Inside the Tanks: The T-72 - AU Armour & Artillery Museum
Вставка
- Опубліковано 21 бер 2015
- This time we bring you a somewhat different Inside the Tanks episode! We have teamed up with our colleagues from Wargaming Asia to go “down under” to Australia and bring you this unique episode.
We have visited the Australian Armour and Artillery Museum (ausarmour.com/) which opened to the public on Saturday the 6th September 2014. The collection consists of over 90 armoured vehicles and artillery pieces and we will focus on one very iconic tank - the T-72!
Visit our forums and talk about your favourite tanks with our Military Specialist:
forum.worldoftanks.eu/index.ph...
The Challenger on Facebook: / wgchallenger
To keep up to date with our latest development, contests and events visit our portal or follow us on Facebook:
worldoftanks.eu/
Facebook: / worldoftanks
Twitter:
/ wargaming_neten
/ wargaming_netfr
/ wargaming_netde
/ wargaming_netpl
/ wargaming_netcz
/ wargaming_netes
/ wargaming_nettr - Ігри
T72 in a museum? We still use them in Hungary. :D
+BladeHD We still use T-55s here in Peru .-.
Acr2051 We have some of them in stockpile too :D
BladeHD Those are our main tank :_:
+Acr2051 Aren't M18 Hellcats still used in Uruguay and Brazil?
Nathan Peterson those arent used, those are on musseums as far as i know.
I heard that Paraguay still has M4s and M3A1s in service
As a Brit I'd think the most striking crew comfort element missing isn't leg space but a kettle.
the good old BV
why do u need a kettle? it's already so hot inside.
If Russians thought about comfort, they would never won any war they won. Think first how to survive and kill more enemies during a battle. But, you will have a comfort after you have defeated.
+Костя Канадский /K.C./
It hurts crew efficiency.
Russians don't expect a tank to last more than a week in battle, and the crew is expendable. It's just how they fight wars, throw numbers at the enemy and win by attrition. 'Crew comfort' is not a design perimeter.
The turret flying off is actually a feature - It helps the crew evacuate quickly.
LOL... we've learned a lot about "emergency evacuation" with the current war.
Yes, as they scream from the pain of slowly burning to death maybe.
Yes, evacuate quickly 200ft into the air, saw that vid..... coming down not looking good 😳....
@allah akbar find -" Russian T72 tank hit by 120mm mortal rounds. One crew luckily survived". 😳Watch it carefully in the end.
The stowage is placed deep inside the tank. If some rounds reach it, the crew will die anyway, no matter the turret blew off or not 😁. Any tanks getting a hit to that extent will turns into furnace. Russian tankers are just more difficult to be identified.
The turrets fly off really well when hit.
YUP
Ammo cooking off.
I've always wondered what that "flying tank" thing was all about, now it's clear. There was a sprocket wheel embedded high up in a tree. Very impressive what these tanks can do.
These tanks were designed before ATGM's were a thing and we're never intended to provide protection against something that didn't exist.Of course they can't match today's antitank weapons,no tank in existence can actually.They are called antitank for a reason.
For it's time it was an awesome tank for tank to tank battle
@@gumelini1 keeping to your own backyard, and minding your business, makes a Tank invulnerable. Invading a neighbor paints a big target on any AFV
T-72 is the AK-47 of Tanks old but effective
nguyen danny You do not realize that these old T-72 were never designed to fight COIN operations.
There is a reason Abrams...etc. got sidearmour upgrade(like TUSK), because they kept getting knocked out by RPGs from side, rear, and roof.
Conventional MBT(with a few exceptions that were quickly uparmoured) were designed to defeat AT rounds from front, autocannons from side, and HMG from rear. It's fairly obvious that there is very little protection against modern infantry-held AT weapon.
Also, there is no shortage of vehicles; 1800 does not mean 1800 T-72(they don't have that many). What got killed most was probably BMP-1, because Syria kept them in stock configurations without very effective anti-infantry main gun(the 73mm low velocity gun is poor).
+nguyen danny Yea but an AK-47 vs an M16 at range is a shit weapon. But then you consider that an AK costs maybe 300 vs 1000 or 800 for an M16 and the fact that you can make many T72s and if you lose a tank that's completely fine for the Soviet doctrine because it's Hydra, you cut off one head, two more shall take its place, then the T72 is a perfectly fine tank.
nguyen danny 2 Armoured divisions that are not wholly armed with T72s, the other armoured vehicle being a BMP-1 that does not have ATGMs, a Republican Guard division and 4 infantry divisions vs 5 coalition armoured divisions comprising of 4 American and 1 British, that have TOW armed Bradleys, an armoured cavalry regiment and also a Field artillery brigade. They had the power to call for 155mm howitzers and MLRS rockets. Tell me about how outnumbered coalition forces were and how they won from speed and accuracy of their tanks when it was the Bradleys and artillery that had the higher kill count.
nguyen danny if you count IFV/tank destroyers + artillery + tanks vs tanks and infantry a real tank vs tank battle, then you're still wrong because there were less Iraqi armour divisions compared to coalition. 2 Iraqi vs 5 coalition. Yes, outnumbered indeed.
nguyen danny I will give you that the Abrams has a longer range for its weapon sights than the T72M but if we discount that, and take the latest iteration T72B3, it really depends on which crew is better. And still the point still stands that tank on tank alone, whoever has the most tanks will probably come out on top.
Obsolete, yes, but, if you lack your own tanks, or adequate Anti-tank weapons, it'll still be your worst nightmare.
A Renault FT would be a nightmare. People don't realize how insanely helpless you can be against these things.
Imagine how helpless the Germans felt the first time they saw tanks rolling towards them in WW1, or how helpless American GIs felt during the initial stages of the Ardennse Counter Offensive... tanks today are the modern equivalents of Dragons of myth and legend... completely unstoppable beasts of death and destruction unless you have the right tools, or know how to kill them.
***** For the tanks in Syria the RPG-29 is excellent. Although it was used against modern tanks like the M1A2 Abrams, it has never actually killed anyone within those nor done much damage.
The trophy system on some of the modern tanks are pretty nice too, it is supposed to just destroy the incoming missile altogether so you don't even need armour.
It also picks up the person who shot the missile and automatically kills them. Think it was the Merkava IV that used it and it stops the most recent RPG-30.
***** That's because we send weapons to these "rebels" (terrorists) in Syria to fight a Russia-backed president.
King Dododo do dodo dodo dododo RPG-29 has already penned the front turret armour of an M1A2, that's why the US banned their sale to the Iraqi army fearing they would be used against them.
For a good price on used T72's call Igor in Ukraine.
Only one previous owner.
Some are slightly burned.
Igor says turret not included with purchase.
And the inside of the tank will need a good steam cleaning.
@@oltjonmelissa5454 But is included slightly burned previous owner.
And the ammunition has only been dropped once
@@oltjonmelissa5454 You won the Internetz 9 days ago!
"Tow Rope" is a good investment for this MBT
Ukrainian Farmers will improvise something to tow it ...
*Who had the brilliant idea to have loud music playing while the guy is talking???*
*Really annoying.*
those bell-ends who think it's a brilliant idea to have loud music playing. Not seen the whole thing yet but from what you say, it'll ruin a good fucking documentary.
it's modern to to thatn in this dayes :-D
Yes, it makes it very hard to understand for not native English speakers.
It is like the shaking camera and dark interiors of starships - you see/hear less how someone did not finished his work...
JoeDurobot
The Chieftain. LOL
This particular tank was built in Czechoslovakia. Recognized it by the writings on the panel @10:08. That's Slovak. ZTS Martin! :)
At the end, when he refers to it as obsolete and talks about the hazards of the ammunition stored within the turret, I keep picturing all of those blown apart t72s.
Happens to all tanks
@@agentepolaris4914 yes but it happens more so to tanks like t72 that has ammo ready to cook it's own crew
@@agentepolaris4914 not all tanks cooks and frys its own crew.
@Muslimcel true and accurate. However, the Russians either lack the tank killing shoulder-fired missiles or for some reason aren't using them. Needless to say, the life expectancy of a t72 on the Ukrainian side seems to be much higher.
Thats all well and good but the T72 has been used in warfare against competent well trained and well equipped militaries while Western tanks have not. The Abrams is a gas hog that can easily be left stranded without adequate supply lines and is very vulnerable to anything striking down from above. While its french, german and British counterparts have never been produced in significant numbers compared to Soviet/Russian and Chinese made tanks or been tested in serious combat. Id wager that in a full scale war between NATO and Russia/China you would see hundreds of destroyed Abrams/leopards and T72s/T90s. The West is in for a rude awakening in the coming years about the supposed "superiority" of our weaponry.
Although I'm not a supporter of wars by any means, but still, being an engineer myself, the engineering behind these tanks is really fascinating to me.
You like flaws?
If you really were an engineer you'd know the ammunition storage would be a massive problem.
It’s a very small tank with thick armor and a very big gun, safe ammunition stowage isn’t really practical unless you want the thing to carry like 10 rounds
T-72s have shown their durability in Syria while in SAA service. Not bad for an obsolete tank.
milo mily
only recently
"durability" ? Wow, the rebels are having a field day with their TOWs and what-have-you. Syria is the final tank graveyard for the t72.
kurzackd
durability means not ATGM Protection. Any modern anti tank weapon can fuck up any modern tank. Durability means using a tank for a long period of time without maintenance in extreme conditions. This is where T72 is showing his real value. high tech abrams or leo2 would have gave in without field service in such rubble like syria. Check out ANNA-News go-pro t72 videos, youll see what i mean.
Yeah they give a nice show. They blow up and burn really nicely.
Only protection T72 has is the luck if the projectile hits the anti-tank charge laid on top of the armor. If its being shot with a heavier missile, it has no chance at all. Abram's armor plating however is so thick with layers, including such ingredients as Depleted Uranium, that you cant even destroy it on first hit even with a modern anti-tank missile, unless it probably strikes directly on top of the thing. They've driven into huge IED:s and survived with only track's blown off.
Russian tank with Czech marking in Australian museum :D wow! :D
This T-72 was manufactured in the Czech Republic.
this is slovak language ....not czech
What??
Make pause at 10:08 then read... Čítaj
cavo64 Nop... It´s Czechoslovakia tank.. :)
I just visited this museum. Its up in Cairnes, Australia. It is one of the most badass museums I have ever seen and I cannot recommend visiting strongly enough if you are interested in getting a feel for the immensity of artillary and main battle tanks. They are huge. There is so much information that when you buy a single ticket, its good for the next three days!
The T72 has been around for quite awhile, that said there are really no more upgrades it can receive at this point in its current operational condition. Yes this tank is lighter, has a small profile, is equipped with an auto loader for its smoothbore 125mm cannon, a 3 man crew, and a pretty good speed for a 1970s era tank. But that’s were the good list stops. The cons of this tank are….lack of vision when the crew is locked inside the tank, the fact that extra ammo is stored inside the hull of the vehicle plus crew survivability is shortened due to a lack of ease getting out once the tank is hit, and it was not designed to go head to head one on one with western allied tanks. This tank was produced to overwhelm the battlefield in mass with other T72 tanks to win a decisive victory. Another draw back for the T72 is it’s no longer able to accept upgrades in armor, fire control and the amount of ammo carried and fired is also lacking. Over all the tank has seen it’s glory days and has now passed that point.
The Soviet T72B with Kontakt-V could go head to head With any Western tank until 1992, so the premise is false.
What a primitive logic. Why do you think tanks should fight one on one? Lets say you have 80 tons of steel, you make one heavy leopard-2, I'm making two T-72. So, why you and me should fight one on one? Shall swarm of wolfs fight with bear one on one? Shall swarm of bees attack one on one? No tank in modern conflict want to fight alone -- it is a fast death for it without support of a lot of adjacent types of millitary. War is not a knight tournament, at all.
@@vyacheslavvorobyov22 i never said they should fight one on one, i said the T-72 was designed to overwhelm the battle field with other T-72 tanks! Tactics are what tactics are! No tanks ever have fought and opposing army on a single level and tanks yes they are tough but still have vulnerabilities that have been exploited over years of warfare!
The T-72 is still a scary looking tank what a beast
Saw one in 1991 on guard duty Beaumont, Texas it Is Menacing when you see it at night as I did. Some of our shorter guys actually got inside said it was cool but really cramped. I hope to see one agian and actually get inside to see how cramped it really is.
@@Fenncer24 I’m 5”4 and I was cramped inside the driver’s hole. I honestly don’t think a soldier much taller would be able to get in and drive one. The Loader and TC was cramped for me also, but taller people can fit. Everything will be close to you. And if someone is claustrophobic, they won’t be able to operate this tank. But still I love it. It’s a cool looking tank. I was on M1A1 Abrams for 10 years.
@@baghdadwarrior039 the loader is actually the gunner, as all T-72’s have an autoloader system. Which is a main weakness of the tank. The autoloader system requires that the ammunition be mixed openly in the “carousel” in the turret with the crew space. So if the tank is compromised and the ammo is set fire, the crew is almost always killed in a “jack-in-the-box” explosion. Which is why you may find in pictures of Russian destroyed tanks with their turrets “popped” off and laying some distance from the rest of the chassis. The thin side armour and those fuel tanks mentioned in the video have proven these tanks as far less battle worthy as previously thought. This in stark contrast to US M1A(n). You had stated that you had been a tanker for the M1’s. So you understand better on how the M1’s crew is far better protected from ammo cook-offs as the loader takes the round from a blast proof compartment. The T-72 has no such protections, in fact the TC usually has to sit on two small arms ammo crates due to the turrets cramped and poorly designed space. They may look nice, but to a javelin or even smaller NLAW, they’re death traps.
@@MsMrBigglesworth i think by "loader" he meant how much space the autoloader took up, also TMI
@@penapvp2230 I don’t thinks so, as his comments were how cramped those positions in the T-72 were for him. How the “Driver” position was, then the “Loader” and then the “Tank Commander”. Where the “Loader” was actually the “Gunner,” as an autoloader was used. Either way, he is absolutely correct in the lack of room at each position.
having had the opportunity to take a seat in an M-84 (Yugo T-72A, basically), I can say that it was surprisingly less uncomfortable than I had expected, with me being a 183cm tall.
In fact, my only really problem was getting through the hatch as they are rather cramped for my shoulder width, but once inside it was fine.
this tank seems to be a very stripped down model, probably a T-72M model.
The M-84 I sat in had 2 gunners sights, namely a day-light sight in the right monocular and a night-vision one in the right monocular.
I'm just a bit shorter than you can you tell me how would you rate the comfort
@@halitozturk7656 perfectly servicable, is the phrase I'd use. I could stretch my legs out all the way (while the turret isn't moving) and i know that our tankers would sneak off and grab a quick nap inside the tanks when no one was looking, so it's not that bad.
After multiple hours inside, i imagine it's not that great, but neither is it in most other tanks.
M84 is a compass. T84 is a tank. Only somebody who has no clue what he is talking about can make that mistake.
@@beba2893 no, in yugoslavia, nearly all equipment was designated M-something, especially the domestically produced ones, where M stands for model.
Only the outside procured tanks kept their T designation, like T-55 and T-72, but the domestically prosuced were designated as M84 tank, M80 ifv and M60 apc.
"my only really problem was getting through the hatch as they are rather cramped for my shoulder width, but once inside it was fine." ... and now, "THE TANK IS ON FIRE! YOU HAVE LESS THAN 10 SECOND TO GET OUT, THE LAST HALF Of WHICH, "YOU" WILL BE ON FIRE ....." Suddenly , difficulty of gettin in and out during this "Significant Emotional Event" is the most important design feature ,,,, listen to Chieftan: he knows Tanks.
Awsome, when the T-72 is roasted 👌
I've been driving it for 18 months, very nice tank and lots of memories..
I wish it was in WOT Blitz.
hope you didnt drive it into ukraine
It is in warthunder
One thing that was observed when testing the T72 in the desert of the US is that after sitting in the sun all day long it would not be hot to touch it would be about ambient temp. US tanks would be cooked in the heat. Maybe the paint who knows but it produced a much lower IR signature.
Today the T72 is really cooked :D
And how are they fairing in the Ukraine, even worse than in both Gulf wars put together
@@oveidasinclair982 It's almost as if 20+ years has passed and technology has advanced, isn't it?
@@iatsd Well, Javelins were adpoted in 96, so the second gulf war (Iraq war) definitelly had very capable equipment. Maybe the Iraquis (or literally anyone else) just were better than the Russians in tank warfare.
I've always liked the look of the T-72, neat, functional and purposeful. This one is in really good nick!
A bit late to your comment, but the T-72 really is the AK-47 of tanks.
@@phipschi4255
Looks like things have moved on somewhat since my comment! Numbers of T72's in the world have been dramatically reduced! Modern AT weapons are making easy meals of them.
I think the T-72 is my favourite tank :D
Do you like BBQ 😀
@@2Dracula2bruh
It’s official. The T72 is now No. 1 in all “Worst Tank” list.
The time when people can say “The Iraqis had the export model.” Or “The Russian army T72’s have all the addons.” Is gone.
All T72’s come with the Vertically Discarding Turret.
1970s tanks vs 2010s ATGMs, what do you expect?
@@kevintang5473 The Russians didn't have to invade another country with T-72s, They had the very clear option of not invading and their t-72's would not have to doff their hats.
Now the T72 is obsolete but the modern version of the tank is T90M and that is a good tank still today.
@@geramos109 .. There are very few T90’s in Ukraine. They cannot move them because they are needed elsewhere. Also the T90 is proving just as fragile as T72s.
They only have/had 350 T90s.
A much better performance than usual on the part of Challenger. It's obvious he has worked on making his presentation more dynamic and hands on, and that makes the whole video a lot more interesting to watch. Good job.
Best episode so far. Better montage, more dynamic. I want more!
This aged like fine milk!
Huh?
For those paying attention to the current Russian invasion of Ukraine, the Russian t-72s are getting mauled. They have two major weaknesses. First, the autoloader reduces the crew complement by one, so there 25% fewer crew to maintain the tank (they need LOTS of maintenance). Second, the ammo is carried in the same compartment with the crew. If that ammo detonates, the crew and tank are toast. Many of the pics of destroyed Russian T-72s show the turret blown completely off. A lot of the anti-tank weapons being used are capable of igniting the ammo - goodbye tank and crew.
yeah someone above you said "The T-72 is still a scary looking tank what a beast" 5 years ago....
I recon he hasn't seen them in action in Ukraine. they are getting destroyed by the javelin. USA USA USA
@@cris_the_coder Have you seen a Leopard 2 getting hit by a Kronet? Same thing pretty much. Any tank getting hit by these ATGMs are toast.
@Kid Buu back then when there was no Javelin and NLAW this thing was an absolute beast. We should not forget this is a tank from 70‘s
Stop watching ukraines ministry of fakes (yes they have 5000 people working around the clock making fake media to spread). Russian tanks are doing fine from what I have seen.
On another note the Ukrainians are getting paid a personal bonus for each Russian tank destroyed. Naturally, there has been the "destruction" of hundreds upon thousands thanks to troops trying to cash in 😂
That's why most Russian tanks you see in Ukraine have been "converted" into convertibles
You can't use a rifled tank gun as a rocket launcher! And that is the main reason for having smoothbore guns at T-72, T-80, T-90 etc. Those things can shoot guided missiles :)
MGM-51 Shillelagh was fired from a 152mm rifled gun, 105mm rifled tank guns such as the L7, the M68 and the Rh-105 can use the 105mm version of the LAHAT gun-launched anti-tank missile.
Smoothbore guns allow a higher velocity for a given projectile and propellant weight and thus better armor-piercing capabilities.
Jesus Nazareth You forget what the Shillelagh was. A really big headache! Modern ammo and tolerances make smoothbore the way to go, with the elimination of the engineering problem of specialized rounds getting ground to bits by the grooves.
Ivan Ivanov Not quite. Smoothbore guns offered higher velocity, gun-launched missiles were a "happy accident" that were developed later. Most T-64 and T-72s produced could not fire them, only certain models with the correct equipment.
The BMP-3 has a rifled 100mm gun, and it fires missiles.
The British love HESH....which needs a rifled barrel
Being that it's 50 years old, it is still surprisingly damn useful
Sure about it?
Then Ukraine happened 🤣 T 72...Chocolate teapot...
Nah only for BBQ
Useful for Ukrainian BBQ.
Funny how Russian think that they are military superpower and their main battle tank is the one other countries are having in museums.
Nice to see a Czech T-72 at that. This one was most probably manufactured in Martin, Czechoslovakia.
russians know how do make damn good modern weaponry
cheap, reliable, effective
+patrick Katalenas "cheap and cheerful" (дешево и сердито))
romasiny lol
+patrick Katalenas but not comfy and dangerous in a fire lol
+patrick Katalenas Well that could be discussed, they also have the most amounts of spies in the world
Cheap and bad. One of the worst tank in the world compared to Western counterparts.
I've been in the commander's position in the turret. I can confirm that there is no room to move at all. On your left is the recoil shield. While your right shoulder is pressed up against the turret side. I'm not very big but I would not fancy being stuck in this tank for a long period, let alone fight in it.
The good thing is, 8f you are 8n combat in a T-72 you won't be cramped for very long. The bad news is there is no way to safely land the turret.
Great video, but it didn't mention that it's main purpose was to be a firing target for every army ever 😂, it's crew would rather abandon it and walk than be in it.
Yep...the sentimentalism about the T-72 sure didn't age well at all.
the whole point of a tank is to be a target,they are literally bult to take damage,the term tanking the damage was invented because of it.
@@newguy954 T-72 seem happy to explode.
@@gustavmeyrink_2.0 t-72 are not living beings,they"re machines
@@gustavmeyrink_2.0 So far is doing a great job, freeing Ukraine from it's access to the Black Sea ...
Lesson one for any effective military force: Make sure your people are comfortable and have rested enough. How can one rest in such an environment? After a week they are done.
this was a great episode, thank you wargaming europe and australian armour & artillery museum : )
Timeless tank and a true staple vehicle of the Russian armed forces
Matsimus Gaming Mat you should do vide about the t72
NO!
On this tank was Czechoslovakian Tank!
Guys! ITS CZECHOSLOVAKIA
да товарищи это русский танк
Этот т72 даже с завода не был в таком хорошем состоянии, уважение смотрителям музея.
Sorry, im dont speak English
The title should be INSIDE THE TANKS: THE T-72 - SEEN BY NLAW AND JAVELIN MISSILES :)
Classic Cold War armor... Thanks for posting.
I know thanks alout
Legacy, who are you talking to mate? xd
T-72B3M
Keep up the "inside the Tanks" series! Its awesome! I'd love to see a Merkava episode! Maybe a Challenger too.
Ah the battlefield "turret discus" champion. Well known to be easily defeated by farm equipment and aged like milk m60s. Incredible. In game 900000hp, best armor, undefeated.
I hear the T-72 has a modular turret system, yes?
For when the weather gets cold, you can just fire a javelin at it and it will act as an indefinite stationary stovetop, just continue to shove wood in the big hole at the top and you can warm a whole company.
And when it gets hot, you can fire a panzerfaust at it and it will lift off the turret turning it into a convertible for a nice summertime trip. ;)
So the Challenger went from UK to Australia to take a look at the T-72. dafuq there are T-72's in Europe basically everywhere :D (i know the T-72 was just the beginning but still)
Challenger is living in UK and Australia too. He was at second home and go to museum.
blazimus good to know
ive been in the museum once. its amazing. they have alot more equipment atm
Javelin like this.
Wonder if that little fan is able to keep you calm after tank is hit by Javelin or NLAW?
8:20 - WROOONG))))
It's a loading mechanism from t-80 instead loading automat mounted in t-72
In t-72 loading progress goes in a two moves - first the projectile than the charge
Т-80 and T-64 )
My favorite tanks are: T72 and T90. My country use T72 and T90 still just with another name and some upgrades.
(The country is Serbia)
That's why you were weak and surrounding countries using old old tanks Russian out of date weapons.
James Mitchell Sorry? Albania is using WW2 tanks, Macedonia, Bulgaria, Croatia, Hungary and Bosnia use the same tanks... So please, learn before you start saying shit.
James Mitchell + Having old tanks doesn't mean the whole army is weak. We would actually win the Yugoslavian war but USA, NATO and UN ruined that.
please study history of balkan conflicts more. it was not USA, NATO or UN that stopped Serbia.
Actually he is wrong we do not use the T-72, or the T-90, we have our own upgraded tank based on the chassis of the T-72, called the M-84, now most of those older M-84's are being and have been upgraded to the M-84AS which is a very good tank, don't get me wrong it is no match for the newest generation of tanks made by the worlds greatest military powers, like the T-90MS or the Armata, or the newest Leopard or Abrams, but it is certainly more then a match for other smaller countries MBT's especially for the MBT's made by countries that surround us
I sat in the commander's hatch last year and fanged around the yard in this very tank. Great weekend at the Aus Armour and Artillery Museum.
The stuff at that museum is in amzaing condition, love the way they are not over painted.
Czech T-72 in Australian museum :D Nice :)
Mr. Wordwide
jandiseq *Czechoslovak
The T-72 is a fascinating tank for me just because of the immense variety of models and the plethora of changes that have been given to it. From the early models, to the export variants (like the one shown in the video), the basic tank was constantly upgraded and retrofitted with newer optics, engines, tracks, ERA, and so on. It has gotten to the point that models like the Polish PT-91 Twardy, the Slovak T-72 Moderna and the Russian T-90 are barely recognizable as T-72 variants. Frankly, it's fascinating how older designs can be kept current and kept relevant - and make no mistake, a modernized T-72 with a Svir ATGM loaded can still trouble even the newest and most modern design on the battlefield.
+VelmiVelkiZrut Why does a Svir matter? It's just less penetration than APFSDS and have you seen how they're guided? You've barely got the angular resolution to even see something beyond the range of the main gun.
Fake Name The actual range of any ATGM is a good deal greater than that of the main cannon, though I agree that the average T-72 optics leave a good deal to be desired. Nevertheless, it pushes the engagement distance out a ways and in modern tank combat, he who fires first generally wins.
VelmiVelkiZrut Did you know that modern tanks can't penetrate each other from the front at normal combat ranges? M829A3 even needs a favorable angle or luck to pen a T-90, and that's the best modern ammunition against the worst front armor. The Svir doesn't have a chance.
Every tank is a Tiger II from the front and a Carden-Loyd tankette on the sides. So it helps to shoot the first round, but it's much better to shoot the first round at a favorable angle. Because if you don't have the sides, rear or top you aren't going to accomplish much.
So the whole idea is to use surprise and speed to get a favorable angle. A Svir is not the tool for this task. Before it's launched the enemy's LWR is going to be slewing his turret towards the missile and during the 6-17 seconds it takes for the missile to arrive the driver even has time to react.
I'm not saying the T-90 isn't excellent. It is. But barrel launched ATGMs are a relic of an era when HEAT was dominant. Now HEAT is at a serious disadvantage compared to APFSDS and modern FCS is pushing the engagement range of the main gun out further and further.
A much better, faster, tandem warhead, fire fire and forget, top attack missile might be effective in specific cases, sure. But the Svir is just old, under powered and slow.
+Fake Name russians say the sabot is ok up to 3200 meters on that 90SM variant in promo vid. those arrows actually lose effectiveness at range so youre better off increasing caliber and power so atgms arent needed at all. Caliber increase allows for kornet-like increase in diameter like armata can with 152 mm.
Drive it to Ukraine and you have use it for BBQ
Imagine being cramped up in that tiny space mostly blind knowing that your enemy has NLAWs and Javelins. What a nightmare.
Once the turret pops off, you have lots of headroom, but maybe no head anymore.
Interesting to that Australia has this tank in a museum as it is STILL the main battle tank here in Bulgaria.
Russia have same problem.
T-72 in this video was made in SLOVAKIA with soviet license.
ludovkyzpodpolania Chyba čoboláku, v ČSSR v Martině Závody ťažkého strojarstva. Moc se nebij do prsou, bez čechů byste tam tak pásli ovce a kozy.
Stále ste strašně ublížení a většina z vás znala max Prahu.
pumelo1 Veď dobre. Ale tak ako starší bratia ste nás museli zachrániť pred MAĎARMI ..
@@pumelo1 jaaj ty jebo, na slovensko ste dali vsetku prvovyrobu, aby sme sa vam nemiesali do biznisu, finalizacie a exportu.. tomu sa hovori frajerina, ked nedovolis druhemu dychat a este sa hras na zachrancu kokutku.. ste celu svoju historiu fajcili nemcom tak ste tam mali nejaky ten okukany priemysel a kulturu (tak ako aj za cssr) no, inak je to na tie starocia samostatnosti biida, co sa vlastnej tvorby tyka.. chudak, si uvedom ze sa ako 'cech' mozes naparovat akurat tak oproti krajinam ktore boli starocia v utlaku, a potom hovor ze kto ma mindraky.. to je vidiet aj teraz, za 30 rokov sme sa (aj s problemami ktore nam tu nasadil taticek Havel a Klaus) naucili co je to sa presadit aj bez vas.. proste mnohi ste kokutci taki ako ty (dejte mi lidi ja to udelam), cest vynimkam.. radi by ste zase videli slovakov na dne, aby prisli s prosikom za vami a mohli ste sa citit 'niekto' v tomto svete ktory na vas SERE zvysoka
My home town. I'm lucky to have one of the best armour museums on the planet just up the road. (it's odd, coz we are usually known as the gateway to the Great Barrier Reef and are surrounded with Rainforest and are a very tourist friendly city). There's not just awesome tanks in Cairns, come for the Barrier Reef and the Daintree Rainforest and everything else...
Well, seeing as how the vast majority of the updated T-72's that have been knocked out in the current conflict are shown to have their turrets blown off meaning that the autoloader is indeed a REALLY bad idea leaving the ammo in the same compartment as the crew. Those things are cooking off at a faster rate than the early Shermans did in North Africa. One little hit to the top of the turret and cooking off it goes. Maybe tjey should start being called Ivan Cookers now
Almost all modern tanks have ammo stowed among the crew, including Leopard 2, Challenger 2, Leclerc, and Merkava.
it means a certain type of tower attachment. For example, at ambrams, the tower enters the body like a glass. Therefore, it is difficult for her to jump out, and we see few torn-off Abrams towers, but this does not mean that everyone inside survived because of this.) And calling the autoloader is a really bad idea. speaks of your incompetence.
@@TheDrAstrov My incompetence? From someone who either cant spell or cant form a cognitive thought, I am not offended
@@DecidedlyNinja Just because it is a common feature, or more appropriately a lack of feature, does not mean its a good idea. Stowing the bulk of the ammo without it being seperated from the crew is relying entirety too much on the idea that the armor will hold. Every single tank ever put into production has been able to have its armor defeated. The US designers knew this and since 1942 have made their ammo protected in some way be it by wet storage or by entirely seprating it away from the crew to increase survivability for the crews.
@@southronjr1570 you are not well versed in the subject. and like yourself :)
Nice tank. Nothing extra. Murderous beauty.👌
Nice review, great restoration. I would like to know the armor thicknesses and it would have been interesting to see the fired case ejected from the hack of the turret. Looks like some other interesting pieces there as well. Great trip, visited Australia back in '71, would love to go again. Congrats for getting into that drivers seat.
If ur talking about the t72
Its upper plate has
60mm RHA
105mm Textolite
50mm RHA
Turret
75-140mm RHA
115mm Quartz core
200-280mm RHA
Sides
80mm
Lower sides
20mm RHA
Rear
20-40mm RHA
Hull roof
20-30mm RHA
Turret roof
30-45mm RHA
I got this from warthunder lol
I remember reading that the average height of Soviet tank crewmen in the T-72/T-64 era was only 5'5" (about 165 cm).
Brilliant overview. Thanks.
The museum's just an hour drive from my place. There's a shooting range down below where I had the pleasure of shooting a .303.
Very good, informative without being boring. i know that tank is outdated but it's still a very cool looking tank.
I love how there's an Abrams tank right next to the T-72, LOL! No comparison.
I disagree. It is very far from being obsolete. I mean, you even said it yourself. For third world nations is a perfect choice, where say an Abrams or Leopard 2 would be an unreachable luxury, a T-72 is an excellent choice that provides very good protection and exceptional firepower for an affordable cost. And most wars these days are not between first world nations, but in third world ones anyway.
A single troop of latest gen MBT's would wipe out a whole battalion of old T72's out in minutes. A good example of this is the Battle of 73 Easting. In just 23 minutes E-troop, composed of 9 Abrams and a few Bradley APC's, wiped out 50 T72's, 25 APC's, 40 trucks and other vehicles. Also, remember this happened nearly 30 years ago, with today's tanks results would have been even more devastating.
Being obsolete doesn't mean it can't be effective in certain situations. If my enemy has nothing and I have a sword I'll likely win the fight, this doesn't make the sword any less obsolete as a battlefield weapon. The T72's situation is similar to a lesser extent.
I would not say obsolete but in tank vs tank battle, t72 doesn't really have good odds against modern armor.
But t72 still has a role attacking poorly protected supply convoys and units which do not really have good anti-tank capabilties.
@@sal075_3 the definition of a word is not up for discussion. The T72 is, by definition, obsolete.
"obsolete
adjective
UK /ˈɒbsəliːt/ US
not in general use any more, having been replaced by something newer and better or more fashionable"
The T72 is not a top of the line MBT anymore. Any modern MBT comparable to Leopard 2a7 will have no problem dealing with multiple T72´s at once in a head on engagement.
@@ItsATrap614 50 T72? Ther record of the 9 tanks is about them destroying 26 tanks in about 20 minutes, on top of that its locally produced T72M (export of older varian lacking both modern sights and better composite armor). Your argument is on the level of saying that Abrams is bad, because the Version lacking modern sights and depleted uranium is performing poorly in SA and Iraq.
@@Jake94cool1 nah mate, you're reading things i didn't write. Yes those were local variant (didnt say they werent did I?). My source for the numbers is "The Fires of Babylon: Eagle troop and the battle of 73 Easting", if you read carefully I wrote Abrams AND supporting vehicles like Bradley etc.
I agree though that recent versions of T72, such as T72B1MS or T72B3M are in no way obsolete and can hold their own against any NATO tank. I was referring to older variants, T72A, B and it's export variants.
Т-72BME tank is the product of in-depth modernization of Т-72 tanks, in accordance with the requirements to the means of armed confrontation in the XXI-st century. Characteristics of the tank are most closely approximate to the characteristics of the newest tanks of Т-90 type. While performing the modernization, the latest
achievements in development of fire control, surveillance and advanced weapon.
protection systems were used.
Nice video host, thank you for sharing. I think the Russian T-72 MBT is sharing the same era with the British Chieftain MBT.
ouh man i love the look of this tank ,its short and its turret looks so amazing like a turtle with a massive gun i wished it was a more correctly represented in video games.
Man this tank its like an m4 carabine in terms of adaptability and as cheap as an AK(in some variants).
a legend
Great informative video.
T72....what a great target.
THIS PIECE WAS MANUFACTURED IN SLOVAKIA. FACTORY: ZTS MARTIN
+Gustav Husák in Czechoslovakia ;)
nevtieraj sa... tak isto vela videi o vz.58 hovoria o CZ ako ceskej zbrojovke... tak sa nevtieraj.. kanony, hlavne, "hull" , veža ... všetko bolo vyrobene na Slovensku a to Dubnica, trencin a martin. ;) serus
+Gustav Husák československé tanky ale vz.58 česká :)Dvojitý meter smrdí :D V skrátenom do angličtiny hodia české tanky nakonec :D
+cdgncgn presne tak! Vz. Je vás cesky vynález, ktorý si velmi cením a teším sa mu :D pasová technika sa robila na Slovensku . Kolova v Čechách... Zbytočne sa tu motá :)
Tak jste se neměli od nás odtrhávat :-D
It’s time for y’all to put them in World of Tanks, the competition is already doing that.
Old American Geizer here..
Tanks are so interesting. Thank you for NOT HAVING a long BS "chat" and getting to the "meat and potatoes" of seeing the inside with good but quick details
"Tanks-a-lot". Couldn’t help myself lol
Those are some beautiful armored vehicles.
They got one with a turret. Hard to find these days. Russia seems to have a hard top convertibles in Ukraine. However, it's a tough job getting the turret back on after a nice windy drive in the summer.
Maybe they have some Priests from Lend&Lease times left.
the channel: ‘war gaming Europe’
The video: ‘WARGAMING ASIA, AUSTRALIA”
Wow, Czech T72 :) Still active in our army in modernized version M4CZ
The Fray Bentos is my favorite tank to because it used to be called "Mother" And the cannons that are two of them on both sides and a cannon on top. And it had tracks!.
I don't think Soviets had "Crew Comfort" at the top of their production lists for Tanks lol....
However some were more equal then others the SU-34 jet has a freaking kitchen behind the cockpit lol
@@wetlettuce4768 You know what Russians say about their weaponry which lacks comfort for the crew? "You'd better survive the battle in the uncomfortable tank rather than die in a cozy seat with enough space around"))) It is a joke of course yet it has a grain of truth in it.
_> I don't think Soviets had "Crew Comfort"_
This is one of the most idiotic cliches about T-72.
For some reason, no one complains about F-16 pilot's seat being cramped, or Ferrari racecar's driver's seat being cramped. But when it comes to T-72 - "Bawww, it's cramped!". Pure idiocy and hypocrisy.
in Soviet Russia, you serve tank, not tank serve you!
@@Vatman47, yes, but it isnt about T-34 soviet tank with 76mm gun. It was non comfortable and not fire powerful
Where is the button for popping the turret off like we see in Ukraine?
This video is legendary
Amazing footage :)
The T72 is an iron coffin 😂😂😂
it looks like a large heavy green steel coffin to the russian crew inside.......
The definition of a good tank, as explained by Heinz Guderian, is that it should be relatively inexpensive, have good armour, a good gun, good mobility and it should be simple and easy to maintain and repair. Now I would say the T72 pretty much ticks all the boxes. It has a nice balance of all those qualities - not too much of the one, but not to little either. And if it can be upgraded again and again for decades on end, even better.
@suzi milimeter Those are over exaggerated Ukrainian estimates. In time of war, belligerents will always exaggerate the number of enemy killed. Did you not know that? The last Russian claim of Ukrainian dead was about two months ago. They put it at around 23,000.
I had the privilege to see the M-84. It is a Yugoslav upgraded version of the T-72
i wouldnt want to be inside one of those things when a Javaline or an NLAW gets ahold of them
Because of the lack of space, the crew members should not exceed 1,65 m in height, and that's not a joke.
Yes, this is rational. They were choosing smaller men for training tank crews... I served in this army right after disbandment of USSR but rules were the same. Men above 180cm serve in Ceremonial Guards , Spetznaz and paratroopers. Men 170-180 serve motorized infantry, paratroopers, border guards. Men bellow 160 serve in tank forces. Sure Signals and Engineering forces as well as all support units would take men of all sized depending on their professional skills and education. Spetznaz GRU have completely different requirement they don't care about the size, they recruited sportsmen with good profile and good education no matter the size.
@@Hashishtani My father is 180cm and he served as tank driver (T55)
@@F.Fox714 Ok. This is doable. But I don't think it was most rational use of the tank and most rational use of your father :-) It is smarter to build smaller tanks and use smaller people in these tanks, rather than build huge tanks just so that they fit huge people! Optimization is all about smart compromise.
1.69 meters.
mitkosaz I am perfect for this tank! I am 1.64 m
smooth bore shots faster and further than rife bored.
Wow there's actually a t72 in Australia I'm gonna go check it out now
What a deathtrap
I was a gunner on an M60 1/4 Cav. I thought we were cramped. Compared to this, the M60 was like a four bedroom mansion inside. Those are basically steel coffins. Can’t believe how cramped and all the edges
Wow. Thank you for your service. My father's uncle was a gunner (also trained loader) in a t55a in the hungarian army in the 80s. He said he hated every part of being a tanker. He refused being a loader after the chamber almost removed his fist. He said 95% of the work was cleaning and trying to maintain that pile of steel with parts that didnt fit or even exist in their inventory.
These soviet beasts are something beyond crazy.
Always have a manual traverse and elevation mechanism, as well as a manual gun-reloading system, to double with the electricity-powered systems. You're never too cautious.
Love the background music though 👍👍👍
Rubber side skirts, smoke dispensers, day and night sights suggest it's a T-72A, so 1979 model. All of these were retired in the 90s (or exported to third world countries). Today main MBT of Russia is not T-90 or T-80, but T-72B3, so upgraded T-72B model made from 1985 onward. I know those tanks are not impressive for westerners, but 2015 T-72 differs from 1975 T-72 Ural. T-72 will stay in service unltil at least 2030, so over 50 years.
Szarko now i see it's actually export czechoslovak T-72M1.
+Szarko not M1. Id say the oldest T-72 made here. If Im not mistaken, made from 1981-1985, M version, 85-87, M1, 1987-199? M1 are relatively combat worthy compared to previous ones.
+cdgncgn It's still a downgraded export model (for licence production), not the more advanced 80s soviet made B model with ERA.
Szarko ERA was fitted to export versions too, T-72S, the final export version, that did get it as well as guided missile capability was made in USSR or Russia only. Syria did get bricks on M1s as well it seems. Who needs to talk of Soviet versions when they mostly saw no action apart from Chechnya wars. In Georgia there were Russian T-62s while Georgians had T-72B if I recall correctly.
+cdgncgn Some T-72B3 saw action in Ukraine, while syrian T-72s are used extensivly since 2011, which I assume addde recently much to MBT development in Russia.
T stands for Target Practice. 72 stands for 72 meters until it runs out of gas.
I was a mechanic on an M-84. M-84 is a licensed Czechoslovakian T-72. Just like this one in the video
Great video. I'm use to seeing pictures of these in smaller charred bits.