Why the T-72 Tank Is the Backbone of the Russian Army
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 січ 2023
- Anyway, before we move further, let’s take a look at the general characteristics of this tank. The T-72 is a Soviet main combat tank family that was introduced in 1969. It evolved from the T-64, which was hampered by excessive expenditures and a reliance on immature developmental technologies. This tank has numerous design traits in common with other Soviet origin. However, some of them are considered as deficiencies when compared to NATO tanks. The T-72 is extremely lightweight, at forty-one tonnes, and very small compared to Western main battle tanks. It has a capacity to load a crew of three, including commander, gunner and driver. Moreover, about 25,000 of the T-72 tanks have been manufactured, and refurbishment has enabled many to remain in service for decades. This tank was considered as a second-generation main battle tank which has been in service to several countries during conflicts. Around 2,000 of the T-72 versions are still currently operated by Russia while many more are in storage.
Subscribe Now :
/ @military-tv - Наука та технологія
The 4km/h maximum reverse speed is a lethal vulnerability.
that's why you gotta bury em hull down!
its not designed to retreat like the French tanks which have faster reverse gear 😂
Even the pt-91 twardy has a reverse speed of 30km the renk 350 Transmission could have been purchased to augment the t-72 but it wasn't.
@@odalv316 bruh tanks mbts need to have a good reverse gear
Modern combat is based more on speed
Tank can spin on its Axis and driver is in the front driving trough terrain that's not a parking lot,but a total off road as it gets!
Gotta admit they have some sweet looking tanks.
Especially when they explode…
Not really they look like they have everything bolted on as a afterthought
@@MrTangolizard it was actually very revolutionary design and breakthroughs, ahead western counterparts. they forgot to mention that this tank can be mounted with barrels and armor types and still be operational. German and US tanks cant do it anymore. at least without heavy modifications.
@@jefreyjefrey6349 so tell me what was revolutionary about the t72
@@MrTangolizard stop doing meth and do some home work.
Wow, I didn't know Scarlett Johansson narrated tank videos, pretty cool.
The T-72 is more of a successor to the T-62 instead of the T-64, it is was chosen due to its price, operational costs and most importantly, reliability.
It is an en masse tank, it is a shame post soviet countries couldn't keep the T-80 operational, it is a more advanced tank, with versions having active protection systems, it got a bad rep due to the Chechen wars, but that's mostly due to the doctrine used, no matter the tank, sending them into a city with rubble everywhere without infantry support is a death sentence.
No the T-72 is not a successor to the T-62!The Soviet family of M.B.Ts goes this way,T-54-55-62, T-64-72-80
@@user-zc3do8vk4q Nope
T-80 is not more advanced tank. The T-80 is inferior in chassis and automatic charging system. In other mechanisms and aggregates, it has no significant advantages over the T-72.
Best looking tank ever
Exactly
Real tank
You feel it
Id Argue the T80 bvm looks better tho
@@WavyTail yes, but both are good looking
Well sort of. The T72 didnt really evolve from the T64. At the time of introduction the T64 was a high end product with basically all the tech the UdSSR could realistically muster. That resulted in maybe the best tank at the time but also in a lot of reliability and money issues since it was freaking expensive. The T72 was later developed as a much cheaper and reliable teched down version meant to operate alongside the T64 and later the T80 which were both for their times the best armor the UdSSR could field. Later the T72 went into a parallel development one keeping the T72 name the other being named T90. Overall the biggest advantages of the T72 is its very low price and a dangerous gun even to modern mbts. In UdSSR doctrine it was imagined that a unit of 12 T72s and T80s would take on 4 Leopard 2s and while losses would be high the fight would be won in the end.
Yep, quantity over quality. The Soviet doctrine was to overwhelm the Western defense with thousands of T72s and T64s , that’s why it’s relatively lightweight , fast and have crew of only 3, less people per tank - means more tanks on the battlefield. The front armor of T72B and B3 is pretty good and comparable with Leo 2 A4 and A6 respectively. It’s a relatively good tank with a pretty good « Bang for Your Buck” ratio. However, the biggest drawback of T72 platform such as very slow 3 mph reverse , high explosive carousel of the self loading mechanism and very poor Vision and communication system as well as fire control system from the 70s doesn’t make it a very good tank by modern standards and was only somewhat fixed in T90M in mid 2000s which is probably the peak of T72 family evolution
Excellent point to put out there. People often think programs develop linearly, and while this sometimes happens with successful platforms, often as in this case and with the T-80, these were all very different programs with different specifications they were aiming at. The T-64 was in many ways better than the T-72, but it had impractical issues both on the field and logistically. The T-72 took a lot of lessons learned from the T-64 but was a really a program aimed at replacing the T-55 series that were the backbone of the armored forces and quickly becoming obsolete. The Soviet Army needed a competent tank to replace the tens of thousands of T-55 variants, equip the satellite states in the Warsaw Pact, and export to foreign markets. The T-64 and T-80s were attempts to build a best in class tank with new technology purely for the Russian forces in the Soviet Army. Of course, running a multi chassis tank fleet presented considerable logistical challenges and some of the technologies of the T-64 and T-80 proved to be less useful in the field than hoped, making the T-72 the platform to consolidate on for future progression. The T-90 for an example IS an evolution of the T-72. A T-72 that has been upgraded to its best in class version vs the original high production versions or slap on upgraded versions.
Alright, let's debunk this.
1. The T-72 did evolve from the T-64.
Leonid Kartsev didn't want to produce the T-64, so he took the best design elements from the T-64 and slapped it on the T-62.
This solved alot of the problems with T-64.
So it was accepted into service as the T-72.
2. The T-80 was another program, that started because of the problems with the T-64.
And was essentially just a T-64 with a turbine engine.
3. The T-90 started out as a upgrade program of the T-72, but was later spun into it's own tank design.
4. The cheapness of T-72 only lasted for a couple of years.
By the time the T-72A is introduced, it ended up being more expensive than the T-64.
If they believe their national security depends and the sheer number of such piece of scrap metal why are they sending it in great numbers to make fireworks in Ukraine? Kiev is short on ammo and tanks, not anti-tank weapons, also reason why they're unable to re-take land.
They're still trying with their old Soviet tactic, which is actually good news. Russians have this illusion that no-one would dare enter their territory but they could be proved wrong in a very short time should they take certain escalating steps of aggression.
@@Orcawhale1 thats a lot of half truths if ive ever seen one
You're showing a T-80 on the thumbnail and in several shots during the video, even a T-90M at one point.
The T-64 was produced in Kharkiv and the T-72 in Uralvagonzavod, they were never produced in the same factory, and never were ment to, they were meant to be produced in tandem.
When talking about the self entrenching system, you're showing a T-80 and circled around the blade that is meant to clear minefields.
You also showed a T-64 exhaust when talking about the T-72 latest engine.
The cope cages were never made to counter top attack ATGM but to disable small shaped charges of RPGs (like all cage armour) being fired from top of buildings in urban environments, this experience came from the conflict in Syria.
Very poorly researched video, considering the amount of information out there regarding the T-72.
Also the cope cages were meant to stop those dam little bomb dropping drones. That was studied during the Armenian Azerbaijan war
@@T_81535 Well did it work out very well?
Video fails to mention the difference in frontal composite armor between the T-72A and T72B developed in the early 80s. T-72B’s frontal composite armor is NERA style and has about 40% more RHA equivalent compared to the T-72A.
5:31 they just destroyed their machine gun mount. Who knows what else was damaged or destroyed.
LOL i was hoping someone saw that the machine gun mount and the main barrel that slammed into the ground but i do have to say at 43 tons Damn that tank did a Ducks of Hazzard Jump really well
@roger st laurent "The duck of death."
" That's Duke, little Bill."
"The duck, I says"
Glad i wasnt thte only one to clock that.
@Rico Thampaty Wow, well said Rico. All good points.
@@targetaps Gene Hackman V Richard Harris ?
Tremendous
Soviet tanks are for attacking to any target at and behind the defence line, but not duelling necessarily with the opposing tanks, even it is better to avoid and flank, and Western tanks to counter them.... so, design principles are different. If you are attacking tank, you need good mobility not to be easy target. Mobility has got two dimensions 1- speed 2- Cross-country capability that you need to be fast moving target not to be acquired easily and cross country mobility that attacking axis will not be predicted correctly to concentrate the defence or set an defensive ambush. And, being lightweight also needed to use any bridge to keep the momentum of blitz and not to create choke points at the river crossings since north and east Europe flat and cut by rivers across. However, attacking with speed brings disadvantages, one can not comfortably acquire target visually because at fast advancing tank, dynamics of changing of environment, shapes, lights disable some of the cognitive capacity of the observer, and usually attackers meet their targets at short distances long after their target spots them visually and audibly . So, for Soviet tanks long distance shooting and accuracy less needed, but for Western tanks it is crucial that they can make some hits until attacking tank acknowledges and spots and countering back with firing. All mechanics of battle ground shapes the designs, so each of them having their own features with some use and logic.
Helps if when crossing country fast u can hit things when u fire
Meanwhile, a dozen of top tier German Leopard tanks being destroyed by standard RPGs in a single battle in Syria. lol
Mean while hundreds of t72s destroyed by a poorly equipped Ukrainian army Russia is a joke I wish nato would just go ahead and wipe them out
The m1 Abrams’s is 43 years old so what’s your point?
what you call a self entrenching blade at about 5 minutes is a mine clearing device ( probably kmt 7)
Will it dig trench too?
@@ichimonjiguy no it will not. It is like a fork, pushed in front of the tracks, removing the mines, which me be up to about 15 cm deep in the ground
I thought it was for harvesting potatoes.
It's called a mine plow
since word on the street says there will be leopard 2 & abrams will fight t72 we will watch closely the outcome
did the shorter dart apds can pen leo2 or m1 abrams
and how many m829a3 ammo (long dart) did the they bring on the field
which ammo can pen kontakt5 now?
Every year, Russian hold a contest called Tank bathalon which participates by Rissia, China, Vietnam, Venezuela etc…In which T72B3 is the tank of choice…Funny enough, in firing contest, in stationary position, this tank need 3-4 shoots before it can hit a stationary (as well) target at 1700m range with amble time to aim…companied with alot of break down in the middle of the even. . How they would perform in real conflict is up your imagination…
Never forget the iranian t72 loosing his gears in the race.
Not really, since there is a real conflict and everyone can see how it's going for the russians
To be fair, Vietnam Army never have T 72 in their country. So yeah, it was never ideal use for VPA.
Performance is evident in ukraine
They cannot use digital systems to fire in biathlon. Only optics, to make sure the gunners are competing
Why is there a range distance diffrence between Day and Night? Would be because of night sight range? And the driver nearly had their barrel go into the ground after taking flight and damaging, much the crew in the turret got banged around. That's unless it's just manned by the derived only.
Maybe something to do with wind/temperature/humidity change at night. Could be the thermal or night sight too (if they even have one), probably can't see as far as the day sight (or Western thermals).
Literally obliterated in Iraq.
and Ukraine.
Drone renders tanks and other armoured vehicles more vulnerable in the battle field.
Ok, what happened at 5:34? Is the man dead? Does anybody know?
Maybe russian tank is obsolete but looks sexy & intimidating
Yes
5:30 What the hell was that supposed to be? Lool that gunner was badly hurt there! 😭😭😭 lol
Find building destroy tanks. Lady you need update on how easy it is to blow up t-72b3 tank.
Is that from expirience from front lines or from your basement?
If you have Javelin or other advanced western anti tank weapon then yes. Otherwise with just RPG or TOW it will be difficult to hit those tank frontally.
You should have compared with the variants that other countries upgrade as well
No mention of the thermal imaging system, digital fire control system, and battlefield awareness system. In our time, a good tank is not only about the balance of firepower, horsepower and armor protection, it must incorporate the modern electronics. That's where the newer Western tanks shined.
Well, Russia operates t-72M3 (means modernized) models with thermals, fire control, guided rockets capabilities and etc. Though it's unclear how Russian electronic components fare against modern western counterparts.
@@samumg1687
And like the modern protection systems on the cruiser Moscow, none of it works.
We will see when Ukraine receive it whether those Western MBTs really shined or not.
@Rico Thampaty Talking is pale. We'll find out soon enough.
@@danboyd2725 dunno how ship relate to tank
In short, Old Weapon system, easily countered by Modern Weapons.
Don't get me wrong, a Musket can kill you in 1 shot, just like the T-72.
But, in the age of Drones and Guided Missiles, . . . . It is like a Samurai charging at Machine Guns. Brave yet destined to lose.
Any tank will get blown to pieces pretty easy these days.
@@scothf1273 Correct, but the Russians have gone out of their way to make it easy to destroy them. Just about every video will show the tank by itself and is easily attacked.
@@jeep146 I agree on that
Tell that to Ukrainian tankers complaining about Abrams, Leopards, and Challenger,Yankees complaining about Ukrainian tankers and Russians showing them on Victory day
Does it need a periscope, remote machine gun and a turret bustle for excess ammo?
The auto loader carousel is isolated. The issue is when you have rounds around the tank turret.
@@odalv316 T90 puts some of those in the back and keeps the carousel. Is Russia looking at retrofitting a bustle to t 72 to do the same thing? It'd be a lot of heavy welding.
@@jjamo1225 Probably not is my guess. I don't think the issue is the tank but how it is used.
Why does the thumbnail have a pic of a T-80?
Strength in numbers? That ought to be comforting to the souls who crew them.
Would you rather be in the infantry unit? At least you have some protection in a tank
The Western powers or any other army should not underestimate the T 72 tank, Indian Army have more than 2400 units of this machine and another 2000 plus T90s, and have interest to purchase the T14 Armata , in any war it will not depend only on tanks to win war, its combination of armour, artillery, infantry and air power.
Well that's the way smart battlefield commanders fight wars. We're talking about Russia and Ukraine here
@@T_81535 Lol. Ikr.
I think it speaks for itself, that Ukraine soldiers would much rather have western tanks than T-72's that has also been delivered them from the west. I don't hear "No, not the Abrams, Challengers and Leopards, we need T-72 tanks urgently!!" 😄
I think the Ukrainian government that wanted tanks. Ukrainian soldier would rather have soviet styled tanks at least for now because western tanks are newer and unfamiliar for them (which mean it will took months to train on a new weapons), logistical issue (you need multiple spare parts and train to maintain different western tank; Abrams, Leopard 2, Challenger 2) and etc.
There will be restrictions on the use of Abrams while in country. Where and how to use it. No suicide missions. No charging blindly into battle hoping to pop off a lucky shot as is the way for both Ukraine and Russia.
@@dauzlee2827 There's youtube videos uploaded by international reporters from Ukrainian tank crew members who keep wishing Leopards and tell that T-72's (which they operate now) are trash.
@@T_81535 Yeah, actually would be better if the proper doctrine (IFV support, dismounted infantry to protect tanks, tanks and IFV's using drone reconnaissance, etc.) is deployed when using western tanks.
Western tanks are a logistical and maintenance nightmare. Check out Redacted’s interview with former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter.
It's a soldier tank, meant for mass production and low cost of maintenance. It doesn't have all blows and whistles as western tanks, but it's deadly and damn effective.
A point that I learnt is that every piece of military equipment is made fit-to-purpose according to the military doctrine and combined arms strategy. And this is why the T-72 was madr. It has its own deficiencies like any other thing, however, keep in mind that those defeciencies are not relevant in the strategic application context.
4:20 isn’t that the T64 auto loader ?
Yup, very will spotted, both projectiles and charges stacked vertically.
T 80bv
Because you can remove the gun and add a
Plow ? Or snow plow ?
5:33 someone needs a doctor after that jump
Very good tank for its time. Now its still a good tank, but not gpod enough for western nato tanks. T90 is.
The 72 stands for the height in meters the turret flies up?
Is Jennifer Lawrence on the narration?
no, it's morții mă tii
It's a bird , it's a plane, it's a UFO !!
Nah , just another Russian T-72 turret flying overhead in Ukraine... 🤣🤣🤣
Any tank will explode and be torn apart) And Abrams and Leopard and Leclerc, etc. The T 72 is used by the whole world and this tank has fought more than any other. And some NATO tanks were not in combat at all. How can you judge that? Did you see how Leo was torn apart in Syria? When the ammunition detonated in his case, next to the driver. He was blown to pieces! You can safely write that the Leopard broke the record for self-destruction))) It's funny to read comments where it says that Russian tanks explode the most) T-72 only mostly and fight) Eh..
@@sanchomarino i think you missing the joke a bit. the auto loaders on those t-72 have habit of blowing up so violently the turrnets are found 100's of meters away. its quite the sight to behold.
@@cuse123456 nah bro whenever someone slightly think positively about soviet or russian tank those fools will scream about those tank turret flying and mock russian tank as crap etc
@Armen88 true
t72 was only protected against 1st generation TOW missiles; Current upgraded ammo will flip the turret half way to Moscow, even though reactive armor, there isn't a tank in existence, including the Abrams and Leapoard 2, that can take a hit from a modern TOW tandem or even triple shaped charge, you might be able to hit something easier with nlaw or javlen, but if you want to absolutely fucking wreck something hit it with a TOW, which has enough power to neutralize reactive armor and then still punch through the front of hull or turret, it doesn't have to rely on top attack, and it is impossible to jam, alert to, or otherwise interfere with wire guided missiles, although they do have a slew of disadvantages as well
How did they get Scarlet Johansson to narrate this?
>why t72 is backbone
>thumbnail shows t80
yep a+ journalism
You describe the tank but didn't really explain why it's the backbone of their forces
More like a backcoffin
So the T72 is essentially a lightly armored vehicle with a heavy tank cannon mounted on top.
no, what she said was the original was immune to all tank weapons at the time it was built and upgraded to resist tow missiles and newer tank weapons with Kontact 5 and composite armor and that its low profile makes it harder to hit. It's vulnerable to Javelin and other top attack atgm's but every tank is. I understand wishing Russian tanks suck because Russia sucks but how did you watch this and decide T72 is lightly armored??
Because they blow up spectacular
probably not made in mind with explosive attacks from above
@@magnem1043 Definitely not, no tank on earth can survive a hit from a top attack ATGM like NLAW or Javelin.
@@ydnark83 the main Soviet doctrine was small lightly armored tanks, with big guns, so that they could fit on almost any railway and bridge across Europe which was very important if WW3 (which is the war most of those vehicles were designed for) broke out. (They intended for a very quick advance across Europe, no time to construct stronger bridges or wider rails.)
That's why you see so much ERA and APS on Soviet tanks of that era, to compensate for the lacking armor. They may add composite armor but due to the small size of their tanks it often doesn't make a difference against more powerful guns and ammunition (depleted uranium or tungsten darts for example) like on Western tanks. Soviets went for quantity over quality, which is fine unless your enemy is capable of going with quantity _and_ quality.
Edit: also I think what Magne is getting at is they need to be using more APS and/or Anti Air systems in conjunction with tanks, so they won't even have to worry about taking a direct hit from a Javelin. I'm sure we will be seeing a lot more of those on Western tanks in the future.
The tank on the video title shot is a T 80 btw
You forgot how the t72 has an auto eject launcher when it gets hit from a Javelin.
Fact: Ukrainian t72s don’t blow up because unlike Russian tanks they are made of propaganda.
Just as well six out of every 7 javelins shot end out missing,
If only it could hit moving targets
@@macker33 please quote your source for that statisic.
@@macker33 I believe the Javelin has greater than a 90% accuracy rating, so where'd you get this info from?
@@vtxbox fake. javelin useless
you save the entire history of the T-72 but did not answer your own question which is why we were watching the video.....
5:32 tanks rammed his Canon into the ground lol!
T-72B3M is my favorite
Because it works, tausend are really to jus, easy to understand, and reapers. Have a great gun.!
I sure as shit wouldn't want to fight one with just a rifle and molotovs
Same tank wiped out in Iraq by Mr Abrams
Abraham s sera aussi détruit vous mentez propagande
Abrahams IS destroyed in Irak l'Occident sataniques vide vérité on thé World
Sorry Rod but those T-72’s in Iraq were export models with very limited combat systems in them. Not saying it’s was going g to change the outcome as the Rees were very poorly trained apart from the Republican Guard. When interviewed some Iraq crews had not fired more than ten rounds from the main gun in five years
@@kentriat2426 why bother commenting if nothing in your retort was compelling towards the status quo of the t72's reputation in combat?
Because its a damn good tank simple as that
the t 72 seems to be workin pretty dam good for this war
Does it? You sure about that?
Wait till it meets Challenger 2
@@dearmas9068 well I see the line is movong west , what do you think ?
At becoming smoking scrap metal.
What you been smoking
5:32 look how the MG gets flipped over 😂
MG not a problem. But whats that thing behind it that pops up and knocks into it? At first I thought it was a crewman.
مجهود رائع ... اتمنى عمل فيديو للمقارنة بين المدرعات العربية و الإسرائيلية ... تحياتي
Lol.
الميراكافا للاسف اقوي من اي دبابه يمتلكها العرب
@@aymanazab6602
عزيزي ... في حرب 1973 حارب المصريون باسلحة متخلفة ... و انتصرنا ... تحياتي
@@mohamedm.el-sawymd2325 عزيزي .. انا اتكلم عن دبابه مقابل دبابه
@@mohamedm.el-sawymd2325 عزيزي.. انا مصري ومن شبرا
Thanks
look at the t-72 as the successor of the t 34 that was build in masses if you ask me then this is not a "MBT" it is a medium tank while tanks like the t-90 are more like heavy tanks, makes sense if you ask me sending like a team of cheap t 72 with a t 90. That is the old soviet doctrine that we are looking at, if you ask me. If they still use the same baseline tactics, then blowing up the leading tank (t-90) might send the others in total disarray.
My God.......look how long the barrel is on the Russian tanks. I know I know....hydraulics.....but still, at that length it's hard to believe that even hydraulics can handle it. Is it stabilized?
Its made of paper,this machine is only good for parading on red square with.
T-72 older versions have a stabilizer that burns out after 1 hour if use. So only turn it in if you must.
@@russiaisadictatorship.8865 5:31 clearly not paper
Too bad for the crew, it's a magnet 🧲 for all sorts of Anti Tank Guided Missiles.
So why? I’m still waiting for the answet
Isnt the thumbnail a T-80U
Because of the availability in abundance
That is if those 7,000 T-72’s haven’t been scrapped for parts or corruption yet!
16 round a mini if necessary.
Built in large numbers, hence plentiful!
Trouble is the lack of crews.
Same conundrum the Brits had during the Battle of Britain, enough planes but lacking in pilots, hence all the efforts in plucking them out of the Channel before the Germans got to them.
Now the Russian MoD says it can built 300 a month, 3600 a year.
😢
With t72b3m, 5 of it will be cost of leopard 2. Russia only needs 2 to defeat one leopard. So the quantity works. Hence til a formidable tank to face on the battlefield.
At night T72 is helpless, its blind.
No longer have numbers
The frog eaters had every intention to Nuke the Fulda Gap if the comrades came to say hi
The answer is because they are cheaper and easier to build...less than $1 mil. And my guess is the Soviets build almost all of them, the Russians just modernized them.
Very True i am no tank commander or an expert on tanks or war if i was in a T72 going up against a Mr Abrams Tank i would just Ami at the tracks on the Abrams Tank and that tank is pretty much done the T 72 might be small but it has one hell of a punch and the Russians all ready know the big guns are heading to the fight and looks like they are just waiting for the heavy Armor to go to them
@@rogerstlaurent8704 Problem with that is, T72 would already be dead before it saw the Abrams, or Leopard 2, or Challenger 2 coming. This will be especially true at night, where Russian optics have one-third of the range of Western optics.
@@andyo8141 I hear you on what you are saying the Abrams Leopard and the Challenger they are better Tanks but there is a lot of Media coverage about he Heavy armor arriving in the Ukraine dont you think the Russian knows this and they are gearing up waiting for a hard core fight plus the US military is not bring the the top of the line Abrams to the Fight just the lower grade Tanks ...Where is George S Patton when you need him BTW not a Russian lover and hoping they will crush Ukraine i just find it interesting on the fact i am watching a real life WW2 battle between to countrys that hate each other 2 things that might happen Russia pulls out or they are going to join up with another country like China ??? for more help Hint the Korean War
@@rogerstlaurent8704 If you aim tracks, you likely will hit the ground or just miss the target at all. Even if you hit the tracks and disable the tank, the M1 tank will fire back. With 85% hit rate, it will kill.
They call it the moving Russian fireworks.
One hit and it explodes..
How many do they have left ?? They keep getting taken out by $400 drones armed with a $100 grenade.
Just give me 300 Leopard 2 A4 and all Ts history will gone
Who are you? General Patton?🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Максимальная скорость Т72Б3 84км/ч! (Рекорд скорости на Танковом Биатлоне 2019 года)
Video about t72, shows t80u in the thumbnail
There really is no need to say T72 quite so many times.
Operational cost means it needs to be replaced quickly because it is easily destroyed and pointless
Great video with no western propaganda. Rare to see :)
That's a T-80 on the thumbnail
Cant event listen to this, I have two ears why are you sending all the sound down the left side.
Mobile death trap
I thought it was a plane?
*depicts a T 80 in thumbnail*
Turret launching door stop
Thats a T-80 in the thumbnail
And of course they show a t80 in the thumbnail
Why don't the Russians further improve/modify their existing T-72s, like for e.g. can an existing T-72 chasis be merged with T-14 turret with improved armaments, sensors and better crew protection can be economic option. No doubt the T-72 is a good tank and with the existing stock and logistics can be more easily deployed.
They did, but with way they do things, like sell the explosive in the reactive armor and replace it with rubber. Kind of screws up the whole point.🤔
thats a t-80u in the thumbnail
Fix the reverse speed
It's an awesome Battle Tank that's why Russia upgrade on the T72 and the T80 way to go Russia keep up the good work from Australia 🦘
Literally a t80 in the thumbnail
Dang Whats the difference ?
Was the evolving not from T-62? And the the T-64 evovled in T-80?
Is it because after they blow the turret off it can easily be recycled ?
when you have a ton of them you use them...
The main reason ALL Russian tanks are inferior to Western tanks is optics / thermal-imaging. If you cannot see the enemy at night, you're gonna be toast. Other shortcomings are fire-control systems, battlefield awareness and comparative armour deficiency. Terrible reverse-gear speed is another common handicap.
@ricothampaty4345lol no I’ve seen the quite opposite
Which is funny because Soviet tanks for awhile held the advantage but the Soviet’s are gone now.
@Rico Thampaty can't tell if you're trolling or maybe just completely misunderstood an article you read.
Tienen un arsenal viejo y no parece que puedan renovarlo. No les queda más remedio que usar lo que tienen.
The T72 holds the unenviable record of being the most-destroyed post-WW2 tank. The Russian T-34 holds the WW2 and all-time record. It seems Russian tanks have a particularly-bad record for being blown-aparrt..
Any tank will explode and be torn apart) And Abrams and Leopard and Leclerc, etc. The T 72 is used by the whole world and this tank has fought more than any other. And some NATO tanks were not in combat at all. How can you judge that? Did you see how Leo was torn apart in Syria? When the ammunition detonated in his case, next to the driver. He was blown to pieces! You can safely write that the Leopard broke the record for self-destruction))) It's funny to read comments where it says that Russian tanks explode the most) T-72 only mostly and fight) Eh..
@@sanchomarino Out of 25,000 T72's built, over 4,000 have been recorded destroyed. Out of 6,000 Abrams only 9 have been destroyed (7 of those by friendly-,fire). Only one Challenger 2 has ever been destroyed (friendly-fire). As far as I am aware, no Leclerc's have been destroyed. Of 3,500 Leopard 2's, less than 20 have been destroyed.
In-summary, ~20% of all T72's ever made have been destroyed in battle. Far less than 1% of Abrams, Leopard 2, Challenger 2 and Leclercs have been destroyed.
Maybe T72''s are just unlucky, or perhaps Russia starts too many stupid wars. Whatever the reasons, I know which tank I would rather not be inside.
@@andyo8141Its an agile tank,small,relatively cheap,not like those big heavy easy to aim at building lol!
@@andyo8141 I'm telling you again. Where and how many NATO tanks fought. Leclerc did not fight at all. The only one of them was more or less used is Abrams and then not like t 72. And these Abrams fought against T 62 and T 55 . I am surprised by people who draw conclusions about equipment that almost never fought. If high-explosive shells are loaded into any tank, it will blow up like a T 72. And if the tank was pierced, then this is already bad, and the Abrams were knocked out even with an RPG-7. From sand and dust, the Abrams engines broke down. How so?! If there are few tanks, logistics is weak, there are no experienced crews, there is no aviation - these cars burn no worse than any other tank in the world. Tanks are weapons of past wars. In a modern technological clash, he does not live for a long time, so it is not at all clear why such a dramatic performance has been played out around these Abrams, Leopards, etc.
@@sanchomarino Come on, the reason so many T72's are being destroyed is because they lack armour and are thus extremely-vulnerable. Challengers and Abrams have been hit by multiple RPG7's and continued the fight. One Challenger 2 was rhit 15 times by RPG's at close-range and only suffered cosmetic damage. No-way a T72 would have kept its hat on.
The Russian T72 will have no chance against the American Abrams tanks with there hunter rounds
They did awesome in the middle east. Oh right, they failed because their are hundreds of them splattered all over the place.😎
T-80U on preview pic.
Combates sem precedentes...