrams or leopard. But let's be honest it's not race, it's battle so to beat 10 abrams tanks you need 20 T72 also you wanna be close to rush them and take side shots, that the only way to beat superior armor tanks with longer reload time
Thank you it's not about the tank it's more about tactic
willie johnson,
Tactics matter up to a point..
Tech matters!
@@johnedwards3151 fair point
M84 is upgraded version if T72. Targeting is upgraded, gunner has both eyes on target, bigger viewing angle on targeting sight, it has better targeting on the move. Like I said M84 is sort of T72B. Actually there are 2 versions M84 and M84A difference is mainly in engine 700 and 1000 hp. Maybe I'm wrong in many things, it was long time ago and I didn't actually trying remember all those nonsense about tank.
Serving in army was harsh experience, it was like talking for days then you drive little bit and endless cleaning and maintenance. Gunner shot main gun only twice at entire training. Machine gun was saw some serious target practice.
@Blaz Blaz M84 was better than T-72M1 that Iraqis used. When Czechoslovakia got a licence to produce T-72M tanks, Yugoslavia bought a licence from them, but they couldn't make a T-72 tank since it was only reserved for Warsaw pact, so they had to implement some changes and change the name. M84 received a better armor than T-72M and a wind sensor, which is something not even Soviet T-72s had, and some other changes. Then came M84A which had improved armor. The tank was sold to Kuwait and saw action in Gulf War.
hm ... if only t72 had ammo rack protection id love it .....
ive seen an abrams cook off, ammo rack made no difference with the amount of heat shooting out of there....no one was crawling out any top hatch.. cooked
Yo ski the Abrams is designed to protect the crew in terms of an ammo cook off. In the instance of an ammo rack explosion, the blowout panels “blow out” and vent the “explosion” up and away from the crew.
Russian tanks get penned and cook off every time, if an Abrams gets hit the blowout panels are triggered to protect the crew.
Do you want to be in a tank with ammo all over the inside or in a tank that has all the ammo sealed in a compartment with panels blocking it from exploding and killing the entire crew as long as you close the door?
Blowout panels cant protect the crew from anti tank shots especially if someone smart decided to fire a atgm at the rear of the turret
Depending on where the round penetrates the tank it won't matter not every tank is invincible, that's why they constantly test these things. Also have you seen videos from Syria a T-72 is tougher than what you think, you sound like one of those comments at the beginning of the video, I watched a video where a T-72 was hit 5 times multiple RPG's and ATGM a TOW mind you and it couldn't operate but the crew survived and they towed it with another tank off the battlefield during the firefight, crazy shit.
Its totally obselete. How do they dare put troops in these tanks today. The reactive armour doesnt help against Apds rounds. The only way they can used is to use them in wedge formation together with modern tanks. This tactic was used successfully by the Germans during battle of Kursk in WW2. With the modern tanks in front.
Coming from the future, 2022 Russian Invasion of Ukraine, has shown two problems the tank lacks.
1) Protection, being a medium tank from the 70s, it protection is nowere near modern standars. Frontal protections seem not enough to stop a modern APFSDS, but sides one shown failures against HEAT, speacilly beacuse the ERA is not enough to protect the tank in the rear end.
Russian actually developed an APS, but never installed it, so against top attacks (from ATGMs), the tank has no protection at all. Which lead us to.
2) The Russian tanks have an inherent problem with the amunition location, in a carriage in the center of the tank, below crew, and the turret,when hit it desroys the tank, and having not enough protection, well, it is quite easy to hit.
The number two deffect affects the T-90 no matter what version are we talking about.
Funny enough the Russia did solve this problems, they have good ERA (Kontak 5, Ralitk), APS (Arena, Drozd), and a Tanks with separate ammunition (T-95, and Black Eagle). They never produced this in a combined vehicle, and now they have a problem.
The frontal protection is quite good. It is not facing any modern APFSDS so it is fine. Also the most numerous Russian tank being a modernized T72B the base armor is mid 1980s and that’s not including the ERA. Catastrophic ammo explosions are over exaggerated. The chance of a shell hitting that low and then going through the carousel armor is rare and most explosions occur some time after the tank is abandon by the crew. I would also like to add that the T72 does NOT have worse protection because is lighter. If you compare it to an Abrams from the same time period the T72 has better protection NOT because it’s just a smaller tank. Smaller tank does not mean worse armor
@@winstonchurchill8491 true, many T-64 or T-72 destroyed or put out of action models had no cook offs. You just remember them so well, because they are so spectacular.
While you ignore the other 90% of non cook off depreciations.
One somewhat drawback of most RU tanks is slow reverse speed. That is acknowledged by everyone. It's a 3rd rate feature in terms of importance, but it is a small drawback.
Ukraine says yes.
Bahahaha
Its a good tank
It has drawbacks of course, a perfect is not real.( almoast no side armor in majority of variants, and unprotected ammo in the turret)
In the and of the day, its capable and good.
Almost no side armor is surprisingly common for MBT's. When I was a kid, I thought M1's were impenetrable from any angle. Now I know they've got only something like ~100-150mm of side protection. Which is pretty good, but still a tasty target for a shaped charge.
@@magisterrleth3129 Yea.
With ERA add on armor on the sides, both tanks got way better protection against HEAT
@@lil__boi3027 yes
@@HueWave whoa lad
I must be one of the few Americans who actually love the T-72 over the gaybrams. Really well put together video with abundance in information.
I'm with you there. The Gaybrams is an effective tank, don't get me wrong... Just overrated... All the freeaboos hyping it up as the best tank in the world is annoying as hell.
@@F-4E-58-MC thatw because it actually has evidence supporting that claim.
I bet your opinions changed since theyve been destroyed all over ukraine even when used properly...
@@thatguy46744 No, its got the record to back it up but the amount of circlejerking it gets is annoying to me. Its not invincible and is just as dead as a T-80U without any support. Tanks are still blind even with all that fancy CITV, new TC station and the like. People act like its Jesus' gift to tanks and in some ways yeah, I get it. I just don't love circlejerking. Someone also showed me the turret wasn't symmetrical. ( Fuck that guy)
I must say, it is. Everytime she is hit by a TOW, her turret gone decapitated.
Who's idea putting ammorack on the turret's neck again ? Better send that guy to Gulag with VIP pass
This did not age well
"You go to war with the army you have, not the army you wish you had" - US Defense secretary Rumsfield.
Sometimes the operational effectiveness is only as good as its tank crew. For example, I’m sure a T72 operated by A Russian crew would be more effective than an Iraqi crew (regardless of the variant). That being said I believe an armored division of Russian T 72s operating in Europe would be a force to be reckoned with.
The same applies to the Leopard 2A4, turks are losing dozens of them to the Kurds, training is of vital importance
I am impressed of your objective stance and opinion. To respect your adversary is common only for a descent person, who do not lack combat value. Respect from the east...
P.S.
I apologise for my English. It is not my mother's tongue.
@@Daniel-rh7kh not really tho with the leopard even 2a5 were being drstroyed god ddarn syrian minkeys oparate the t90 very good
Exactly. The most important aspect of a tank's effectiveness is the crew.
A Bradley can destroy a T-72 just as quick as a BMP-3 can destroy an Abrams. Russia is quite well armed. Implementation, we shan't discuss.
Faces knockoff T72 in Iraq against M1A1HA.
Americans scream reeeeeeeeeee
The video pleasee
UKoctane Iraqi armored forces consisted of T-64's and T-62's.
@@johnmangele6758 Wrong. T-64's weren't exported to Iraq. All they had were 55's, 62's, 72's and Chinese T series knockoffs
@@johnmangele6758 t64 was elite and rare soviet tank(never exported)
@white you obviously don't know that Soviets sold Export model(downgraded armour, fire control) of T72 to Saddam. Then Saddam tried to produce Iraqi version of Export model, which was even worse...
And of course it doesn't help when they get bombed from air and is crewed by noobs compared to Europeans/Russians/Americans.
So everything adds up...
Vladimir: *sees t-34 in museum*
Also Vladimir: lets smack some ERA armor in front and make able to block apfsds.
An Random American guy: no is impossible because old
Vladimir: oké then i will add new 125mm gun and new turret to t-34 aswell and some sekrit modules to make it more biasfull
Breaking news: T-34 has become best modern MBT
Soaks up AT weapons well
this video is 4 years old bruv
@@spiritwolf.6056 shh don't tell him
I think modern warfare is not what people think.If the tank receives more protection on the top,engine area and good reverse speed plus get hard kill active protection,the tank can be very lethal for the next decade.The new T 80 designs by Russia and Ukraine's oplot can be valid for the next decade too as they are much better than the T 72s.Overall the Russians should switch to T 90M but improve Hull and side armor,put hard kill and change the carousel auto loader,increase reverse speed and include blow out panels for the tank and the T 90M will serve for the next 2 to 3 decades
T-72B3 suits the new Russian defensive doctrine well. These tanks could do serious blows to the enemy if dug in along forests for ambushes. In addition, due to it's mobility it can completely out flank enemy armor undetected or even snipe other tanks from a hill from far away with it's ATGMs and APSDs due to it's accurate, powerful and versatile cannon.
Javelin was designed to take out tanks hulled down. Even if the tank reverses backwards into a trench and thus there is not line of sight to the turret. Javelin will still hit the T72 tank and destroy it. Also from range, AP rounds are most likely to hit the turret on a western tank which most (all) T72 tanks cant penetrate. With the latest technogy a hulled down T72 can be spotted and destroyed well before it can engage another tank. A drone spots the tank and an artillery gun fires a shell 30-40km away and destroys the tank. Or the drone destroys the tank. The data for the location is sent to the western tank and it knows were the tank is located.
A Russian tank is most likely never going to live long enough to snipe at anything. The Iraq army tried it, they hulled down and got completely wiped out. In the Ukraine, drones and artillery go to work. Anti-armor hunter-killer teams are everywhere. If a tank stops, is alone or digs in and hulls down. Its found by a drone and killed. Artillery takes the tank out or the drone does.
Basically the losses of T72 tanks in Ukraine is going to be insane.
Obsolete?
When the infantry reaches immortality and the bunkers reach indestructibility, only then can it be said that it is obsolete.
Hate to say it, red, the T-72 was good….. for the late 80’s. But we’re a long, long way from the late 80’s. Face it: your “tank” is a joke.
When are you gonna quit being a nationalist?
@@parallax9084 when are you gonna quit asking stupid questions? Never? You have my answer.
It's an old model, but modernization upgrades go a very long way to making a plentiful, affordable MBT that can fight all but the most modern designs.
This aged badly.
Alot of his videos aged badly lmao
No, why?
Not entirely
@@Galloway5090not actually
Ok, it depends. T72 is good for someone who wants to fight off some terrorists, but it is death trap in actual political wars. That's my opinion.
armata won't be in service until at least 2030 lol
The T-72 comes with four pieces of equipment not found on Western tanks.
Three body bags and an excuse for everything.
But a good ass exuse
The comments in the beginning were absolutely right.
Most of them
Not even close
@@militaristaustrian lol your brain got softened from propaganda probably ^^
@@Thor_Asgard_ nah bro, the t72 is a good tank, russia not using them in the best way dose not make the tank bad.,the turks fuckt up whit there leopard2s too .
Yes this interesting that people are now respecting a russian tank that well as been a but of military jokes and memes. The T72b3 is not the worst tank out there in fact tanks that usually are consider horrible don't even get produced but are learning lessons for something that does get produced later on in History.The T72 won't be a top dog contender anymore but it is workhorse tank that can do a lot tasks decently to to good. By all mines I don't expected to goe toe to toe with lasted Challenger 2, Leo2 and M1 A2 Abrams variants. But They are tank that fits Russia's needs for the bulk if its tanks along with modern t90s and t80 models. As the T14 is not cheap as people have stated but I do see the T14 being employed in Russia's Elite Tank Divisions reserved for only the most experienced and best trained crews in the Russian tank core at least. But T72 serves well for training and use of standard tankers can be trained decently to good enough standards to fill the gaps in man power in the army. Where as crews of t14 Armata would most likely have had lots of basic to intermediate level training which then once comfortable enough to and gone through the process of getting elite level training would then try to achieve success in going the ranks elite t14 crews. I am only speculating there only because even world War 2 initially Tiger and Panther tank crews were often crewed by best and most experienced troops until man power was an issue later on. As the Panzer 4 like the Russian t72 was workhorse tank that needed it ranks to be filled by anyone who want to serve in the german panzer 4s. So I would assume for the t14 since its an expensive piece of kit you would want the best trained crews on how use in operator it. Especially in ugly combat situations if it does happen at some point the future. Wheres sure you wouldn't want to blunder in a t72 either but at least if the crew lived and the tank was lost at least getting new would easier than a replacement t14 lol. Again I am not saying if I am entirely correct here but just thinking from common sense point of view. So yah T72 isn't obsolete or a bad tank at least modern variants but i say going up alone against nato tanks especially challengers and Abrams tank is ill advised to say the least lol. But in overwhelming numbers for sure would give abrams tank crews a run for their money because it be the same issue with tigers against shermans do we have enough shells to defend against the onslaught lol. Yes and I do agree t55 and t62s perform well in urban warfare as small size and quicker reaction times allow for good steady support infantry but again comes down to crew skill to all ways crew skill over tank design in most cases that determines effectiveness and performance on the battlefield.
The T-72 is a shit tank, not obsolete, however it is not able to complete the role it used to do anymore, its used more as cannon fodder now at this point while the T-90's do the job perfectly for the modern role.
Its like saying a T-34 is effrctive in 1970, when people say the T-72 is as effective in 2022.
In general, the T-72 is not effective anymore in the current era, but it is no obsolète.
For example, the Patton 60 if modernized works in the same way as a modernized T-55 or T-62.
Is it ironic that this video is in my recommendations, considering the context of the war
Most of are talking Tank VS Tank. Not anti-tank weapons VS tanks. Any modern tank would get destroyed by hand held anti-tank weapons
AK47 has been around for decades. Ask the same question: Is the AK still relevant? I think the answer is yes. quantity and simplicity over quality.
As a russian tanker, The T72 is really good, It's no shit unless your a russian tanker who is assigned to the T72B3 tank.
And so now they are seeing proper in field use yes the T-72 is out dated.
But the Russian Army is wasting them they can be effective if properly upgraded and put into better scenarios than what the Russians are throwing them at
Due to cost saving, corruption, and incompetence the t-72 tanks in use in Russia are being easily destroyed or captured
@@lordgong4980 Most T-72B3s got destroyed by ATGMs. Other modern tanks aren't better protected against ATGMs than the T-72B3. So saying the T-72B3 is outdated because it is getting destroyed by ATGMs is a complete fallacy.
When it comes to Soviet/ Russian armor, it is not designed to fight against other enemy armor as that is a very NATO view of them
Soviet/Russian doctrine has a bigger emphasis of utilizing armor and mobile units as a breakthrough and exploitation force deep into the enemy's rear
They would barely use said armor against enemy armor but have proper anti tank infantry teams to deal with them
Can you Do a video about the french Leclerc please !
Attempt n*2
1 gear forward, 5 gears in reverse, not much more to say.
Oveida Sinclair oh, come on...
Come on Gopnik it's a French Army joke, the Canadians, English and the US have been making these jokes since their stellar WW II and Vietnam experiences. We all poke fun at the French, I think they do it so much is because the French get so damn pissed off when they do it.
Be carefull when you make jokes about the french army (especially WW2 related jokes) as a lot of those jokes are disrespectful towards the fallen french soldiers of WW2.
The white flag jokes, surrender jokes, and retreat jokes are to avoid, or to make with caution.
I don't mind the jokes as long as it stays respectful.
Here your joke was just uncalled for...
It's a 1990 tank for f*ck's sake
Oh it's a 1990's version, then that must mean it has 1 gear forward and 6 gears for reverse.
Remember the wooden log
All i care about is the tank ability to take modern ATGMs and survive it. Tank VS Tank those days is so rare so it doesn’t matter.
In the end it all comes to who has the best ATGMs and infantry support.
Tell that to the Iraqi Republican Guard survivors, a good well trained tank crew must be prepared for all situations and that is where the American forces far exceed all other nations, even my country, they allot more money towards training then any other country does.
Iraq mainly lost thanks to having so many countries participating in the conflict combined with air supremacy of the US
They lost because they were ill trained, incompetent and regarding the regular army semi literate, they nearly lost to the Iranians and could barely stay a cohesive military unit after 8 years of trench fighting and hundreds of billion of dollars in arms provided by the gulf state Arabs. Yeah a lot of nations so called participated, just like my country of Canada, but it was the US who provided 90%+ of the manpower, air power, sea power, air lift. What I am saying is the US could have done the entire operation by themselves, they just used the so called international alliance as a political cover.
Oveida Sinclair don’t even start with the Iraq war actually it was not a war it was like a massacre
Hello RedEffect,
your article is very good. It's very objective. What do you think about following:
I think the armor of the T72 B3M is not weaker compared with modern western tanks. The cause is that the T72 B3M is much smaller than western tanks. The volume of the turret is 3 times smaller than a Leo 2, Chally 2 or Abrams. The hull is also smaller. I would estimate 30 %. On the other hand the weight of the T72 B3M is not so much lesser like the tank volume. So that means the T72 B3M has not so much space to protect. So the armor can be thick like that from the western tanks. And with the thickness figures of the armor that are in the public nobody knows how correct they are. That figures are classified. At the end I think the armor PROTECTION of the T72 B3M is similar like modern western tanks. What do you think?
The T-72 is a fine MBT especially when it's manned by a well trained crew and it's fighting in it's element, In the Gulf war Saddams forces were not well trained, especiallit's regular army units. The open desert is not the optimal environment for this tank when it's going up against a M1A1, or A2, the M1'a gun, optics, imaging, far exceeded anything the Iraqi's had, the Americans were as well trained as any nation could possible get, it was like shooting fish in a bucket, the T-72's didn't stand a snow balls chance in hell. In a hilly, close in, trees like area with lots of cover the T-72 can be vary lethal against any tank, it's again crew training and who see's who first. Out in the open range I would not want to be a T-72 tanker going up against a M1 MBT. Back in WW II, Russian T-34's took a horrible beating by the Krauts Mk IV's, Panthers and Tigers. The Krauts were out numbered substantially but leveled the battle field with superior training, tactics, optic, RADIO communications and better cannons, it was the failure of the tanks themselves in not being as robust as the Russian tanks, a Russian tank gets knock out then in most cases it can be washed out, fixed in the field and put back into service the next day, the Kraut machines took up to two weeks to re-field their machines, the T-72 is a lot like the T-34.
too bad, get over it already
The T-72 is like a M4 Sherman and the M1A1 or M1A2 was like a king tiger. You can have a half ass crew in a king tiger and a really good crew in a M4 Sherman and the king tiger is going to win 90% of the time.
Dear old grand dad told me some of those king tigers crews was young kids blown the hell out of Sherman's with well trained crews.
We like the Germans of WW-2 simply have a better tank.
T72 is essentially designed for a conscript army. Thats crews without experience.
The T-72 didn't do poorly in the Gulf War because the tank was a bad Soviet design and the Abrams was some kind of super tank running on liquid 'Merica. The T-72 performed poorly because the Iraqi army didn't understand how to use tanks correctly on the battlefield. They made themselves easy targets by digging in to stationary positions. Had they used the T-72 with modern tactics, the Abrams would have had a much harder time.
Isabella Lofton Except dugout holes were standard. Even nato tanks crews are told to always be hull down when possible. Also the republican guard weren’t bad, they were one of the best that the enemy had to offer.
@@hazardous458 I'm sure NATO tank crews would want to be hull down whenever possible whether they were told to be or not. Some NATO tanks are armored according to the statistic that the turret is hit more often than the hull, so their turret armor is more protective than their hull armor. The Abrams is very much one such tank. And I certainly don't doubt that the Republican Guard were the enemy's best. They did what they thought would give them the best chance against an enemy they knew would beat them in the end. They knew they were in a defensive situation. However, none of that changes the fact that the Abrams used it's mobility, whereas the Guard hobbled themselves to an extent, and allowed the Abrams to play to it's strengths, by obviating their own mobility advantage. A moving tank is simply harder to hit and has a better chance of deflecting enemy shots that do hit. The Guard would certainly have had more opportunity to find and hit the Abrams weak lower glacis, had their strategy been more proactive. The Russian inquiry found the tactics to be more at fault than the tank.
Is a T-72 individually as good as most western MBTs? No. But Russia has a LOT of upgraded T-72s, and as the saying goes 'Quantity has its own quality'.
Russian doctrine has and always will be since ww2 to overwhelm your enemy you don't need insanely good tanks to do that if America has 5000 Abrams in service just throw 20,000 T72's at them to many targets for them to beat they will lose even if they have the best tanks this is how Russians won WW2 and its how they will win WW3 if it happens the same as Russian air tactics there is no need for 20,000 modern fighter jets if 20,000 older migs will do the same job its about overwhelming numbers something the Russians are very good at and more modern counterparts are not.
@@stallionlp6633 yeah, but Westerners have those pesky force multipliers. And we don't fight like the Imperium of Man anymore.
Joseph Stalin my friend the USA has a larger population and more manpower which can be mobilized the Russian Federation has a bit over 100 million as it`s population the USA has half of 400 million as it`s population and such the USA can mobilize more infantry,tankers,pilots.
In this case you would need 40-1 and at least 5 of the tank commanders to have an IQ of at least 85, and that would be hard pressed to find 🙄🤔😂🤣
Suggest looking up deep operations doctrine
If the driver has a rear camera, why did the driver need a man directing the backing up of the tank?
He doesn’t
But, is the ft-17 obsolete?
Nah it can stop some bullets.
clpfox nope in fact I see it taking over the modern battlefield, better engine, gun armor and suspension and it's set. Ft 17 swarms are the future. Maybe could use remote control tec to not lose so much human life.
@@andrewgregory151 swarm like fucking ants
People believe T-72 sucks because it bit the dust during 1st Gulf War, of course it can't win agains M1 Abrams or Challenger 2 MBT, but remember that Iraqi Lion of Babylon (localized version of T-72) are inferior model compare to soviet T-72, have thinner armor, lighter, and weaker engine, or i can say "T-72 shitty version", even compare to classic T-72 and not the modern ones.
Can someone answer just one question for me why has every single Russian tank I have seen whether it's modern or old all of them have a log somewhere on it
In case the vehicle gets bogged down, the log is used to get better traction to make it easier to move again.
@@doorcf I thought it would be used as like pre-prepared firewood or something I've wondered what it was used for, for a long time thanks for an answer to that question though
They use chains to connect to the tracks. Then they can do a self recovery if they are stuck.
Lot of Russian and european country is muddy and wet terrain lots of tanks got stuck in ww2 so the Russians learned you can chain the log to the front of your tank tracks and use it to pull your tank out of the mud if it gets stuck that way no need for so many recovery vehicles and crews can recover themselves in a spot of bother. Look up videos here on youtube dude you can see it yourself ))
Technical term for the log is "unditching beam".
People claiming T-72 are obsolete are the same people who gets rekt by T-55s in Abrams in Warthunder - under the false impression that weakspots do not exist in modern tanks(quite the contrary, lots of spots are weakly armored, even on the front, to save weight, most obviously mantlet and lower glacis).
If it shoots a reasonably big round, it's not obsolete; especially when the opponent has higher skill /russian bias than you.
Even T-72 in Chechnya could take 6-7 RPG to the side/rear and not get destroyed(it only goes bad when fuel leaks into crew compartment with fire...etc. that burns propellant charges), and that's against people who knew where to shoot.
Why are you bringing a video game to a real life comparison? That means you are a keyboard warrior
Neat
Thank you comrade!
Obsolete in what regard? Until one of those death trap land on us soil we may never know
Nato armour would have a really cold awakaning if they would fight against these tanks while attacking russia thats for sure. And its not even the best tank in the russian army.
Nato would wipe out all the t72 tanks with few losses.
Dont claim that these SU era casted turrets are any competetive!
Some chocolate bar sized more modern armor plates sticking here and there leave huge weak spots and this explosive armor theory is a nice idea but doesnt work at all against KE.
Also the turret is very heavy for its small size and the gun cant lower much.
Not good as we are seeing in Ukraine.
Meh... Current Hand held Anti-tank weapons destroy all modern tanks. I think most of us want to discuss Tank VS Tank. Not handheld anti-tank weapon VS Tank.
Tank battles aren't about armour thickness, they're about crew quality and sensors.
First I want to say that I served over 10 yrs in the US army with two tours in Iraq and one in Afghanistan.
Saying that the T-72's firing control and optics are equal to most Western tanks isn't really true. The M1A2/A3 has the best optics and fire control systems when compared to Russian tanks in general. Also the T72 would have to get in close to have a chance to penetrate the Abrams frontal armor and that would mean that they would have to be very lucky! As far as who has the better armor, that's a no contest. A 45 ton tank isn't going to hae nearly as much armor as a 70 ton tank, plus the Abrams armor is just better to begin with. And this all before you start adding ERA to the Abrams. I keep hearing people say that the T-72 has better mobility, but that really isn''t true either. The Abrams is extremely fast and quick. It's actually so fast that they had to put a governor on it so it wouldn't go to fast because it would tear up the transmission.
I don't think that the T-72 is garbage, but it's definitly not on the same level as most Western tanks. Western tanks are just far more survivable and usually more advanced.
This video is talking about the modern T-72 used by Russian army, not the one used in Iraq. I agree that the protection of T-72 is not on par with Abrams, but as far as firepower and firing system, they are pretty close, besides, T-72 is actually the worst tank Russia has currently, most modern tanks include T-90M and T-14 Armata which are on par and in some instances better than "Western tanks".
Something like “Mango” or even early “Svinets” won’t penetrate modern Western tank, thats true. But that was the point of T-72B3 modernization - the main a
most important addition is ability to fire “Svinets-1” and this one will crack Abrams armour. Besides, you should consider cost/effectiveness ratio. The price of T-72B3M modernization is ridiculously low. Even T-90M comes with less than a half pricetag than new Leopard2A7.
There is always one guy that has served in an Abrams and thinks its the best tank in the world XD. Maybe you didn't watch the video properly or do any other research ? The most modern variants of T72's are quite advanced and have to be if Russia is to use them alongside T90's and t14 armata's you might think Russia lags behind in terms of technology but they really do not they have kept up and been at the forefront of tank technology for some time they know how to stay relevant and in the last few years have developed technology that will even outperform its western counterparts. Unless you put the current most advanced Abrams that is currently seeing service side by side next to the current most advanced T72 you cannot say one is better than the other. The Abrams might have good optics systems but you cannot say they are the best if you have not seen them directly compared and if you have it is not against the modern equivalents that do not see service outside of Russia or Russias closest allies countries which means the US has not seen these or gotten their hands on one.
*serves against DOWNGRADED T-72Ms (which themselves are downgraded)* claimes to know how good modern T-72s are.
@@matthiuskoenig3378 having seen the upgraded versions getting destroyed hasn't helped their reputation any. They blow up just like the old T72's did 😂
Actually, you could say, that the most modern version of T-72 is T-90MS.
Ask that again after 90+ days of the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Over 1,000 destroyed.
Aight man stop capping. Russians lost all of the tanks , cars, ifv, apc, pc, spg, spr combined are 1000 equipment. Dont eat up propaganda son
@@timurlane4004 We sitting at 1.4k tanks destroyed by the time I'm writing this tho XD
Imagine having a reverse speed
cant the T72B's composite armor be modernized?
If you are talking about internally yes, but they’d have to start producing those tanks with those changes. To modify the tanks they’d have to butcher the hell out of them to do it
@@ICECAPPEDSKY That's going to need a lot of Vodka.
Good overview , forgot about price and ability to rapid mass production .
Indeed. The Soviets made the T-72 with much the same attitude as the T-34. It's "good enough," but also cheap enough that losing some isn't that big deal, and can be built quickly.
I love your intro. Where are u from ?
Weird flex but ok
It will be as effective as any modern tank as long as infantry always support the unit.
But again, maybe add more protection to the front. This might end up getting sold for cheaper to third world coutries.
Gotta remember though the T-72 incorporates sloping into its armor mainly the upper front plate. So for example 530mm worth of armor can provide a greater amount of effective armor along the line of sight. Combined with ERA I think the armor is pretty good for its weight. Keep in mind this is what they have released or perhaps leaked. The Russians have used disinformation in the past with their monkey models.
Also KONO DIO DA!!!
I like how you used a frame from the RT doc "Tanks Born in Russia" with follows two young employees: the XSXJ Vladimir and the ESTP* Kiril ("When you are smart, you are cunning"). One of the continuing storylines is refurbishing an old T-72 tank called something like Vasya. * = A personality type. RedEffect could look up 'SLE' in Socionika. Sensory Logical Extravert. The socionists nickname the type: 'Zhukov' after Marshal Zhukov. Victor Gulenko calls the type 'Marshal'.
I loved watching that entire series!
@@jeremyfoss505 So did I. :) I'm glad now that RT is showing the Zvezda series: Combat Approved. Better than watching in auto translate. Waiting for the Armata doc. The Female Battalion is also good: 27 parts about female officer cadets in the VDV.
@@BenVaserlan I have seen parts of those too. xD