Receive an Amazing New Player Pack, only available for the next 30 days! Play Call of War for FREE on PC or Mobile 💥 callofwar.onelink.me/q5L6/3e7c7402
the costcutting on the T-72 makes a great deal of sense when you realize the full Soviet Army order of battle consisted of 220 tank and motor rifle division, and many of them would be serving as second or third echelon troops in the event of a major conventional war. so you give the best equipment to the full strength Class A divisions that will be the tip of the spear, and fill out the rest of the order of battle with Class B and C divisions that are staffed with more reservists
@@janwitts2688 not quite. A tank division had three tank regiments and one motor rifle regiment, and a motor rifle division had three motor rifle regiments and one tank regiment. Every motor rifle regiment has an organic tank battalion, and every tank regiment has an organic motor rifle battalion (battalions are also 3:1 mixes).
THAT IS ONE THING I LOVE ABOUT RUSSIA AND THE FORMER SOVIET UNION!!!! THEY KNOW REAL WARFARE AND MAKE PRATICAL , REAL USEFUL WEAPONS FOR WAR..NOT THE NATO IF YOU HAVE 10 TRILLION DOLLARS WORTH OF INFRASTRUTURE THAN THEIR WEAPONS MIGHT WORK....URA!!!!!!!!!!!URA!!!!!!!!!!URA!!!!!!!!!!!!!
@MSgt Baca Firstly, how you designated the tank was the American T34 heavy or a Sherman with rocket launchers(Caliope). The T34 heavy was ditched because it was too heavy and the Calliope, well you know how reliable Shermans tended to be. But you were probably referring to the Soviet T-34 and how unreliable the tank is a commen myth. Sure, early T-34s had terrible quality, but by 1943, most of these problems were weeded out, though I’m not saying there were some defects. The T-34 is not the best tank in World War two, in fact there is no best tank. However, the T-34 was not as problematic as the German big cats and the tank fitted well with Soviet doctrine. Would you take one perfect tank over two ok tank? What was your source for 260/400 T-34s breaking down? And was this during Barbarossa or the early stages of WW2?
@MSgt Baca This is pure bs, T34’s were fine tanks. This argument of urs is usually worded something like "the lifespan of a T-34 tank on the battlefield was X hours, so the Soviets saw no reason to produce a tank that lasted X+1 hours". The number varies, but the sentiment is generally the same slight rewording of the "human waves" myth, pushing a narrative of disposable soldiers with disposable weapons sent to die in incredible numbers. However, one would consider it strange that an army whose main breakthrough exploitation tank was so short-lived would not only survive in a war characterized by long and deep armoured thrusts measuring hundreds of kilometers, but excel in it. Even a brief glance at contemporary documents demonstrates that reliability was always an important component of Soviet tank manufacturing. Let us begin at the beginning, before there was even such a thing as a T-34. When it was discovered that the A-32 chassis was capable of carrying additional weight, the first trials were performed were reliability trials. The A-32 with the additional weight was subjected to a 1230 km march in addition to off-road mobility trials specifically to determine how the extra armour that was planned would impact the function of the tank's mechanisms. 1230 km already sounds like a lot for a "disposable" tank, but this was much less than 3000 km covered by the first A-32 in prior trials. The A-20 was also no slouch, having travelled 4200 km. As the T-34 evolved into the tank we know today through 1940, reliability of new components was constantly being tested. The V-2 engine, its warranty period set at 150 hours, was tested in a BT-7M tank over a 2050 km march in May. Meanwhile, the T-34 was breaking in its new Hadfield steel tracks links on a variety of surfaces, including the toughest challenge a tank's tracks can face: cobblestones highways. After the 417 km mark was reached, the track links were examined carefully, wear was measured and found that the track lifespan could be improved. Findings were sent to scientists, and the trials continued, since the tracks were still in usable condition. If the tank was simply expected to drive a short into battle and die, there would be no point in putting in any of this work. When trials of three production T-34 tanks were held at the end of 1940, the engines had finally met their warranty period requirement, but this was no longer enough for the army. A new 250 hour warranty period was now required. Increasing the tank's reliability to new heights was one of the dominant themes of the entire report. Work continued throughout 1940. Towards the end of the year, the Committee of Defense gave their requirements for reliability in the new generation of tanks: 7000 km of driving or 600 engine-hours in between major repairs. Considering that this kind of reliability was not reached until long after the war, the technical know-how of the committee members may have been lacking, but it was quite clear that the government wanted a reliable tank, not a disposable one. Unfortunately, as the tanks were prioritized for the army, it was harder and harder to get one's hands on a tank that could be driven to death so that a post-mortem may reveal why it broke down. A plea from factory #75 director Kochetkov shortly before the outbreak of hostilities is rather illuminating about two things: the factory's desire to increase reliability and the expected lifespan for the V-2 engine (150-200 hours) by the summer of 1941. With the start of the war, the situation naturally worsened. As production was affected by the departure of skilled workers and evacuation of factories, the lifespan of components, specifically the engine, decreased to 100 hours. 100 hours is not that bad of a warranty period, especially considering that's how much Americans were getting out of their R-975 engines in training conditions, but what is made even more clear from the document is that the tanks are clearly lasting longer than their engines. As the war went on, the amount of service expected out of every vehicle was not reduced, but increased. For instance, a new gearbox developed in 1942 was put through 3700 km trials, tires made in 1943 were put through 2000+ km trials. When reliability issues cropped up, such as with experimental tracks, these issues were quickly addressed. By 1945 the requirement for the lifespan of track links, an expendable and rather easily replaceable component of the tank, was increased to 1500 km. Similarly, the warranty period of the engine was increased to 250 hours. Recall that this is the warranty period, not the maximum or even average lifespan. The average lifespan by this point in the war was 250-300 engine hours with individual tanks lasting for even longer. Starshina Kharitonov's tank, for instance, surpassed his warranty period by at least 400 km. Senior Sergeant Russkih's tank fought for over 305 hours. Guards Senior Lieutenant Skvortsov's tank gave out at 308 hours. Guards Starshina Perederiy drove one tank for an impressive 370 hours and then 310 hours with no breakdowns in a different tank. These are just a handful of stories. Being able to drive for thousands of kilometers and hundreds of hours is certainly not the sign of an expendable tank. The government's demand for reliable tanks, the industry's ability to provide them, and the army's ability to put them to good use is evident in contemporary documents. In the west reliability means “never breaks down”... in the East it means “easy to fix”. You can see this in plenty of equipment both sides used. For example... the m16 is rather much more reliable “in a sense that it has fewer malfunctions then a ak47 since it is a closed bolt system.” But dear Jesus are u fucked if ur m16 jams in a fire fight. Meanwhile the Ak47... while less reliable then the m16... is much more simple and easier to fix fast. Look up field strips of both weapons and you will see this.
@MSgt Baca you are an idiot. Your “only 160 were combat losses”... argument doesn’t mean shit. You gave no argument into how the other tanks broke down. Did they break down 5 miles into the battle? Or 500? Ur argument basically is... if a vehicle ever breaks down it sucks. According to u, every other tank from every other nation was just as bad as the t34. Since every tank during ww2 had to break down at some point. I already proved that t34’s were on par with US tanks on the grounds of reliability. All you are doing is obfuscating and providing bad arguments.
It was good enough and the Soviets made many Rubles selling it but Tanks that are comparable equals to it come down to the crews & countries they serve. I'd bet on any Israeli Centurion, Challenger or the faaaar btr Merkavas, all GER made Leopards & especially US made MBT's with said Country's crews vs any of the horrid sandbox Regimes/ Countries who don't foster their military officers/crews to think for themselves. Bottom Line while Tech is Grest it's a Crew and Command structure that truly makes any Tank superior. But after the nxt Gen of AFV's sadly Tanks will be the weapons of a bygone era.
An interesting note: T-72 ural was more expensive than base T-64, however it was more popular with the Russian command as it had more interchangeable parts with the T-54 and T-62
@@acvaticlifE Definitely awful. It killed about 5 million enemy tanks and around 10 million enemy soldiers in all of the proxy wars that any country that used them had combined+ a few “major” wars Pretty bad, innit?
As I watched this video I was struck by how much easier it is to get tech specs on AFVs, as compared to when these things hit service. In the 70s all you had were the May Day parade, and publicity photos. When I got out in 1981, there were still debates about the T-64, T-72, T-80 were different vehicles or variants.
@@tomfrank6766 don't hurry too much.. some T10 were in service in late 80". And also T-62 is important machine. It is still in service :) But sure, T55 is the most produced and still serving in many countries as MBT today. It can still render ANY modern tank inoperable with that 100mm cannon and even if used more and more in SPG role, it is well protected agains infantry fire and smaller cannons. With ERA upgrades, passive nightvision and modern rounds it is a reliable workhorse. Many are being used in Syria for example.
@@ar0568 I noticed P2W players take less damage from those BR changes.and I am sorry to admit that I am one, it I only have a few, pls don’t gang up on me just because I bought something WITH MY OWN MONEY, but I think they’re just asking players to go p2w cos it’s less affected by BR changes.
after 2 years of conflict the T-72 has proved itself with proper upgrades and trained crew it goes toe to toe with the most modern western tanks with a mere fraction of their cost
Short answer: No. Not just because it is my by far favorite MBT. It’s not the worst but I’m also willing to acknowledge it is not the best. But, one thing it is is competitive. Modernizations of it are keeping it competitive and a very deadly threat for its opponents.
@@strgunlinr2464 Ngl top armour targeting munitions are cheating. Plus the design is dated as fuck. Too bad putin didn’t read the “give the tank APS pls” memo
@@strgunlinr2464 the t72 was made at a time before hand guided smart missiles The t72 was good... FOR ITS TIME Like how the US in 1941 used M18 Hellcats The T72 was made for war, they were just not used in the right war (or time)
In itself the T72 was a good tank, well developed for its purpose within its given usage doctrine. This is what most people tend to forget because they take the Gulf war in Iraq and wars of Syria against Israel as examples but this is not correct. Iraq and Syria could never develop the environment for which the T72 was created with air superiority and so on.
Also keep in mind they operated the downgraded export version and in Iraq's case even inferior domestically produced variants with weak armor and munitions
@@clubtcb Indeed. But against an industrialised opponent like the US, the T72 should have been used within its intended doctrine of usage which includes a numerous mechanised infantry, an airforce capable of air superiority and a global battlefield intelligence picture that allows situational awareness and not fighting as fixed pillboxes as the iraqis have done against overwhealming US firepower.
From crew stand point T-72 was (and still is) a very bad machine. First, the mounted 12.7 gun is not motorized, so you need to stick out from tank when using it. And during war 12.7 gun using a lot against infantry. Compare to T-64 where you can sit behind the armor and shoot enemies, T-72 is horrible and garantee your death if you try to use 12.7 gun. Second is targeting system, when you have much greater chance to just miss your target. And "positive" side which was described in this video, that ammunition in T 72 is closer to the floor is actually a bad design, because now tank can blown up riding on mine. Because mine can deform tank's floor and detonate ammunition. That's why T-64 and T-80 keeps ammunition higher.
For its cost, the T-72 was imo the best Reliable, cheap, maintainable, upgradable, easy to mass produce and you can sell it to other nations for a profit unlike most other MBTs And even to this day, the T-72B3 remains in service for the russian army, and for a good reason
because they have no other replacement. it was built for a conscript army. look at dessert storm they got massacred, the auto loader is complete shit and achieving victory by just throwing as many men as you can at the enemy isn't impressive its just sad, especially with the predicted losses. this tank suck compared to every other western MBT.
@@guvyygvuhh298 and having good tanks is better than having shit ones. russias military is seriously falling behind, they only have 19 t14s, if they still want to be considered a super power they need to step it up.
@@declanmccaffrey515 in desert storm they had poor crew Outdated variant and outdated ammo They didn’t even get the best ammo and tank variant at the time so off course there gonna lose
I think Red Effect misunderstands what T-64 FCS for those that dont know automatic lead is more or less the Ballistic computer lighting up an area on the gunners reticle where to leadthe target to guarantee a hit where automatic tracking/lead does the same thing however it adjusts the reticle as well as automatically rotates the turret to track the target. Automatic tracking wasn't a feature until T-80U so for the most part T-72 stayed up to par all the way through its service life when figure T-90 is an evolution of T-72 and are built on T-72 hulls. Also a Soviet report from the 80's concluded that despite T-80U being dramatically better than T-72B the accuracy mobility was only 10% better this test sort of was the nail in the coffin for the T-64/T-80 series which us why T-80U was the last major upgrade to the tank since the Russians figured it was more beneficial to upgrade T-72 tank than T-80
and also depends on wich version of t72 it's, t72b in urss was vastly superior to t72 used by iraq, during 1st gulf war iraq used 125mm steel penetrator apdsfs because urss sold them steel instead of tungsten ones or later uranium deleveloped in the 90's in russia
I think the numbers thing is going to depend on context. In low intensity operations it makes sense to have a small number of the best, but for total war a good-enough tank could make the difference between having or not having tanks at various points on the line.
the side skirts face forward on certain t64 and t80 models because at a certain angle, they would be able to protect the entire side of the tank the thinking behind this was that tanks would fight along massive fronts rushing together, so there would be little opportunity for enemies to have side shots on tanks. by having the plates facing forward, angled slightly back at around 20 degrees, a HEAT-FS round would be detonated on impact, diffusing most of the explosive jet because of the half a meter or so of air it would have to pass through. of course a downside to these plates would be that someone can aim a bullet through the side skirts should they have a 90 degree side shot.
Since you mentioned Syria, how about a video about how well t-72 tanks are doing today? How powerful and capable they are? With all their variants that the Syrian army posses, and so on.
It was mostly used by Soviet allied states, it was not great, because it was a stripped down exported version of the T72, however, underestimating the tank may prove deadly, because it certainly wasn't bad, It was very good, cheap and sometimes even reliable.
Thats an excuse. The exported T72's were getting decimated by M60 Patton's in desert storm, a tank originally designed to take on the T62's. Its just a shitty tank.
T-72 was not just for Soviet service, the Non Soviet Warsaw Pact had (rightly) skipped the T-62 and were in a dire need for a replacement for the T-55. The T-72, a cheap tank that improved on every aspect of the T-55 with huge upgrade potential was exactly what the doctor ordered.
rightly is debatable. there is a reason the T-62 did well on the african and arab market. they were fighting actual wars, rather than a cold stand off with a powerful buddy (the USSR) on their side.
Ok for 1973 for sure. Numbers matter just remember shermans against tigers. They overwhelmed them. However the soviet union was a monstrously evil entity on many levels.
Frst sentence contains error. Soviet union operated not only T-64, T-72 and T-80, but also previous T-62 and T-55. Even today some units still do use modernised T-62 tanks in east regions.
No I think the main reason why the T-72’s reputation is brought down is due to the export models vehicles poor showing in both Gulf Wars both to due to the intentionally watering down of the T-72A into the T-72M and M1 and the incompetent commanders and sheep for crew members against an entire Coalition with some of the best armor, airpower and heavy caliber naval artillery on call. But regardless in the end the T-72 style won out over the other models with it being the basis for the later T-90 and it receiving a lot of upgrades over the past few decades. They still need to be retrofitted with Relikt tho.
Quite true statement. Hard to make good estimate of enemy equipment when you have overwhelming superiority in numbers and technology. Not just in one part, but in all parts of your force. You forgot to mention very open desert terrain which heavily favored already superior party as well.
My father served on the t72 and went on to the t80 and says that the t80 was unreliable and the tech wasn't fully developed. Meanwhile the t72 is still upgraded to insane levels nowadays.
you forgot to mention the T-72 didn't have a hydraulically rotated turret, it was hand cranked...so to move the gun they had to manually move the turret using a hand cranked gear. the turret moved very slowly as a result, they paid for that design flaw dearly in Desert Storm.
That was because those have been imported tanks, not to mention that only Russia and the US seem to either throw away dead stock, or give completely inferior versions of the tanks they fielded.
I was a highly trained gunner in the 1970s and all this fire control system stuff you talk about is not needed when you're a highly trained Gunner. Firing on the move or stationary use of a rangefinder just slowed down you're firing ability with a good Gunner I could fire around every two and a half seconds on the move.
While I'm not doubting your masterful gunnery skills, I do hope you forgive me for relying on the M1's cadillac to quickly and accurately fire on targets over range. I also hope you forgive me for not believing you're a gunner in the first place. Knowing that there's no MBT that has achieved a 2.5 second reload while firing on the move or having an autoloader. And I'm sure you would know that if you're able to fire once every 2.5 seconds, or a whopping 24 times a minute, that would be the excellent work of a very capable loader. Assuming if course you both don't pass out from the amount of fumes you let out from that monstrously fast fire rate.
@@xXDeltaTwoZeroXx please I'm not being critical with you but we were trained for one shot kills and usually fired only twice I had a black skinny loader who was the company reject but I took him on because he could load the main gun so fast. I nicknamed him the rubber band Man
@@zap5936 I am aware of battle sites and I asked for no proof so please feel no obligation to prove anything to me. I have to say however; thank you for sharing the story about your loader. The nickname gave me a very good laugh.
i really like the T-62 for the looks and it's nostalgia (maybe) in uncharted 2. I had a really hard time letting it go in tank games and saying: "come on it's from 1961" so i fell back on the t80 which is aww yeah.
The early T-72 and T-80, like the T-64A, had optical rangefinders. The T-64A, T-72, and T-80 sighting systems were largely similar. But in 1976, the T-64B appeared with a laser rangefinder and a wind sensor. A similar sighting system could be used on the T-72A, but the industry could not provide many such devices. As a result, the sighting system 1A33, was placed only on the T-64B and T-80B. T-72A had a laser rangefinder, but did not have a wind sensor. Moreover, in parallel with the T-64B, an updated version of the T-64A was produced with a sighting system, as on the T-72A. Subsequently, the upgraded T-72BA tanks received an automated sighting system 1A40-1M with a wind sensor and semi-automatic target tracking. A T-72B3 - multi-channel sight with optical and thermal imaging channels and automatic target tracking. A similar sight is now being put on the T-90M.
M-84 really removed that fire countrol downside of T-72.Not to mention that its armor was on pare with T-72B so no wonder Kuvait bought it.......we would sold many more if Yugoslavia not colapsed because USSR didnt want to sell T-64/T-80 then.
The fall of Yugoslavia is the most tragic historical development. From a proud nation forged from the sacrifice of thousands of partisans, into the most advanced and cosmopolitan country in Europe. All dissolving into endless war with not even the soldiers fully understanding which side they were fighting or fighting for.
The video mentioned the Lebanon War and changes made due to results there and exploitation of capture Israeli equipment, but no mention made of how the T-72 fared against American armored vehicles (Abrams and Bradleys) during 1991 Gulf War, especially the battle of 73 Easting. To some degree, those results can be attributed to inherent weaknesses or lack of capabilities for T-72.
Why don't every t72, t80, and t90 are being upgraded to the max so like spend all their money they have to upgrade it to as maximum as they can but not only that every I mean every t72, t80, t90 are being upgraded too so not only like a few but every tank and the upgrade are equivalent to 3 of the tanks it'll be a great thing if only Russia could do this :(
When I spoke to people in eastern europe they didn’t eeally like the tanks for warfare but to use them to fix and tow tractors. It puts into perspective that people would rather eat and work than fight
Russians did that with T90A in Ukraine. Burned them from the inside and also scrapped Shtora APS so Ukrainians don't get it. All that because they ran out of fuel.
Wasn't there a Cold War study done by the Warsaw Pact that estimated that combat ranges in the Polish Theatre would be on average 1,800m and that dropped down to a maximum of 800m in the Fulda Gap region? If I'm remembering correctly then a lot of these fine distinctions would be kind of meaningless as the actual combat would be the armour equivalent of knife fighting.
Yes, if the enemy is able to achieve a 6-1 kill ratio due to being more accurate. (Such ratios are not impossible. The Germans achieved this in WWII and more relevantly the Israelis achieved this during the Yom Kippur War.)
@@saint_alucardwarthunder759 Maybe not in War Thunder! Which is a lot of fun but nothing like armoured warfare in real life. As well, I imagine you are well versed with the individual stats of every tank from the 1930's to the 90's, or whatever period WT covers. So perhaps you are not seeing the forest for the trees? A critique of an analogy is meaningless because of course no two different units are exactly the same. But conceptually I think my point stands: as has been shown throughout history, including recent history, it is possible to achieve a high enough kill ratio (typically fighting on the defensive) that a favourable correlation of forces (as the Soviets would call it) is negated. It has been done, and this success therefore could be replicated with effort, and this was the theory behind NATO's defensive doctrine.
@@helbent4 it's not about War Thunder (btw in War Thunder Soviet tops are trash), it's about the fact that NATO tanks at the end of 70s were basically M60s, AMX30s and Chieftains which are all far inferior (except Chieftain that was competible) to T-72, T-64 and T-80. High kill ratio doesn't really matter because nobody counts tanks during an advance.
The biggest drawback is the lack of a serial thermal imager, there were different prototypes that did not go into production. There was also a T064 with a 1000 diesel prototype. Tell us about the Object 187, 5 and 6 option were better than the modern T-90A/S
@@tonk5242 the Leo dies as Quick yet a t 72 costs onely a forth or if not less meaning buck for Bang you can not top the t 72 who is just sligthly worse then Western mbts( depending Variant ofcorse)
Au contraire. It was _deliberately_ kept simpler and cheaper in the union as the "infantry support tank" so they could pump out more of them. Technically though they could always install latest FCS and ERA at will as the chassis has more space and weight reserve for upgrades than both 64 and 80, which is exactly what T-90 is.
Absolutely not. the only t72s we've actually seen in combat are export variants that have been stripped of many features. It would be unfair to ascribe the combat record of export t72 to the actual full up production versions the Soviet/Russian army used. The t72 and production in the '80s was probably equal or nearly equal to in most respects the M60A3. In particular the 125 mm gun would have been a serious challenge to contemporary tanks.
In fact, this should not be the case. The life of the undercarriage will drop dramatically. Just the chassis of the T-72 shows the real wonders of unification, not provided by the developers. This version of the T-72 was offered by Ukraine to one of the African countries, where the local military wanted such an option.
Without a true test, where there was the high intensity war it was designed for, it is pretty much impossible to determine if the tradeoffs worked. Since there was not such war, probably the tradeoff was worth it since I doubt that in most conflicts it was involved in it would not have been pretty much as good a tank for the mission as a T-64 or T-80, and those tanks would have to have a great advantage to make them a better choice.
I think the soviet choice of equipping the guards divisions with T-80s to form a spear head while having a massive amount of T-72s to make up the bulk of your tank forces was likely a good strategy. Though the T-80s would likely suffer horrific attrition due to the nature of the soviet doctrine, so I think very quickly T-72s would become nearly the sole soviet MBT due to its relative ease of production.
I think Irakis made the T72 look bad. And probably some design decisions that allowed it to be cheaply mass produced. But like any other hardware, in competent hands, it could be good
T-72 is adaptable, reliable and upgradable. Russia has alot of territory to protect. It needs large numbers of tanks todo this. Upgrading T-72 is a great solution to fill the gaps between T-90 and upcoming Armata. I think it’s a great tank.
There are a lot of captured T-80s relative to their total number due to the turbocharged engine, there is terrible fuel consumption, the Russians call it a "flying tank" in propaganda, but somehow it does not fly and eats fuel like an airplane. In general, the T-80 is the best tank of the previous generation in theory, but in practice it is non-reactive nonsense with a voracious and unreliable engine. And here we are in the real world. It’s also funny that Russian propaganda and the K-52 helicopter calls the “flying tank” also LOL, but for some reason it doesn’t tanking. T-72 has always been called the tower thrower " башнемет" T-90 is an attempt to fix the problems of the T-72 turned out worse than the latest modifications of the T-80 and no better than the T-72 is just more expensive, it seems to me that the T-90 is just a money laundering project. Like Orlan drones using water bottles. The T-64 is also an outdated machine, but the likelihood that it will blow you up by itself is even less. Do not be surprised if later we find out that the Russian soldiers who disguised themselves as local residents for these 8 years and used T-64s from Russian warehouses against Ukrainian T-64s are more successful. Although I hope that they are also not successful. It is also interesting where the T-84 seems to have somewhat participated in the defense of Mariupol, but the Russians did not announce the capture. So they were destroyed, or it was just rumors, or maybe they were buried somewhere under the rubble after the ammunition had been fired.
The video turned out well. But I would like to make a few comments. Immediately I apologize if I missed any details in the video, my English is not perfect. So, they never mentioned that the T-80 was not only the most expensive, but also the most voracious in terms of fuel. The main difference between 6TD and V-46 and V-84 is not in power, but in reliability. Plus, the "B" series motors trace their history back to the V-2 T-34 engine - that is, they have already been worked out in production, unlike the new 6TD. There was also a significant difference in the chassis of all vehicles. The tracks of the T-64 often flew off, and the wheels often got stuck and deformed on strong off-road conditions. However, it is believed that, according to the test results of 1976-1983, the T-64 chassis was more reliable. It also weighs less, costs less and is easier to repair. The effectiveness of the T-64 and T-80 tracks was also higher than the T-72 tracks.
They were not bad, had a lot of experience from the Iran Iraq wars just never came up against an enemy that took its armour n combined arms across the desert instead of the msr and faught highly effectively with this by night 🌙
Lion of Babylon tank or Asad Babil (Arabic: اسد بابل) was an Iraqi-built version of the Soviet T-72, with up to 200 T-72m equivalent being assembled in a factory established in the 1980s near Taji, north of Baghdad. Only Republican Guard divisions were equipped with Iraqi-modified T-72s. It was The Chinese Built T62 was the most comman Iraqi mbt the poor marksmanship of the Iraqi gunners in 2003 was assessed to be in part due to the shortage of modern night-vision and range-finder assets. As we attacked at night from the desert and not down the motorway
Sadly the era of Tanks is ending and I hate admitting that but after the next Gen Western MBT's and whatever other Countries try to produce that's it. My cousin took out 3 RUS made T-72 & 1 T-.0 exports with 4 Hellfire Missiles from a ...... Drone in just under a hr from Nevada. Drones are the Future as much as I don't want to admit it.
@@MFitz12 Armenians had tens of years to actually prepare for the invasion and they did so. Tanks has little they can do when enemy has air superiority.
The T-72 had sheer numbers but a single M1A1 being able to shoot on the move could handle engaging several T-72's at the same time and prevail due to the inaccuracy of the T-72. Western main battle tanks using depleted uranium shells would have the advantage with steel on target, however at closer ranges under 3000 meters and with superior numbers using volley fire would even things out. It would just be a matter of willing to take losses and then suicidally stand still to fire.
A "positive" side which was described in this video, that ammunition in T-72 is closer to the floor is actually not so positive, because now tank can blown up riding under mine. Because mine can deform tank's floor and detonate ammunition. That's why T-64 and T-80 keeps ammunition higher.
the title structure simply resonates do you not see the difference between: ''T72 capabilities and compraison'' or ''T72 technical evaluation'' or simething simmilar and t72 worst tank? might as well write: ''Milfs in your area don't like riding t72s''
@@filipbrecelj669The title is short and made to catch the viewers attention. If it was click bait, the title would be completely irrelevant to the topic of the video. When in fact it's the opposite regarding this very video.
i think the main sin of soviet tanks was the lack of cctv at the time, the abiliti to spot the enemy 1st is even more important than to hit at the first shot, especially if the soviet doctirine relied on numerical superiority, if u cen spot the target then a few of your tanks can shoot at it, some will eventually hit, even if you take losses on your end.
@@TADAMAT-CZ yes but its still an M1 the base armor is still the same with new polish ERA on the turret front only, and Thermal for the commander and gunner, a better upgrade is the T 72B1MS of serbia
@@wonkagaming8750 isnt b1ms only upgraded T-72M? Also M4CZ has much better fire control system, better engine, better transmission (Its only T-72 that can go 15km in reverse), better ammo, better sights, also DYNA-72 Is 3rd gen ERA and kontakt-1 Is only 1rd gen (DYNA affects APFSDS, kontakt-1 not). The DYNA-72 blocks aren't only on the turret, but also on the front of the hull. In terms of reverse speed, fire control system and sights Its even better than T-72B3. Only disadvantage over B1MS Is that it does not have remotely controlled NSV machinegun.
Could you make a video about Burlak turret for T-72/80/90? This thing basically solves known problem of APFSDS penetrator length by adding additional bustle autoloader, the carousel stays. About the armor - base is welded turret design similar to T-90 and featured experimental ERA. Sadly scrapped
I think T72s were meant to be driven by recruits and basically be moving distraction while the better trained professional tank crews of T80s did the heavy lifting. So it was basically a cost / effect function for the Soviet strategists.
T72 was supposed to be tier 2 or even tier3 tank. More to be fighting infantry or holding ground while the T64 and T 80 did the heavy fighting against NATO tanks.
THE 72 WASNT BAD WHEN IT CAME OUT. THE INCIDENT IN LEBANON PROVED IT WHEN THE 72s FOUGHT A SHORT BATTLE AGAINST ISRAELI MERKAVA. IN THAT BATTLE THE T72 KNOCKED OUT THE MERKAVA TANKS. THE SAME CAN BE SAID ABOUT SWEDEISH S TANKS. THE T72S AMMO WENT STRAIT TROUGH THE SWEDISH TANKS.
@@ivansyzchkyez7148 the t72 ural did not even have a laser rangefinder, meteorologic sensors and automatic lead most of those were not added till the t72b3 mod 2014
Meanwhile War Thunder Players : We would like to have a bad with you Meanwhile Alpha Defense: Nooooooo.............. After Arjun, T72 is the best Tank in the world Beacuse it served in the Indian Army, you don't know anything you noob.
It’s far from the worst tank in service. I’m very much an “muh abrums” and leopard fan, but the T-72 was a competent tank all around and I believe that a well practiced gunner could make up for the FCS to a point. Plus, I can purchase a T72
Yeah that’s literally the point of the T-72, it’s literally a cheap and reliable tank that are meant for conscripts and inexperienced volunteers, the T-90 and T-80 on the other hand is more for elite units and experienced soldiers
False, the T-72 was in premier armored divisions meant to fight other tanks while the T-55s were in infantry divisions. The T-72 only went into infantry support roles after the T-90s were introduced.
One correcrion When you said about Nizhny Tagil factory, you showed old half factory half museum, not an actual factory where tanks produced, and yes, we have at least 3 factory in this town, One of them having sise comparable to the rest of the city
100% worth it, I think the cheiftain has pointed this out but having any type of tank is better than no tank what so ever. The T-72 could kill comparable western MBT's of the time and would have assured the reservist's available fire support
Receive an Amazing New Player Pack, only available for the next 30 days! Play Call of War for FREE on PC or Mobile 💥 callofwar.onelink.me/q5L6/3e7c7402
Can you review about t72 Poland (PT-⁹91 Twardy tank)
T26 was probably was the worst or the t28
The T-72 Is good tank for me
You could maybe review polish tank force and tell everyone how bad it is. :(
GREAT VIDEO ALMOST DOCUMENTARY STANDARDS
😉👍
the costcutting on the T-72 makes a great deal of sense when you realize the full Soviet Army order of battle consisted of 220 tank and motor rifle division, and many of them would be serving as second or third echelon troops in the event of a major conventional war. so you give the best equipment to the full strength Class A divisions that will be the tip of the spear, and fill out the rest of the order of battle with Class B and C divisions that are staffed with more reservists
Wasn't the difference that a tank division had 2 regiments of tanks and 1 of infantry and a rifle div had 2 of infantry and one of tanks
...
@@janwitts2688 not quite. A tank division had three tank regiments and one motor rifle regiment, and a motor rifle division had three motor rifle regiments and one tank regiment.
Every motor rifle regiment has an organic tank battalion, and every tank regiment has an organic motor rifle battalion (battalions are also 3:1 mixes).
THAT IS ONE THING I LOVE ABOUT RUSSIA AND THE FORMER SOVIET UNION!!!! THEY KNOW REAL WARFARE AND MAKE PRATICAL , REAL USEFUL WEAPONS FOR WAR..NOT THE NATO IF YOU HAVE 10 TRILLION DOLLARS WORTH OF INFRASTRUTURE THAN THEIR WEAPONS MIGHT WORK....URA!!!!!!!!!!!URA!!!!!!!!!!URA!!!!!!!!!!!!!
@@marcodelguerra hahaahhaahahaha, practical? Yea, sending thousands of own soldiers to die under own artillery fire, very stalin-practical :D
@@gennarosavastano9424 YOU ARE DEFENITALY ITALIAN.........................
Red effect: you make own tank
Me: WTF
2:29 tank gunner called redeffect as an asshole
Viva la Federația 😂😂😂
@@nicolaeerik-liviu3640 Someone still remembers that game? Its funny that it ends with cliffhanger, but there was no continuation :D
@@romanbuinyi yea😁
@Arnaldo Gonzalez i agree
@@opfoca1oparrowmarinerecon154 What game are they talking about?Is it cod ghosts?
T-72 was like the T-34 of Cold war: cheap, reliable, easy to master, and would get the job done by sheer numbers. T-80U was badass but too expensive.
But only in 80's reveals tanks that could outstand T-64 and T-72 but in 1985 there was very badass T-72B. There was best tanks of 1960's-1970's.
@MSgt Baca Firstly, how you designated the tank was the American T34 heavy or a Sherman with rocket launchers(Caliope). The T34 heavy was ditched because it was too heavy and the Calliope, well you know how reliable Shermans tended to be. But you were probably referring to the Soviet T-34 and how unreliable the tank is a commen myth. Sure, early T-34s had terrible quality, but by 1943, most of these problems were weeded out, though I’m not saying there were some defects. The T-34 is not the best tank in World War two, in fact there is no best tank. However, the T-34 was not as problematic as the German big cats and the tank fitted well with Soviet doctrine. Would you take one perfect tank over two ok tank?
What was your source for 260/400 T-34s breaking down? And was this during Barbarossa or the early stages of WW2?
@MSgt Baca This is pure bs, T34’s were fine tanks. This argument of urs is usually worded something like "the lifespan of a T-34 tank on the battlefield was X hours, so the Soviets saw no reason to produce a tank that lasted X+1 hours". The number varies, but the sentiment is generally the same slight rewording of the "human waves" myth, pushing a narrative of disposable soldiers with disposable weapons sent to die in incredible numbers. However, one would consider it strange that an army whose main breakthrough exploitation tank was so short-lived would not only survive in a war characterized by long and deep armoured thrusts measuring hundreds of kilometers, but excel in it. Even a brief glance at contemporary documents demonstrates that reliability was always an important component of Soviet tank manufacturing.
Let us begin at the beginning, before there was even such a thing as a T-34. When it was discovered that the A-32 chassis was capable of carrying additional weight, the first trials were performed were reliability trials. The A-32 with the additional weight was subjected to a 1230 km march in addition to off-road mobility trials specifically to determine how the extra armour that was planned would impact the function of the tank's mechanisms. 1230 km already sounds like a lot for a "disposable" tank, but this was much less than 3000 km covered by the first A-32 in prior trials. The A-20 was also no slouch, having travelled 4200 km.
As the T-34 evolved into the tank we know today through 1940, reliability of new components was constantly being tested. The V-2 engine, its warranty period set at 150 hours, was tested in a BT-7M tank over a 2050 km march in May. Meanwhile, the T-34 was breaking in its new Hadfield steel tracks links on a variety of surfaces, including the toughest challenge a tank's tracks can face: cobblestones highways. After the 417 km mark was reached, the track links were examined carefully, wear was measured and found that the track lifespan could be improved. Findings were sent to scientists, and the trials continued, since the tracks were still in usable condition. If the tank was simply expected to drive a short into battle and die, there would be no point in putting in any of this work.
When trials of three production T-34 tanks were held at the end of 1940, the engines had finally met their warranty period requirement, but this was no longer enough for the army. A new 250 hour warranty period was now required. Increasing the tank's reliability to new heights was one of the dominant themes of the entire report.
Work continued throughout 1940. Towards the end of the year, the Committee of Defense gave their requirements for reliability in the new generation of tanks: 7000 km of driving or 600 engine-hours in between major repairs. Considering that this kind of reliability was not reached until long after the war, the technical know-how of the committee members may have been lacking, but it was quite clear that the government wanted a reliable tank, not a disposable one.
Unfortunately, as the tanks were prioritized for the army, it was harder and harder to get one's hands on a tank that could be driven to death so that a post-mortem may reveal why it broke down. A plea from factory #75 director Kochetkov shortly before the outbreak of hostilities is rather illuminating about two things: the factory's desire to increase reliability and the expected lifespan for the V-2 engine (150-200 hours) by the summer of 1941.
With the start of the war, the situation naturally worsened. As production was affected by the departure of skilled workers and evacuation of factories, the lifespan of components, specifically the engine, decreased to 100 hours. 100 hours is not that bad of a warranty period, especially considering that's how much Americans were getting out of their R-975 engines in training conditions, but what is made even more clear from the document is that the tanks are clearly lasting longer than their engines.
As the war went on, the amount of service expected out of every vehicle was not reduced, but increased. For instance, a new gearbox developed in 1942 was put through 3700 km trials, tires made in 1943 were put through 2000+ km trials. When reliability issues cropped up, such as with experimental tracks, these issues were quickly addressed. By 1945 the requirement for the lifespan of track links, an expendable and rather easily replaceable component of the tank, was increased to 1500 km. Similarly, the warranty period of the engine was increased to 250 hours. Recall that this is the warranty period, not the maximum or even average lifespan. The average lifespan by this point in the war was 250-300 engine hours with individual tanks lasting for even longer. Starshina Kharitonov's tank, for instance, surpassed his warranty period by at least 400 km. Senior Sergeant Russkih's tank fought for over 305 hours. Guards Senior Lieutenant Skvortsov's tank gave out at 308 hours. Guards Starshina Perederiy drove one tank for an impressive 370 hours and then 310 hours with no breakdowns in a different tank. These are just a handful of stories.
Being able to drive for thousands of kilometers and hundreds of hours is certainly not the sign of an expendable tank. The government's demand for reliable tanks, the industry's ability to provide them, and the army's ability to put them to good use is evident in contemporary documents.
In the west reliability means “never breaks down”... in the East it means “easy to fix”.
You can see this in plenty of equipment both sides used.
For example... the m16 is rather much more reliable “in a sense that it has fewer malfunctions then a ak47 since it is a closed bolt system.”
But dear Jesus are u fucked if ur m16 jams in a fire fight.
Meanwhile the Ak47... while less reliable then the m16... is much more simple and easier to fix fast.
Look up field strips of both weapons and you will see this.
@MSgt Baca you are an idiot. Your “only 160 were combat losses”... argument doesn’t mean shit. You gave no argument into how the other tanks broke down. Did they break down 5 miles into the battle? Or 500?
Ur argument basically is... if a vehicle ever breaks down it sucks.
According to u, every other tank from every other nation was just as bad as the t34. Since every tank during ww2 had to break down at some point.
I already proved that t34’s were on par with US tanks on the grounds of reliability.
All you are doing is obfuscating and providing bad arguments.
@@acceleration4443 thanks for the read, it was very informative
I saw the title and bimm, I'm here. Long live the T-72 gang!
nah t 34 gang
@@mariasvensson4140 does the t-34 auto eject shells? i think not!
@@chromemustang no but it has stalinium
I am M-84 gang but that is yugoslav linces T-72 so i am T-72 gang
@@petar6295 Me too! Tako je druze 😉
The T-72 gang shall never falter!
Also, oooh a new sponsor
It was good enough and the Soviets made many Rubles selling it but Tanks that are comparable equals to it come down to the crews & countries they serve.
I'd bet on any Israeli Centurion, Challenger or the faaaar btr Merkavas, all GER made Leopards & especially US made MBT's with said Country's crews vs any of the horrid sandbox Regimes/ Countries who don't foster their military officers/crews to think for themselves. Bottom Line while Tech is Grest it's a Crew and Command structure that truly makes any Tank superior. But after the nxt Gen of AFV's sadly Tanks will be the weapons of a bygone era.
NLAW goes woosh.
* javelin has entered the chat *
@@MiguelMartinez-jw4mw javelin in 1990 ??
@@kuunoooo7293 He is referring to 2022/23 Russo-Ukrainian Conflict
T-72 with T-54 roadwheels is cursed
*as long as it works comrade*
It does make a logistical sense
*Blursed
Don't fix what works
An interesting note:
T-72 ural was more expensive than base T-64, however it was more popular with the Russian command as it had more interchangeable parts with the T-54 and T-62
It was so bad they made at least 25 thousand tanks and used it for 50 years.
Yeah bro, literally useless.
Yeah of course, very bad man.
Still make it, a lot of countries still use it and it's still being upgraded...but yeah, it's awful :D
@@acvaticlifE Definitely awful. It killed about 5 million enemy tanks and around 10 million enemy soldiers in all of the proxy wars that any country that used them had combined+ a few “major” wars Pretty bad, innit?
Times have changed 😊
As I watched this video I was struck by how much easier it is to get tech specs on AFVs, as compared to when these things hit service. In the 70s all you had were the May Day parade, and publicity photos. When I got out in 1981, there were still debates about the T-64, T-72, T-80 were different vehicles or variants.
0:05 T-54/55: am I a joke to you?
T62, IS3, T34, and PT76: am i joke to you as well?
He said "3 major MBT"
@@aletron4750 not IS3, but T-10 was in service probably till the end of soviet union...
@@xmeda T-10 was put out of active service in the 70s. T-54/55 is in my opinion one of the most important Tanks of the USSR
@@tomfrank6766 don't hurry too much.. some T10 were in service in late 80". And also T-62 is important machine. It is still in service :)
But sure, T55 is the most produced and still serving in many countries as MBT today. It can still render ANY modern tank inoperable with that 100mm cannon and even if used more and more in SPG role, it is well protected agains infantry fire and smaller cannons. With ERA upgrades, passive nightvision and modern rounds it is a reliable workhorse. Many are being used in Syria for example.
A blessing from the Lord!
I see that you got a new sponsor now. Feels weird without the usual WT ad.
After their recent br changes? Good riddance
@@ar0568 I noticed P2W players take less damage from those BR changes.and I am sorry to admit that I am one, it I only have a few, pls don’t gang up on me just because I bought something WITH MY OWN MONEY, but I think they’re just asking players to go p2w cos it’s less affected by BR changes.
after 2 years of conflict the T-72 has proved itself with proper upgrades and trained crew it goes toe to toe with the most modern western tanks with a mere fraction of their cost
Short answer:
No. Not just because it is my by far favorite MBT. It’s not the worst but I’m also willing to acknowledge it is not the best. But, one thing it is is competitive. Modernizations of it are keeping it competitive and a very deadly threat for its opponents.
Ukraine said nlaw
@@strgunlinr2464 Ngl top armour targeting munitions are cheating. Plus the design is dated as fuck.
Too bad putin didn’t read the “give the tank APS pls” memo
@@strgunlinr2464 the t72 was made at a time before hand guided smart missiles
The t72 was good... FOR ITS TIME
Like how the US in 1941 used M18 Hellcats
The T72 was made for war, they were just not used in the right war (or time)
In itself the T72 was a good tank, well developed for its purpose within its given usage doctrine. This is what most people tend to forget because they take the Gulf war in Iraq and wars of Syria against Israel as examples but this is not correct.
Iraq and Syria could never develop the environment for which the T72 was created with air superiority and so on.
Also keep in mind they operated the downgraded export version and in Iraq's case even inferior domestically produced variants with weak armor and munitions
@@clubtcb Indeed. But against an industrialised opponent like the US, the T72 should have been used within its intended doctrine of usage which includes a numerous mechanised infantry, an airforce capable of air superiority and a global battlefield intelligence picture that allows situational awareness and not fighting as fixed pillboxes as the iraqis have done against overwhealming US firepower.
From crew stand point T-72 was (and still is) a very bad machine. First, the mounted 12.7 gun is not motorized, so you need to stick out from tank when using it. And during war 12.7 gun using a lot against infantry. Compare to T-64 where you can sit behind the armor and shoot enemies, T-72 is horrible and garantee your death if you try to use 12.7 gun. Second is targeting system, when you have much greater chance to just miss your target. And "positive" side which was described in this video, that ammunition in T 72 is closer to the floor is actually a bad design, because now tank can blown up riding on mine. Because mine can deform tank's floor and detonate ammunition. That's why T-64 and T-80 keeps ammunition higher.
They seem to be doing a bad job in Ukraine.
@@chan13153 They were never meant to fight urban conflict against manpads but they were intended to fight Nato tanks en masse in the 1980s.
For its cost, the T-72 was imo the best
Reliable, cheap, maintainable, upgradable, easy to mass produce and you can sell it to other nations for a profit unlike most other MBTs
And even to this day, the T-72B3 remains in service for the russian army, and for a good reason
because they have no other replacement. it was built for a conscript army. look at dessert storm they got massacred, the auto loader is complete shit and achieving victory by just throwing as many men as you can at the enemy isn't impressive its just sad, especially with the predicted losses. this tank suck compared to every other western MBT.
@@declanmccaffrey515 having a tank is always better than no tank
@@guvyygvuhh298 and having good tanks is better than having shit ones. russias military is seriously falling behind, they only have 19 t14s, if they still want to be considered a super power they need to step it up.
@@declanmccaffrey515 age like wine
@@declanmccaffrey515 in desert storm they had poor crew
Outdated variant and outdated ammo
They didn’t even get the best ammo and tank variant at the time so off course there gonna lose
The T-72 was/is a GREAT tank.The Merkava never destroyed any T-72s in 1982.
I think Red Effect misunderstands what T-64 FCS for those that dont know automatic lead is more or less the Ballistic computer lighting up an area on the gunners reticle where to leadthe target to guarantee a hit where automatic tracking/lead does the same thing however it adjusts the reticle as well as automatically rotates the turret to track the target. Automatic tracking wasn't a feature until T-80U so for the most part T-72 stayed up to par all the way through its service life when figure T-90 is an evolution of T-72 and are built on T-72 hulls.
Also a Soviet report from the 80's concluded that despite T-80U being dramatically better than T-72B the accuracy mobility was only 10% better this test sort of was the nail in the coffin for the T-64/T-80 series which us why T-80U was the last major upgrade to the tank since the Russians figured it was more beneficial to upgrade T-72 tank than T-80
Still one of the best looking tanks ever made
Depends on what nation uses them and how effectively they utilized the T72's would be my guest. Just like any MBT out there.
and also depends on wich version of t72 it's, t72b in urss was vastly superior to t72 used by iraq, during 1st gulf war iraq used 125mm steel penetrator apdsfs because urss sold them steel instead of tungsten ones or later uranium deleveloped in the 90's in russia
Having a superior FCS is by far the highest priority requirement on a modern-day battlefield.
debatable
After having good reliability and easy to maintain logistics and a gun that can penetrate the enemy in distances that you expect the fcs to be used.
@@alperakyuz9702true superior FCS are useless if the gun can't penetrate the target
Nah best optics (thermals) and stabilization far more important got to see the target first
İts a yingyang type shit you cant have one without the other because it will be useless without each other
boys we know what to get now, quick lets find a t64 graveyard
Mi ne možemo ni da nadjemo naše t55, a kamoli t64
i know exactly what tank to get..... any tank that isn't Russian built.
@@KOS762 so arjun?
@@alperakyuz9702 lol.. sure why not? Argentina had a few tanks.
@@KOS762 any real arguments ? Other than russophobia ??? Hmmm ? But your media make russophobia, hatred something normal. Like the nazis.
T-72; The Ryan Air of Tanks, would have been an accurate tile
I think the numbers thing is going to depend on context. In low intensity operations it makes sense to have a small number of the best, but for total war a good-enough tank could make the difference between having or not having tanks at various points on the line.
2:38 why is the armor on the tracks facing forward? I see this on the T-64b on war thunder too
To make projectiles such as HEAT and *BESH* pre detonate so they dont penetrate as much when the charge reaches the tank.
They're spring loaded panels designed to protect against HEAT when the tank is angled. Basically spaced armour
if not mistaken to stop projectile like rpg fired from the infront of the tank decreasing its penetration.
@@exseque21 🅱️esh
the side skirts face forward on certain t64 and t80 models because at a certain angle, they would be able to protect the entire side of the tank
the thinking behind this was that tanks would fight along massive fronts rushing together, so there would be little opportunity for enemies to have side shots on tanks. by having the plates facing forward, angled slightly back at around 20 degrees, a HEAT-FS round would be detonated on impact, diffusing most of the explosive jet because of the half a meter or so of air it would have to pass through.
of course a downside to these plates would be that someone can aim a bullet through the side skirts should they have a 90 degree side shot.
Since you mentioned Syria, how about a video about how well t-72 tanks are doing today? How powerful and capable they are? With all their variants that the Syrian army posses, and so on.
💀
They are working fine. The problem is that they are being sent without infantry support.
It was mostly used by Soviet allied states, it was not great, because it was a stripped down exported version of the T72, however, underestimating the tank may prove deadly, because it certainly wasn't bad, It was very good, cheap and sometimes even reliable.
Thats an excuse. The exported T72's were getting decimated by M60 Patton's in desert storm, a tank originally designed to take on the T62's. Its just a shitty tank.
T-80 and T64 were mostly used by Guard units... T72 were given to the rest...
Quantity has a quality of its own.
Also, you can quite easily upgrade the T-72 FCS, and then you've got a pretty decent MBT.
Well thats what Russians are doing right now.
it wasnt the best or heavily armoured, but it was plenty and heavily armed.
T-72 was not just for Soviet service, the Non Soviet Warsaw Pact had (rightly) skipped the T-62 and were in a dire need for a replacement for the T-55. The T-72, a cheap tank that improved on every aspect of the T-55 with huge upgrade potential was exactly what the doctor ordered.
rightly is debatable. there is a reason the T-62 did well on the african and arab market. they were fighting actual wars, rather than a cold stand off with a powerful buddy (the USSR) on their side.
T-62 had worse ergonomics, no additional protection and the 115mm was redundant when better 100mm sabots were developed. It was a dead end.
Any chance you'd make a video on T 72M4CZ?
Up
Ok for 1973 for sure. Numbers matter just remember shermans against tigers. They overwhelmed them. However the soviet union was a monstrously evil entity on many levels.
Frst sentence contains error. Soviet union operated not only T-64, T-72 and T-80, but also previous T-62 and T-55. Even today some units still do use modernised T-62 tanks in east regions.
Yeah in reserved and even than many are kept in storage
It would be interesting hearing you talk a little about the swedish strv103. Maybe make a comparison between it and other contemporary tanks?
No I think the main reason why the T-72’s reputation is brought down is due to the export models vehicles poor showing in both Gulf Wars both to due to the intentionally watering down of the T-72A into the T-72M and M1 and the incompetent commanders and sheep for crew members against an entire Coalition with some of the best armor, airpower and heavy caliber naval artillery on call. But regardless in the end the T-72 style won out over the other models with it being the basis for the later T-90 and it receiving a lot of upgrades over the past few decades. They still need to be retrofitted with Relikt tho.
Quite true statement. Hard to make good estimate of enemy equipment when you have overwhelming superiority in numbers and technology. Not just in one part, but in all parts of your force. You forgot to mention very open desert terrain which heavily favored already superior party as well.
My father served on the t72 and went on to the t80 and says that the t80 was unreliable and the tech wasn't fully developed. Meanwhile the t72 is still upgraded to insane levels nowadays.
In general. MZ autoloaders are shit compared to AZ autoloaders
you forgot to mention the T-72 didn't have a hydraulically rotated turret, it was hand cranked...so to move the gun they had to manually move the turret using a hand cranked gear. the turret moved very slowly as a result, they paid for that design flaw dearly in Desert Storm.
That was because those have been imported tanks, not to mention that only Russia and the US seem to either throw away dead stock, or give completely inferior versions of the tanks they fielded.
T-72 has always looked better than T-64 at least.
Looks more balanced, T-64 is so... Compact...
@@EmperorEdu and the roadwheels dont look like they belong on an IFV
I was a highly trained gunner in the 1970s and all this fire control system stuff you talk about is not needed when you're a highly trained Gunner. Firing on the move or stationary use of a rangefinder just slowed down you're firing ability with a good Gunner I could fire around every two and a half seconds on the move.
While I'm not doubting your masterful gunnery skills, I do hope you forgive me for relying on the M1's cadillac to quickly and accurately fire on targets over range.
I also hope you forgive me for not believing you're a gunner in the first place. Knowing that there's no MBT that has achieved a 2.5 second reload while firing on the move or having an autoloader. And I'm sure you would know that if you're able to fire once every 2.5 seconds, or a whopping 24 times a minute, that would be the excellent work of a very capable loader. Assuming if course you both don't pass out from the amount of fumes you let out from that monstrously fast fire rate.
@@xXDeltaTwoZeroXx please I'm not being critical with you but we were trained for one shot kills and usually fired only twice I had a black skinny loader who was the company reject but I took him on because he could load the main gun so fast. I nicknamed him the rubber band Man
@@xXDeltaTwoZeroXx we used what we called battle sites. I do have the award to prove it.
@@zap5936 I am aware of battle sites and I asked for no proof so please feel no obligation to prove anything to me. I have to say however; thank you for sharing the story about your loader. The nickname gave me a very good laugh.
@@xXDeltaTwoZeroXx please keep up the good work!
Please Make a video on Type 59 Bd or durjoy Mbt
And please point out the weaknesses and how this tank could be better 🙏🙏💓
i really like the T-62 for the looks and it's nostalgia (maybe) in uncharted 2. I had a really hard time letting it go in tank games and saying: "come on it's from 1961" so i fell back on the t80 which is aww yeah.
would you do a video on the Egyptian produce M1 Abrams
Yes that would be good... as far as I'm aware they are junk because they have basicly no quality control.. but they must have some utility
@@janwitts2688 If it is junk then it does not have utility. If it has somewhat of a utility, it cannot be junk
An inflatable dummy tank has utility as a deceptive weapon but it is junk in direct combat ...
All Abrams are garbage
Yet the M1 was never lost in combat due to enemy fire lol
T-72 is history! Radio call I remember from my teenage years.
T 72 is the goldstandart of tanks.
The early T-72 and T-80, like the T-64A, had optical rangefinders. The T-64A, T-72, and T-80 sighting systems were largely similar. But in 1976, the T-64B appeared with a laser rangefinder and a wind sensor. A similar sighting system could be used on the T-72A, but the industry could not provide many such devices. As a result, the sighting system 1A33, was placed only on the T-64B and T-80B. T-72A had a laser rangefinder, but did not have a wind sensor. Moreover, in parallel with the T-64B, an updated version of the T-64A was produced with a sighting system, as on the T-72A.
Subsequently, the upgraded T-72BA tanks received an automated sighting system 1A40-1M with a wind sensor and semi-automatic target tracking. A T-72B3 - multi-channel sight with optical and thermal imaging channels and automatic target tracking. A similar sight is now being put on the T-90M.
Smiling when listening to your lines about how 72 WAS. It still IS, Russia is losing about 5 per day in Ukraine.
Jesus, that lack of standardization makes me nervous
Im in school rn but this is more inportant
Schools are closed, or do you live in New Zealand?
@@MrTheWaterbear no they arent
In US ,they arent
@@MrTheWaterbear online courses
M-84 really removed that fire countrol downside of T-72.Not to mention that its armor was on pare with T-72B so no wonder Kuvait bought it.......we would sold many more if Yugoslavia not colapsed because USSR didnt want to sell T-64/T-80 then.
The fall of Yugoslavia is the most tragic historical development. From a proud nation forged from the sacrifice of thousands of partisans, into the most advanced and cosmopolitan country in Europe. All dissolving into endless war with not even the soldiers fully understanding which side they were fighting or fighting for.
I loved George Carlin in a Tanker helmet
The video mentioned the Lebanon War and changes made due to results there and exploitation of capture Israeli equipment, but no mention made of how the T-72 fared against American armored vehicles (Abrams and Bradleys) during 1991 Gulf War, especially the battle of 73 Easting. To some degree, those results can be attributed to inherent weaknesses or lack of capabilities for T-72.
Comparing a T-72 with no composites and 3BM9(outdated as hell) APFSDS can be taken into account?
Why don't every t72, t80, and t90 are being upgraded to the max so like spend all their money they have to upgrade it to as maximum as they can but not only that every I mean every t72, t80, t90 are being upgraded too so not only like a few but every tank and the upgrade are equivalent to 3 of the tanks it'll be a great thing if only Russia could do this :(
When I spoke to people in eastern europe they didn’t eeally like the tanks for warfare but to use them to fix and tow tractors. It puts into perspective that people would rather eat and work than fight
*Reads title* No.. don't say that.. I'm grinding for the T-72 in War Thunder.
War thunder isn't a irl simulator so this video doesn't show it's performance in wt
I have T-72A and T-72B in warthunder and now im grinding T-90A😁. Good luck for your grinding brother
@@tahaemad5809 Cheers, man. I'm going to need it. I'm not very good haha.
@@gulagkid799 I know, mate.
uhhhhh did you get the t72 or settled for t80 grind?
This is why you blow up your equipment rather than let it get captured. Keep the enemy from improving their shit and finding weaknesses in your shit
Russians did that with T90A in Ukraine. Burned them from the inside and also scrapped Shtora APS so Ukrainians don't get it. All that because they ran out of fuel.
"Quantity is a quality all it's own!"
So true
Wasn't there a Cold War study done by the Warsaw Pact that estimated that combat ranges in the Polish Theatre would be on average 1,800m and that dropped down to a maximum of 800m in the Fulda Gap region?
If I'm remembering correctly then a lot of these fine distinctions would be kind of meaningless as the actual combat would be the armour equivalent of knife fighting.
I would like to see that study
Does it really matter that its less accurate than its brothers when you can have 5 guns instead of 1?
It mattered to the three out of five tanks.
Yes, if the enemy is able to achieve a 6-1 kill ratio due to being more accurate. (Such ratios are not impossible. The Germans achieved this in WWII and more relevantly the Israelis achieved this during the Yom Kippur War.)
@@helbent4 Tiger vs bunch of T-34s is not the same as Chieftain/M60 vs a bunch of T-72s
@@saint_alucardwarthunder759 Maybe not in War Thunder! Which is a lot of fun but nothing like armoured warfare in real life. As well, I imagine you are well versed with the individual stats of every tank from the 1930's to the 90's, or whatever period WT covers. So perhaps you are not seeing the forest for the trees?
A critique of an analogy is meaningless because of course no two different units are exactly the same. But conceptually I think my point stands: as has been shown throughout history, including recent history, it is possible to achieve a high enough kill ratio (typically fighting on the defensive) that a favourable correlation of forces (as the Soviets would call it) is negated. It has been done, and this success therefore could be replicated with effort, and this was the theory behind NATO's defensive doctrine.
@@helbent4 it's not about War Thunder (btw in War Thunder Soviet tops are trash), it's about the fact that NATO tanks at the end of 70s were basically M60s, AMX30s and Chieftains which are all far inferior (except Chieftain that was competible) to T-72, T-64 and T-80. High kill ratio doesn't really matter because nobody counts tanks during an advance.
The biggest drawback is the lack of a serial thermal imager, there were different prototypes that did not go into production. There was also a T064 with a 1000 diesel prototype. Tell us about the Object 187, 5 and 6 option were better than the modern T-90A/S
Yes. the tank Is kinda worst now, but it was once good until the early 1980s.
Its still great
@@militaristaustrian if it's still good then prove it
@@tonk5242 the Leo dies as Quick yet a t 72 costs onely a forth or if not less meaning buck for Bang you can not top the t 72 who is just sligthly worse then Western mbts( depending Variant ofcorse)
Au contraire. It was _deliberately_ kept simpler and cheaper in the union as the "infantry support tank" so they could pump out more of them. Technically though they could always install latest FCS and ERA at will as the chassis has more space and weight reserve for upgrades than both 64 and 80, which is exactly what T-90 is.
Absolutely not. the only t72s we've actually seen in combat are export variants that have been stripped of many features. It would be unfair to ascribe the combat record of export t72 to the actual full up production versions the Soviet/Russian army used. The t72 and production in the '80s was probably equal or nearly equal to in most respects the M60A3. In particular the 125 mm gun would have been a serious challenge to contemporary tanks.
The T-72 is like the Ak47 of tanks, ain't exactly the best but hella popular
The AKM is still a viable weapon while the t 72 tank sadly is not.
In Lebanon war T 72 according to Syrian claims T 72 performed well as in Iraq Iran WAR.
*Javelin missile* revealed all the truth 🤧
What truth ? my guy javelin can take out any tank even the western/NATO one
How costly would it have been to upgrade the T-72 fire control system?
Excellently detailed and insightful analysis. Great work!
Well interesting and I didn't know the T54 road wheels can be put on a T72 tank. That's logistically very good.
In fact, this should not be the case. The life of the undercarriage will drop dramatically. Just the chassis of the T-72 shows the real wonders of unification, not provided by the developers. This version of the T-72 was offered by Ukraine to one of the African countries, where the local military wanted such an option.
A little weird to talk about it in the past tense when variants are still the most common type of tank in use by the Russian army...
Without a true test, where there was the high intensity war it was designed for, it is pretty much impossible to determine if the tradeoffs worked. Since there was not such war, probably the tradeoff was worth it since I doubt that in most conflicts it was involved in it would not have been pretty much as good a tank for the mission as a T-64 or T-80, and those tanks would have to have a great advantage to make them a better choice.
T72 is my first tank that i know from watching syrian civil war news and its still my favorite tank since then.
I think the soviet choice of equipping the guards divisions with T-80s to form a spear head while having a massive amount of T-72s to make up the bulk of your tank forces was likely a good strategy. Though the T-80s would likely suffer horrific attrition due to the nature of the soviet doctrine, so I think very quickly T-72s would become nearly the sole soviet MBT due to its relative ease of production.
Against modern AT-weapons it's just a coffin for three brothers.
Pretty much any tank is a coffin if it goes unsupported by infantry.
I think Irakis made the T72 look bad. And probably some design decisions that allowed it to be cheaply mass produced.
But like any other hardware, in competent hands, it could be good
don't forget to check out warthunder tho
T-72 is adaptable, reliable and upgradable. Russia has alot of territory to protect. It needs large numbers of tanks todo this. Upgrading T-72 is a great solution to fill the gaps between T-90 and upcoming Armata. I think it’s a great tank.
As we can see in ukraine, t80s and t90 are not really much better, poping like popcorn
There are a lot of captured T-80s relative to their total number due to the turbocharged engine, there is terrible fuel consumption, the Russians call it a "flying tank" in propaganda, but somehow it does not fly and eats fuel like an airplane. In general, the T-80 is the best tank of the previous generation in theory, but in practice it is non-reactive nonsense with a voracious and unreliable engine. And here we are in the real world. It’s also funny that Russian propaganda and the K-52 helicopter calls the “flying tank” also LOL, but for some reason it doesn’t tanking.
T-72 has always been called the tower thrower " башнемет"
T-90 is an attempt to fix the problems of the T-72 turned out worse than the latest modifications of the T-80 and no better than the T-72 is just more expensive, it seems to me that the T-90 is just a money laundering project. Like Orlan drones using water bottles.
The T-64 is also an outdated machine, but the likelihood that it will blow you up by itself is even less. Do not be surprised if later we find out that the Russian soldiers who disguised themselves as local residents for these 8 years and used T-64s from Russian warehouses against Ukrainian T-64s are more successful. Although I hope that they are also not successful.
It is also interesting where the T-84 seems to have somewhat participated in the defense of Mariupol, but the Russians did not announce the capture. So they were destroyed, or it was just rumors, or maybe they were buried somewhere under the rubble after the ammunition had been fired.
@@Leo-yr5jb the t90m is the best tank in their arsenal
The video turned out well. But I would like to make a few comments.
Immediately I apologize if I missed any details in the video, my English is not perfect.
So, they never mentioned that the T-80 was not only the most expensive, but also the most voracious in terms of fuel.
The main difference between 6TD and V-46 and V-84 is not in power, but in reliability. Plus, the "B" series motors trace their history back to the V-2 T-34 engine - that is, they have already been worked out in production, unlike the new 6TD.
There was also a significant difference in the chassis of all vehicles. The tracks of the T-64 often flew off, and the wheels often got stuck and deformed on strong off-road conditions. However, it is believed that, according to the test results of 1976-1983, the T-64 chassis was more reliable. It also weighs less, costs less and is easier to repair. The effectiveness of the T-64 and T-80 tracks was also higher than the T-72 tracks.
Were iraqi troops the worst soldiers operating T-72M?
They were not bad, had a lot of experience from the Iran Iraq wars just never came up against an enemy that took its armour n combined arms across the desert instead of the msr and faught highly effectively with this by night 🌙
Yes they were
They didn’t use it well and didn’t maintain it well
Lion of Babylon tank or Asad Babil (Arabic: اسد بابل) was an Iraqi-built version of the Soviet T-72, with up to 200 T-72m equivalent being assembled in a factory established in the 1980s near Taji, north of Baghdad. Only Republican Guard divisions were equipped with Iraqi-modified T-72s. It was The Chinese Built T62 was the most comman Iraqi mbt
the poor marksmanship of the Iraqi gunners in 2003 was assessed to be in part due to the shortage of modern night-vision and range-finder assets. As we attacked at night from the desert and not down the motorway
@@ifv2089 barely any were build my guy
@@rogue__agent5884 I seen lots my guy
Sadly the era of Tanks is ending and I hate admitting that but after the next Gen Western MBT's and whatever other Countries try to produce that's it. My cousin took out 3 RUS made T-72 & 1 T-.0 exports with 4 Hellfire Missiles from a ...... Drone in just under a hr from Nevada. Drones are the Future as much as I don't want to admit it.
Been hearing that for the last 60 years. Still waiting.
@@MFitz12 Still waiting? Look no further than Nagarno karabagh conflict. Azeris won simply with drones
@@Phapchamp - A bunch of conscripts mishandling vehicles they hastily yanked out of storage is hardly a prime example.
@@MFitz12 Armenians had tens of years to actually prepare for the invasion and they did so. Tanks has little they can do when enemy has air superiority.
nah dude IS3 WORST tank possibly ever
Nah that would be Bob Semple
The T-72 had sheer numbers but a single M1A1 being able to shoot on the move could handle engaging several T-72's at the same time and prevail due to the inaccuracy of the T-72. Western main battle tanks using depleted uranium shells would have the advantage with steel on target, however at closer ranges under 3000 meters and with superior numbers using volley fire would even things out. It would just be a matter of willing to take losses and then suicidally stand still to fire.
I will never NOT click on a T-72 Video.
A "positive" side which was described in this video, that ammunition in T-72 is closer to the floor is actually not so positive, because now tank can blown up riding under mine. Because mine can deform tank's floor and detonate ammunition. That's why T-64 and T-80 keeps ammunition higher.
I strongly dislike click bait titles so i downvote this one your content is great btw
How is it clickbait? He gave several reasons to state T-72 is the worst soviet tank, and currently it is, T-80 and T-90 are vastly superior tanks.
The title to this video isn't click bait.
the title structure simply resonates do you not see the difference between: ''T72 capabilities and compraison'' or ''T72 technical evaluation'' or simething simmilar and t72 worst tank? might as well write: ''Milfs in your area don't like riding t72s''
@@filipbrecelj669The title is short and made to catch the viewers attention. If it was click bait, the title would be completely irrelevant to the topic of the video. When in fact it's the opposite regarding this very video.
i think the main sin of soviet tanks was the lack of cctv at the time, the abiliti to spot the enemy 1st is even more important than to hit at the first shot, especially if the soviet doctirine relied on numerical superiority, if u cen spot the target then a few of your tanks can shoot at it, some will eventually hit, even if you take losses on your end.
Will you please make video about T-72M4CZ? Its the best non-Russian T-72 upgrade
An M model t 72?, not even an M1?
@@wonkagaming8750 Its heavily upgraded T-72M1
@@TADAMAT-CZ yes but its still an M1 the base armor is still the same with new polish ERA on the turret front only, and Thermal for the commander and gunner, a better upgrade is the T 72B1MS of serbia
@@TADAMAT-CZ it was the best upgrade, but in 2003 when it entered service.
@@wonkagaming8750 isnt b1ms only upgraded T-72M? Also M4CZ has much better fire control system, better engine, better transmission (Its only T-72 that can go 15km in reverse), better ammo, better sights, also DYNA-72 Is 3rd gen ERA and kontakt-1 Is only 1rd gen (DYNA affects APFSDS, kontakt-1 not). The DYNA-72 blocks aren't only on the turret, but also on the front of the hull. In terms of reverse speed, fire control system and sights Its even better than T-72B3. Only disadvantage over B1MS Is that it does not have remotely controlled NSV machinegun.
Could you make a video about Burlak turret for T-72/80/90? This thing basically solves known problem of APFSDS penetrator length by adding additional bustle autoloader, the carousel stays.
About the armor - base is welded turret design similar to T-90 and featured experimental ERA. Sadly scrapped
Too expesive. Not consistent effects on testing. Too complicated to provide as a modernization program.
Nope T- 72 was one of the best Russian tanks
Over 20 countries use it
Maybe they use it because it's cheap?
@@GrosseSose yup
@@starestairs5090 cheap doesnt mean good
A tank that you can afford is better than no tank at all
@@absolutelynotacommie still doesnt make it good let alone one of the 'best' soviet tanks
Seems so strange that they did not prioritize fitting an improved fire control system on T-72s
I think T72s were meant to be driven by recruits and basically be moving distraction while the better trained professional tank crews of T80s did the heavy lifting. So it was basically a cost / effect function for the Soviet strategists.
T72 was supposed to be tier 2 or even tier3 tank.
More to be fighting infantry or holding ground while the T64 and T 80 did the heavy fighting against NATO tanks.
Soviets also seemed to prioritize HE-Frag shells over APFSDS....prob because more squishy targets and fortifications then there were nato tanks
THE 72 WASNT BAD WHEN IT CAME OUT. THE INCIDENT IN LEBANON PROVED IT WHEN THE 72s FOUGHT A SHORT BATTLE AGAINST ISRAELI MERKAVA. IN THAT BATTLE THE T72 KNOCKED OUT THE MERKAVA TANKS. THE SAME CAN BE SAID ABOUT SWEDEISH S TANKS. THE T72S AMMO WENT STRAIT TROUGH THE SWEDISH TANKS.
last time i checked sweden didnt fight any country in the last decade
Those T72s likely never met any Merkava
@@megabrout t72s have faced merkavas and probably with some succes but the t72 still sucks
@@lechendary T72 was way better than NATO tanks in the 1970s. Can't really compare a 2000's tank to a 1970's tank.
@@ivansyzchkyez7148 the t72 ural did not even have a laser rangefinder, meteorologic sensors and automatic lead most of those were not added till the t72b3 mod 2014
Was the T72 the worst soviet tank?
IS3: *nervous sweating*
Meanwhile War Thunder Players :
We would like to have a bad with you
Meanwhile Alpha Defense:
Nooooooo.............. After Arjun, T72 is the best Tank in the world Beacuse it served in the Indian Army, you don't know anything you noob.
Bruh
It’s far from the worst tank in service. I’m very much an “muh abrums” and leopard fan, but the T-72 was a competent tank all around and I believe that a well practiced gunner could make up for the FCS to a point. Plus, I can purchase a T72
The T-72 is a workman's tank. The common "infantryman" tank while T-90s are more specialized. I prefer the T-55 and T-80.
Yeah that’s literally the point of the T-72, it’s literally a cheap and reliable tank that are meant for conscripts and inexperienced volunteers, the T-90 and T-80 on the other hand is more for elite units and experienced soldiers
False, the T-72 was in premier armored divisions meant to fight other tanks while the T-55s were in infantry divisions. The T-72 only went into infantry support roles after the T-90s were introduced.
So, what is the main purpose of a main battle tank? To engage in main battles?
Nope. Fire and support & breakthrough were more important
One correcrion
When you said about Nizhny Tagil factory, you showed old half factory half museum, not an actual factory where tanks produced, and yes, we have at least 3 factory in this town, One of them having sise comparable to the rest of the city
100% worth it, I think the cheiftain has pointed this out but having any type of tank is better than no tank what so ever. The T-72 could kill comparable western MBT's of the time and would have assured the reservist's available fire support
Even when the day comes that the T-72B4 Rogakta White Eagle AS1 2050 becomes obselete, I would still get some. They would be good as training tanks.
I'd really like to see a collab with you and Spookston. That'd be a pretty great video I think.