How to Fight the Soviet T-64 and T-72 Tanks
Вставка
- Опубліковано 14 жов 2024
- This is an educational video documenting the characteristics, strengths, and weaknesses of two famous Soviet tanks of the Cold War era, the T-64 and T-72. This information is valuable to all Cold War historians.
Portions of this video may contain background music or other elements which are used legally and legitimately in this educational video, under the "fair use" doctrine, as detailed here:.
Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976: Allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use."
THANKS ALOT! I really need to get rid of the T-64 prowling my neighbourhood, and now I can, finally
Showering with dad Youll need something better then a m60 tho
@jackinthesack I mean tbf those were heavily upgraded models
jackinthesack they where early model 72s what do you expect
)))
Living in syria be like
Don't forget to rewind this video after watching.
+Brian Martin lol!
+Brian Martin Always rewind the youtube, always. Otherwise it gets broken.
nah, i'll take the .50 fine
Had to think about that one for a sec lmfao good one
B kind plz rewind. don't leave tape in the car or it will melt and you'll owe palmer video $50 for a replacement
Somehow lower quality than the ww2 footage i have seen....
+Xiones11 its easy to explain, ww2 footage is mainly shoot on the film, but in later years recording on a magnetic tape(lower quality overall) made much more sense especially for educational videos . And also this video was recorded on a vhs tape which reduces quality even more+ magnetic tape deteriorates overtime so there is that+ mpeg to flv compression makes it even worse.
LOL...you are perfectly right...
It was VHS tape which wasn't the greatest to start with, and then it was probably played countless times for soldiers for 20 years. Likely on players which never had their heads cleaned further degrading the tape. So, the result is what you see. Film is great but I'm a fan of the digital revolution. :)
Most military videos of the time were filmed using a potato. Same in the British army until around 2014.
I love the narration, it's almost like he's trying to sell me one of these tanks, not explain how to kill it :-)))
+Anglo Spanish Racing yep. I ve noticed it in most films. I mean you have to sound enthusiastic to make them GIs not to fall asleep while watching. I love these movies.
YUP, AN ADVERSTISEMENT VIDEO
this is so awesome. The 80s was the height of technology in the cold war. Abrams, Bradleys, Apaches, T80s, Mig29s all came out in the 80s and are kick ass!
my left ear enjoyed this video
Genesis Maldonado your so fucking right my headphones😂
Genesis Maldonado h
F
I was wondering why ther eis no sound. I have mono sound with only the right side working (Windows 10 doesn't support mono sound properly)
hahahhahahahha
My eyes will never be the same after that. Nor my ear.
nor my peepee here
A very informative video.Its one factor how the Israeli army deafeted T55 and T62 tanks on the Golan Heights in the Yom Kippur war in 1973. Israel was outnumberd 180 tanks to Syrian 800. Better gunnery skills and the elevation and depresion of the main weapon and to keep moving were needed, was a key factor in defeating the Syrians.
Great cold war find, I would love to see more like it, especially training films from that era, either side.
A massive thank you for making this available 👍 This material is easy to overlook in favour of modern quality and style - but it's a study of so much more than basic specs on two Soviet tanks, that's why I love these slices of history, some are pretty dry and objective but then there's one I remember being hosted by John Wayne, The Duke, and that's got entertainment value by itself 😬
(Ahem) anyway, much appreciated 👍🍻
What year is this from? I see M1 Abrams being used so I'm guessing it must have been in the 1980s
+Random Videos Most bridges in Europe have 50 tons capacity. All Russian tanks can cross them but none of Abrams, though there are rivers to cross every 50 km there in Europe. Then compare assoult bidges needed for tanks under 50 and over 60 tons. Your Abrams was constructed for parades in Nevada and other plain desserts, meanwhile Russian armor vihicles are all universal..
михаил федорович зубков Greetings, Russian troll. You gonna answer my question or just randomly write an anti-Abrams reply?
+михаил федорович зубков The 64, 72, and 90 are inferior in every aspect except for speed and weight towards the Abrams.
+михаил федорович зубков loooool you never heard of mobile bridges moron...this is not ww2....
+PERPARSON - Even in WW2 there were "quick" Ponton Brigdes strong enough to span the Rhine River.
This is great. When I'm in battle, my left ear will know exactly what to do.
You know I'm 50...I was in the Navy in 87 & 88 and in ROTC before that. And this video just made me think about how inevitable we thought WWIII was. Like it WAS going to happen & any day. Thank God we were wrong
Even as a kid into my teens I never believed that. The Soviets were always in catch up mode. They never had our capabilities. Propaganda worked overtime then. Just an excuse to build the military police state that we have now. The one that everyone seems to act as they don't see it. Even as you watch it on the IDIOT BOX ( TV ); and it now moves progressively yet slowly over seas. Lol.
@@samuelparker9882 we all know the non-alligned pact was the best ;)
@@samuelparker9882 USSR had the strongest army in the world til the mid 1980s. What good are 1000 modern US and Germany tanks gonna do against 20000 T 55 tanks ? In the 1980s , the soviets had 20000 T 55 tanks, 10000 T 72 tanks, 4800 T 80 tanks, 9700 T 64 tanks and 11300 T 62 tanks. USSR would have won the ground war, no question about that. In the 1990s, the US military concluded that there was no way they could have defeated the red army in a non nuclear war. They also concluded that they would have a hard time penetrating the armour of the T 72 A and the T 80 was basically impenetrable.
The Soviet Union was truly the great equaliser in the world who could keep US and western hegemony in check.
Dubbed to digital video using potato, we present "How to Fight the Soviet T-64 and T-72 Tanks" in 30p!
old tape and mono sound, what do you expect?
It was just a joke, chief. I still watched it and I also gave it a thumbs up.
well then i didnt get it.
( B )ig thanks for the video - IT CHANGED MY WHOLE LIFE!
I decided not to be bullied by those T-64 bastards and those nasty 72's anymore - now I'm sure I can make it!
;)
Rambo would've kicked all their asses with his M60 MG*
Not the Patton but the mg
The second section on the T-62 has a factual error in the beginning. They say that it has a Christie suspension. It doesn't, it has torsion bars. I think the T-34 was the last Christie suspension tank designed.
T-62 has that suspension
@@jambyjameson1380 T-62 had a torsion bar suspension.
@@Mishn0 wait crap. Well i guess i messed up.
@@jambyjameson1380 That's okay.
Cool! Why not you publish video about hoplites tactics agains cavalry or something more ancient?
SO lets see the Russian "How to Beat the imperialist American Abrams Tank" episode!
shut your goddamn ass up
i know how you beat the russian tank you wait enough that communism goes it bankrupt without gus or ammo then you sold it at syria or iraq and then the driver goes drunk lol
Sorry that video doesn't exist!
Nesquick Guy watch?v=U4d9KsTMA4E
You're a waste of human skin!
hey he Marshmallow Man your a funny guy, if that's the case this means the EU is gonna start paying the USA for all the protection we give it? last time I checked EU needs help getting troops to Africa and need to ride on American,French & British Aircraft. sorry bro. but EU showed that even in the Libya that it couldn't perform fully without the USA and the British plus the USA payed for 60% of all the countries that took part in the conflict.
where did they get that soviet tank in the 2nd part of the video?
I remember doing all this vehicle recognition in 84 whilst I was in the Milan platoon. Great fun, shit if you had to do it for real, with the amount of armour the Soviets had. It would have been hard at times but still would have had a few cook offs.
I can also spot _intricate_ features of tanks and recognize them, but lets hope i never, ever have to use that outside of war thunder
I was hoping for a head to head battle to really show which one was better but I think these guys were not ready for that kind of sacrifice for our entertainment
+dan banks - Just watch some Gulf War tank battle viedos if you want some.
Gulf War is really not an example you seek for. Chinese Type 59... T62.. and very small amount of T72Ms and 0 air support provided... not really a match.
So basically there saying the T-62 is much better than the M-60....
It had a much more powerful gun, that's for sure.
jurisprudens And was way smaller
The M-60A1 probably so, but the M-60A3TTS totally outclassed the T-62.
@@FN_FAL_4_ever yes yes version made when t62 was replaced and was no used
And that thing is competing with t64 not t62
Thanks for putting the video up. Interesting to watch and get a perspective of what they were doing
Why are civilians and (apparent) pre-teens cussing and fighting in the comment section of an old military (training) video?
It's not like you people are ever going apply any of this information. How does any of this relate to you on a level suffice to cause anger?
Video games
To be fair the T72 is one of the most exported modern mbt. If something did happen, chances are you'd run into one
Snow flakes didnt live our reality in the 70s n80s. M 60 a3 was a much better weapon by 1983 though.
Same reason we argue and fight about what dinosaur is the best
T-10 heavy tanks formed heavy batallions, and were fearsome tanks. Their armour was not much better than the T-55/62 on the front, but they had a much better armour everywhere else, and more room for a massive 122mm gun. Basically, concept of heavy tank became useless in late 1960's, and the new T-64 was impressively armed and armoured for a medium tank. They adopted the "MBT" concept with the T-64, followed by T-72 and T-80...
T-72 section is going to be useful for the Ukrainian military because those are made in Russia Nizhny Tagil unlike T-64 made in Ukraine. Do have a feeling US Government gave Ukrainian military updated Training Videos on how to recognize current Russian T-72 variants.
My left ear really enjoyed this vidio
answer: A10 Thunderbolts!
Then suddenly, Shilkas.. Shilkas everywhere.
Alex T
then time for a new counterweapon against the SAMs
@@VonGrav and TUNGUSKAS
@@VonGrav yea then small drones with enough shaped charge will disable your shilka shilka... now it is just you and a hunk of metal. ha
Are you familiar with the "Battle of 73 Easting" ??? As I read that one...the Iraqi's problem wasnt knowing how to use their tanks...when our M1's showed up, the Iraqi's had their tanks in excellent defensive positions but seemed completely unaware that the US and UK tanks where in the area. Many of our tankers stated that many Iraqi crews where out of there T72/T62's fixing meals and even playing soccer...???
These graphics are op
Does anyone know if there's a good quality version available of this video? Interesting stuff!
The best tank is the one with the best trained crew.
Hope you get your highly trained crew on a M4 and face a T72
Sandy Blasty for Christ sake! you have to know that I'm talking 'bout present day tank vs tank. they all have there faults and weaknesses, and training is one of them.
Really,just ask the french how that workrd out for them.
yep, even a t55a could take out an m1 given the chances. hell, try and use a sherman to eliminate a t72, i assure you that can be done
They showed us this video when I was going through Basic and AIT at Knox in '85. I loved the "How to Fight" series.
What the Russians will have you believe is that the T-90 could kill an M1A2 Abrams from over two miles away.
What the Americans will have you believe is that the M1A2 Abrams would shrug off a 125mm round like water upon a stone.
We really don't know what would happen if these two metal monsters met on the battlefield.
Britain makes the greatest armor, America makes the greatest technology and Germany makes the greatest guns. The Abrams tank includes all of these things in the in one package. The Russians have piles of resources at their disposal, if they wanted to they could make 20,000+ T-90s in a year.
If I was to select any of these tanks, I would take an M1A2 Abrams any day of the week. People like to forget the fact that the M1A2 Abrams has the most advanced armor in the world, Chobham armor, supplemented by plates of depleted uranium. It has an advanced gyro-stabilized Rheinmetall L/44 120mm smoothbore gun, arguably one of the best guns in existence. This means it can hit a target on the move with pinpoint accuracy beyond 5 km. German made guns are to this day the greatest guns money can buy, not even American or British guns can quite match it.
I'm not biased because the T-90 also has some nice aspects that the Abrams doesn't have. The T-90 is a tiny tank and it's much lighter weight. The tinier the silhouette the harder it is to hit the target so these little tanks can dart all over the battlefield and you could have a hard time hitting it. It has an autoloader, you sacrifice a human loader so the tank can operate with fewer people.
Mr556x45mm I agree that the regular T-90 is about equal to M1A2 and only way to "find out" if they would meet on a battlefield. Though *Abrams does NOT have chobbam armor,* only composite + DU. Its British Challenger which has chobbam armor. Secondly the T-90's 125mm gun is just as good or even better to some extent than the M1A2 Abrams gun, since max firing range of the Abrams is about 2,5-3km while T-90 can fire laser guided ATGM's up to 6km from its gun, plus T-90 has ARENA, SHOTRA and ERA (reactive armor) to protect it against HEAT and modern ERA works even against Sabot. Even with a DU shell M1A2 cannot penetrate the T-90's front armor, except maybe at near point blank ranges. Plus T-90 has better mobility etc. etc. etc.
You're mistaken. The *Abrams DOES have Chobham armor.* The Abrams DU/Chobham armor is so effective that our own Abrams tanks cannot penetrate it. There was a case in the east where one of our Abrams tanks was disabled and we didn't want it to fall into enemy hands so we had shot from point blank range to no effect.
what to have not believe in that if you go to watch match on tv and you know your team will lose would you watch or skip the match ? Antena and Shtora is a systems that makes abrams handicap with electronics !
Mr556x45mm I rember that. Tank had to be disabled with thermite.
Mr556x45mm I rember that. Tank had to be disabled with thermite.
If M60 and T-62 are obsolete, why is T-62 still used but called worse than M60, which is much less used?
This must be VHS. I would prefer Betamax.
+Richard de Boer - Last year I TRIED to watch an old family video on VHS. The "QUALITY" was similar to this one and I WONDERD WHAT THAT NOISE WAS. It took me a few minutes to remember that all WHS casettes had this anoying background noise.
1. VHS is better quality get over it
2. Nobody cares dude just use streaming services
3. this is HORRENDOUS mastering, it could have been much better if it wasnt just captured from the player, maybe even run it through an AI upscaler
heavy tanks (T-10, IS-2/3) served long after, being retired slowly up to the 1990's, kept in reverve... Look for the most common version T-10M, an impressive beast. Even if the T-64 was a little revolution, the heavy tank T-10M was still more survivable and could wisthand punishment that no medium tank (call it mbt or not) could.
Most bridges in Europe have 50 tons capacity. All Russian tanks can cross them but none of Abrams, though there are rivers to cross every 50 km there in Europe. Then compare assoult bidges needed for tanks under 50 and over 60 tons. Your Abrams was constructed for parades in Nevada and other plain desserts, meanwhile Russian armor vihicles are all universal..
Wade Wilson The Abrams fought the barest variant of the t72 however if it gone against a more modern variant and a well trained crew I doubt you could shoot the shit out of them.
Both tanks will kill the other easily if they're within a 2 thousand meters of each other. What it comes down to who shoots and hits the other guy first.
Hoehner Tim Yes that was my point thank you.
Not trying to argue or agree with anyone but damn I've seen a lot of t72 blow their top. Just search tanks being destroyed, pretty much all Russian tanks. That says a lot to me... just because on paper It seems better, doesn't make it superior. What I would like to see is you guys hopping in to these bad boys and fight, so I can see with my eyes the superior machine.
михаил федорович зубков Bull shit NATO strengthening all bridges in the NATO sector how much do you think the M 48 M 60 weight in besides the bridges would be knocked out .
Useful info for War Thunder
1:09 It sounds like someone being squashed
Fantastic find and upload. Very interesting comparisons to the M60 that I hadn't heard before.
The crew is a maximum of 5'6" and the Tank Commander and Gunner are literally touching each other.
wasnt actually true
Estimates of protection by ERA is simply that. All armor is the subject to angle of hit, distance of hit, and so on. But ERA does create armour against KE rounds. We was told about estimates that I mentioned below. Actually was told that it can equal to 300mm protection on perfect conditions. But 200mm is safe bet to make.
US vs USSR tanks by generation and capabilities= M4(76) vs T-34-85 , M26 and M46 vs T-44 and IS-2, M47 vs T-54, M48 vs T-54A and T-55, M48A3 and M60 vs T-62, M60A1 and M60A3 vs T-64 and T-64A and T-72, M103 vs IS-3 and T-10 and T-10M, M1 vs T-64B and T-72A and T-80, M1IP vs T-80B and T-72B, M1A1 vs T-80U.
M1A1HA vs T-90A, M1A2 and + have no real equivalents, they are more advanced than any russian tank currently in service. T-90AM might be comparable to M1A2SEP, but, it's not in production as of now.
So, for all the cold war, russians and US tanks were equivalents, with russians having the advantage in the period before introduction of the M1. Permanent advantage for USSR in production and deployment. However, if you add all NATO tanks, it becomes more even.
hey idiot, T72BV can challenge to M1A1 abrams and T 80 and its variants challenge to M1A2 , T 90 is better than any other countries tanks and few T 90 SM will eliminate large group of abrams.Abrams is too heavy,and large sized,its gun is short.T 72,T 80 , T 90 tank gun barrel is longer than abrams those tanks can destroy abrams from long range while abrams trying to get in its short-ranged gun.Maybe M1A3 can challenge to T 90,but abrams still being a shit
Russian are not stopped,they still developing many new advanced weapons,one of them was "Black eagle" but its development stopped.
Abrams cant be compared with T 90,its best in the world now.
Nesquick Guy you are a joke... Seriously, go take your medecine. T-72BV is behind the M1A1 (1985 version) in every category. So are the T-64BV and T-80BV. T-90 is barely equivalent to the M1A1, while the T-80U (1986 version) is the only russian tank which can be considered on par with M1A1, or even slightly superior. T-90A can only rival up to the M1A1HA, but is way behind any M1A2 version.
Here is the list of russian tanks from T-55, from the least capable, to the most capable. Not chronological. T-55< T-62< T-55AM< T-62M< T-64< T-72< T-64A< T-72A< T-80< T-72B< T-64B< T-72BA< T-80B< T-80A< T-90< T-72BM< T-80BA< T-80UE< T-80UD< T-80U< T-80BM< T-90A< T-80UM< T-90AM (MS)
Same for USA, from M48. M48
PATRONSKiii lets see, Abrams is battle tested and battle proven. no Abrams crew has ever been killed in combat, no Abrams has ever been killed by enemy fire some have been disabled but that's just tanks in general.
T-90 has never seen combat and is based off the T-72B. so... ya about that..
***** actually we have had crews in the Abrams get killed in combat but those were IED. artillery shell with copper placed to blow up from underneath. Copper goes through the armor fairly effective. but now days most tanker crews are not driving their tanks. no need, enemy does not have tanks. we ended up becoming straight infantry. but that was at the start of the war. not sure now.
World of tanks brought me here...and I have to say all good tankers can create gun depression so 5-6 degrees is enough and use the terrain to remain hull down and on target. There low profile and mobile makes them a deadly hunter. And with new guilded projects and depleted urianium rounds that's 980+ mm of penatration.
When you set the color setting to the highest on your old tv.
LOL, About 1975 or 1976 Zeneth stereo floor model. In faux wood grain with rabbit ear vhf antenna. LOL.
It actually is still a worthwile movie since those two tanks are still used.
+efreitor Sroul Most bridges in Europe have 50 tons capacity. All Russian tanks can cross them but none of Abrams, though there are rivers to cross every 50 km there in Europe. Then compare assoult bidges needed for tanks under 50 and over 60 tons. Your Abrams was constructed for parades in Nevada and other plain desserts, meanwhile Russian armor vihicles are all universal..
Of course the Abrams can easily beat these tanks. These are old tin cans. Saying the US can beat these easily is like saying you can beat up a toddler, good for you. Now for an interesting match up I'd love to see the T-90 vs the Abrams
Still would be no contest. If you're comparing the old Abrams vs. the T72 as an adult beating up a toddler. Then the improved and more modern Abrams vs. the T90 would be like a UFC fighter beating up a teenager.
*****
You seem to talk a lot. Have you any proof for your claims? Also, a good mine will blow any tank to smithereens, so it's not like it's an invulnerable machine, no matter how you well you kit it or how cool it's country of origin is.
***** Yeah, if the UFC fighter is the T-90, then I agree
Not you
Araams is not a bad tank... Its got the most diverse ammo in the world. The new Sabot rounds fielded better than ATGMS in accuracy and penetration..
And for the guy above you the RPG29 can tear up any tank thats what it was made for.
KiwiTomCrawford
Iraq t72s were locally produced garbage.. There are stories of 12.7 rounds going through and killing people inside... Iraq as of 2012 uses the crappy export model of the M1a1
T-64 is NOT a medium tank, it is worlds first Main Battle Tank or MBT!
Is not T-64, this is T-62, big difference.
2 numbers... :P
Stelsclient This is over a year old, but I take it you've only watched the beginning of the video. Watch more, and then you'll notice it moves onto the T-64.
My Cold War reading list was ... Soviet Life, Kosmolyets Izvyestya, Izvyestya, Pravda, Soviet Soldier, and I tuned into the North American service of Radio Moscow on shortwave. I got the party line.
How to Fight the Soviet: You dont.
Rip Soviet
Lol
You aint kidding about training...I served US Navy during last years of cold war. I worked in a rating where I got to learn lots about Soviet equipment, and more important..training practices..The Soviet Union always built huge numbers of solid but not spectacular ships, planes, and tanks. (tho Soviet Helos, Subs, and armoured vehicles where awsome) what amazed me was when I learned how little their navy, air force trained. and why they didnt train us much as NATO did. blew my mind.
modern tanks need some kind of anti muslim pork launcher
Just make claymores with bacon bits instead of ball bearings. Call them scimitars instead.
Downsyndrome Hitler
That's almost as funny as 9/11 and 60,000 western soldiers crippled with ptsd
Tungsten pellets
If you compare it with "How to fight the T 62" video, this one seems to be a lot more alarmist and depressing. The West was really nervous about the T 64 and T72 when they first came out.
T64 is mechanically unreliable, and T72 cooks off if you so much as sneeze in it's general direction.
so? what will I get in the T-72 purchase package, do you have any special offer?
the latest version of realplayer will let you download UA-cam vids. Has a popup tab at the corner of the video and you can convert it even to other formats. That's what I do.
PART2:
In particular - the gas engine with the bottom arrangement of the piston and a rotary lock, the mechanism of giving of a tape was copied from mg42, with that only a difference that instead of horizontal its movement became vertical, from below-up, and the tape drive mechanism settled down on the left side of a barrier box-it was direct heritage of fg42..
I have. South Africa did 3rd party testing & comparison of the two and supposedly rated the Strella higher, however, tests done in other countries did not reach the same conclusion.
I know what you mean man, I have had encounters with an elusive T-72, the bastard takes a dump on my front lawn every morning, with the help of this video I'll have my yard clean in no time.
True on the milling vs stamping for the AK-47.
However, they found that stamping was far faster and cheaper so they went that route. Which gives us the AKM which is what is mostly seen/used today
My left ear loved this
Thanx for sharing!
The iraqi T-72M were far superior to iranian M48, M60 and chieftain in their war, even T62 ended up victorious against them, but the T-72 was an overmatch. They lost very few, and reported kill on chieftain at long distances, chieftain armour (steel) perforated easily by 125mm APFSDS
I've read the news release - it only credits LM with making the process much cheaper. So there is nothing about inventing the material or testing its properties, which is outside IP.
PART3:
Due to the future acceptance on new calibre (7,62×51 NATO) in 1948 of work on T44 were stopped, though further development some time was still conducted under old ammunition. The new prototype, T52, was in development from 1947 to 1952. Vertical movement of a tape in it already refused, having brought configuration of the tape drive mechanism into full accord with mg42..
Ну мы в России уже несколько лет проводим танковый биатлон и приглашаем на него всех желающих из любой страны и на любой технике, но никто из стран НАТО не приезжает((
А были бы очень интересные соревнования!
Crew ergonomics is bigger than Armor, Mobility, and Gun Power, combined. The autoloader on T64 tended to grab the TC by the leg, "which is where the Red Army Choir gets its tenors", according to "The Threat". Moreover, the crew accommodations on these tanks is so cramped as to preclude anyone taller than 5'6" tall from operating them. Low, fast, and heavily armed, true, but these do not make up for cramped fighting conditions and a tendency to "belly" in any kind of uneven terrain.
Two questions:
Are the rounds for these tanks stored in the "main body" of the tanks T62,64,72 and M60. Or are they stored in a compartment in the turret and shielded from the crew?
Also, I seem to recall hearing that the turret on some of the Soviet tanks had to be hand cranked. Is that true?
Just like the T72. Flying turrets.
Stamped parts are also much lighter. AK was 4,3 kg, AKM was 3,14. Milled magazine was 0.43 kg, stamped are 0.33 kg.
This easily translates to better maneuverability and more ammunition carried.
Interesting that the american tank evasion drill with the smoke and reverse is clearly shown several times in different instances in these films. I wonder if the Soviets new about this and were told to adjust aim to behind the last know position of the tank when smoke was employed?
It was not always reverse.
@@andrewarmstrong7310 it would be if the were advancing towards you in a line
Fantastic Post!
Hi, I'm Troy McClure. You may remember me from such films as 'How to Fight the Soviet T-64 and T-72 Tanks' and 'Man vs. Nature: The Road to Victory.'
Great. Have you any of these in early '70s?
Thanks, couldn't have said it better myself.
Finally some real 4K
Do you have any sources you can site regarding this? I really find it hard to believe that ERA was in use in the 1950s.
The video is from 1985
One huge weakness that the Iraqi's new is that once it got penetrated that the ammo didn't have an armor door and they would cook inside them. With the US M-60 tanks, they couldn't beat anti tank missiles and that is why the Abrams was built to go against ATMs and have an armor door to prevent cook off of ammo and blow out panels in the tank.
Except you can't replace the aircraft architecture because it is based around the CIP - which requires those supporting chip. So unless you find an article which decisively points out to the change in the core processor, then this information remains valid.
right that's why the us developed new ammo and tried to aquire t80s and t84s, add-on light era is useless against apfsds, but heavy era can be effective if the round hits the era
Look up "Civilian casualties during Operation Allied Force" on Wiki.
Power plants are used mostly by the civilian population. Military has its own diesel generators to power SAMs, radars etc.
I noticed that they call the T-64 a medium tank when it's a main battle tank. I'm not saying its inaccurate, but its interesting that the main battle tank concept wasn't concocted but tank design just sort of started going that way, and this early they didn't even know that's what they were making.
How to Fight the Soviet T-64 and T-72 Tanks: Shoot first
another tactic the we tried emulate in training was starting our vehicles all at the same time to try and disguise numbers. I heard that the soviets did the same. I had a lot of fun 11B. We were just south of the FULDA GAP. Lots of good infantry training thanks to President Reagan.
Those sources are the most reliable of the open source providers. As usual stividumb lives in his own fantasy world. He tried to tell me for weeks that HEAT rounds melt through tank armour.
I enjoyed the halftime talk with Tom Selick and friends
M60 isn't used as a heavy machine gun. It's a fundamentally different weapon in more ways too, much lower cyclic rate, different function in squad usage, different concept. M60 was designed for sustained suppressive fire. MG42 was designed for a very powerful burst as a target appeared, in that split second.
Also I didn't say that all assault rifles were copies of the STG-44. But the AK is essentially a Russianized version of one, even if the gas actuation is different.
Correct again, a perfect explanation as to why China won't just pull all their investments out of the US or extend credit....it's great that you've got far more patience in responding to these people than I do...I grew weary of trying to do that long ago.
All Soviet-made tanks store ammunition entirely in hull. Autoloader storage (22 rounds in T-72/T-90, 28 in T64/T-80) is right under turret, next 17-19 rounds is stored in several racks stuffed inside crew compartement.
NATO tanks have main storage in back of turret and additionaly one ammo rack inside hull, usually right behind front armor plate.
ATM the only tank with ammunition shielded from crew is M1 Abrams, where maingun rounds are kept behind hydraulic blastdoors.
As a civilian employee I worked in a big MILITARY MUSEUM in Hungary for 7 years. There I had a retired Colonel collegue who was a "JUNIOR" TANK DIVISION HQ STAFF MEMBER during the cold war. I asked him about the 7-64 and T-72 and he said that both tank types were DESIGNED FOR SINGLE USE. Tha means under soviet stile directive when they have sent tanks into battle, they had to order reinforcements at the same time. The expected logistics requirements for them was ONE TOTAL FUEL LOAD and ONE TOTAL AMMUNITION LOAD. OF COURSE THIS INFORMATION WAS highly calssified at that time and was NEVER TO BE TOLD TO TANK CREWS or even Unit commanders. I WONDER WHY?
+Shadnan Ishan I think he's saying that the Soviets planned on all tanks being sent to battle as being suicide missions. There were no plans in place for resupply of fuel, ammunition and food, etc, because it thought the tank crews would fight until they perished.
+Denes Miltenyi What he says is partially true, but only partially. The tanks are designed to survive - really, really survive. Full overpressure NBC suite, full anti-radiation / insulation internal lining, first series production of composite armour, extreme ease of maintenance for uninterrupted operations, etc. However, in order to do any serious internal hull repairs (swapping out damaged pipes, for instance) you need to remove the turret. Replacing the engine is no mean feat. It takes many hours to do it, as it is not incorporated into a single-unit powerpack like the Leopard 2 or Abrams. Regular maintenance is incredibly simple, while serious repairs are incredibly difficult. Once a tank is knocked out, it's going to be in the depot for a while. This is a side effect of all the design compromises made to get the overall package. However, what they didn't do was they didn't put handicaps on themselves. If the designers could put the engine and transmission into a convenient powerpack, they did it. Proof is the BMP-1 and BMP-2.
It's not productive to assume that tank designs follow fixed rules. They really don't. You just try your best. What we try to find out is what their best amounted to in the end.
Not true, whatsoever. If you ever look at the videos of famous Zapad 81 military exercise you can see HUGE amounts of auxilary vehicles and supply vehicles included in Guard armored divisions. And with 1 fuel tank, tanks cant really get anywhere.
I am Russian and what you are saying has never been a secret, either for the tank crews or anyone. Even my dad, who attended a military program in 1970s, knew that an "average tank's lifespan in the modern combat is 11 minutes". Everyone knew that. But that's just statistics. It does not really "demoralize" a lot. As long as you have a hope to survive, you continue fighting.
I haven't seen what the U.S. production rate at or near the beginning of WW II was, but in 1900 the U.S. output was 30% of the total world output. Britain's was 19.5% and Germany's was 16.8%. By 1914 when WW I broke out the U.S. output was up to 35%, but I don't know that the other two countries were doing back then. So despite these numbers being prior to WW I, I think they back up your point very well.
Actually Galvars is right the sherman was originally designed to contend with the panzer 3 and 4 no against the panther and tiger. It is more than a match for the japanese tanks and a match for the early panzers. Sadly the panther (best tank of the war) and the tiger were new advances in technology that the sherman wasn't ready for
A trip down memory lane.
At the end of WW II in Europe, Stalin had the choice of shipping his armies east toward Japan or attempting to overrun the Americans and Brits his forces outnumbered 3 to 1 in Europe. He chose heading east for several reasons but mainly that he was afraid of the U.S. He knew Britain had already been spent early in the war, but that the U.S. due to starting late was just getting cranked up economically and technologically. Plus we had the bomb and the means to drop it about anywhere we wanted.
(cont.) neither of which will see any maintenance by the ground crews, since it will be a component that will be exchanged on the aircraft if it fails.
1984 Fortress Europe 28 years ago and that feels like ancient history today.
Cannonmn, Great Find!
Do you have any archive footage live DU sabot rounds being fired on targets? I here it's out there...
Agreed, though the fully loaded 7.62 mags are still way heavy
And while uber-reliable, the accuracy of the AK or AKM is horrible. I (expert shooter w/ US Marines) test shot one at a 100 yard range once, from a bench, and could barely hit a chest size target. The rounds were all over the place
thanks for the video, should be useful when I go on holiday to Syria.
For the most part, your dad was right, although the timetable involved two different points. One being that all known Soviet plans called for their stopping at the Rhine, except possibly in regards to Belgium & The Netherlands since they were both NATO members.
Secondly, most of the timetables I've heard involved 7-10 days max. So as to prevent the reinforcement of NATO Forces by the US via REFORGER, which in most cases would take at least 2 weeks if not more.