0:50 That retard really got some inside information on soviet army strategy and tactics. I had no idea they readopted ww1 doctrines.
I always thought the t72 was meant for strategical exploitation (thus the emphasis on high mobility and low visability) and not to be an infantry support, frontal assault vehicle. Discovery channel really furthers ones knowledge...
@Frauenman It's called Manpower focus. You focus a massive mechanized army towards the enemy at a high speed with tons of firepower. Breaking the enemy defences with fear and destruction. It seems this method is much better then the allies firepower focus just throwing all their shit at the enemy and then sneaking behind them.
@SMGJohn It seems like someone have been playing a little to much Hearts of Iron. I suggest that you regard popular computer games a little more criticly in the future. Soviet tanks of the cold war and even ww2 era was not intended for frontal assault en masse. They were intended to operate with high speed and mobility in the strategical depth, hence the concept of deep operation.
@Frauenman I was talking about cold war. They where mostly mechanized troops and little infantry moving on foot. And no I didn't just randomly pull it out of Hearts of iron I don't even play those games...
@SMGJohn What you describe as manpower- and firepower focus are both attrition and quantity based. I.E. there are really little difference between them. However the soviet union did not have an attrition based perception of warfare, rather they emphasized mobility and maneuver. This shows especially in how they regarded the usage of tanks. They were not to be pitted head on against the enemy, they were to exploit oppertunities and act in the strategical depth.
No. 7 is way too low. When we talk about design, what it was supposed to do, it was no. 2 right behind the T-34. T-72 was designed to be very compact, fast, and had to surpass NATO tanks in a number of important areas. And able to be produced like washing machines - tens of thousands. When U have 1000 low, light, cheap, fast, 125mm gun tanks coming at U from all directions, U can only pray. Ur dead in minutes, nothing except a nuke can stop them. It was exactly how the designers wanted it to be.
@TheTokkin It's not nonsense dude, the T-72 got destroyed in Iraq war, it was no match for the M1 Abrams, it's 1970's technology , maybe the upgraded t-90 could match, maybe, but I highly doubt it! Let me put it to you this way, if you were gonna be one on one against an M1 or Leopard 2 tank, would you want to be in a T-72? I highly doubt it, because you would be going up against modern tanks with Chobhram armour protection, they can survive a hit from 150mm gun, no chance mate!
@hailherrosner The iraqi vehicles were export versions and were deployed poorly against an overwhelming enemy: hardly a fair comparison. A T-72 with modern targeting and sighting systems is a capable vehicle it might not be an equivalent to Abrams but then again its a good 20 t lighter and half cheaper a very good choice for a middle income country. When we compare a modernized t-72 with abrams, the differences are so small that crew experience and tactics begin to take far greater significance,
@hailherrosner There were 400 active during the Iraq war, most of them were abandoned before Abrams could fight them because of the fear of A-10 airstrikes. But I barely CARE about IRAQI DOWNGRADED T-72M1's, did you know they were made in Ukraine and Czech?. But anyway Ill take a Russian T-72B than an Abrams and a Leopard 2 tank, any tank that has ATGM's(T-72,Merkava)) can hit your tank 6-7km away, almost thrice the range of an Abrams. And Russians currently have best tank ammo.
@hailherrosner Also do not in anyway underestimate the T-90, of all my knowledge on tanks the T-90 might be the best tank today. It uses Wolframium Carbide, 10x harder than DU, 2nd toughest material on earth behind diamond, add Kaktus AP armor and its impenetrable! Chobham is not armor, its how you arrange armor. The only tank that could be able to match the T-90 is the Merkava due to its ATGM capability. Most tanks such as the Abrams, Chally, Leopard 2 cannot be compared to the T-90.
@pacus123 Tom Clancy knows more about military technology then you. Russian tanks are death traps. The tank is more dangerous to its own crew than the enemy. I'll take an American or British tank over any scrap pile Russians call a tank.
@mower2008 Tom Clancy knows s*** all about russian tech, what evidence supports your view they are death traps? it is more of a rumour than fact about the deadly auto loader, Can you tell me one case where that has actually happenned? Finland used T-72 from early 90's until 2004 and it never was reported, please give evidence to back up your claims!
@RetroPaintball You really need to work on your penmanship and calm down. Were you not paying attention to the fact that the T-72's ammunition is exposed? That is why American and British tanks chewed them up in the Gulf War. Besides, the Soviets no doubt did everything they could to keep their soldiers from talking about the dangers of the autoloader.
@mower2008 The T72s in the gulf war were little better than t 55s. They were degraded export models and the Iraqis were undersupplied, poorly trained and organized. The reason why coalition tanks defeated them had nothing to do with ammunition storage. The t 72 was in service in the Finnish armed forces and I've never heard anyone complain about the supposed dangers of the autoloader: theres plenty of space for the crew to operate safely without losing their arms.
remember guys, Soviet russia exported T-72M, M means Monkey model, we can say that T-72M is equal to older tanks, maybe 1st Generation tanks such as T-55s
They can't tell the diffeence between the export 'monkey models' they sold in bulk to the Iraqi's and the Syrians from the domestic models (T-72A) which was actually pretty descent.
The T-72 was a downgraded model of the complex T-64. T-64 is smaller and has more little features, like remote AA machine gun control for the commander, better composite armor than T-72, 125mm gun. And this is 1967. T-64B in 1976 could already launch guided missiles up to 5km. T-72B got that abbility in 1984.
@ColonelAli how many russian military authors have published as many best sellers, or high grossing movies, or many different video games, splinter cell, ghost recon, endwar, jack ryan is a beast and dont bad mouth a great author
@packr72 So? I have read one of his books, "The Teeth of the Tiger", and it sucked. He is incredibly biased, it doesn't matter what kind of movies, games or crap-ass books he writes. I am 6 foot tall - and I fit perfectly fine in a T-72. Clancy talks a lot of crap - in a war, he would be one of the first casualties, because he lacks in respect for his enemy. People who lack respect for their foes are often beaten by their foes (see Nazi Germany).
@packr72 What does that have to do with anything? The guy is clearly an idiot if I can, 6 feet tall, fit in a T-72 - and no, the T-90 is not another T-72. Read up on the T-90, they are two different tanks but with many similarites..
@ColonelAli do you know that most t90s are built from the scrapped chasie of the t72 and orignially it was called the t72bu, and the t90 is nothing special, the russians are only building them for the indians now, the russian have said its nothing but a stopgap
tom clancy should fuck his mother stupid sob that he is i never heard a russian speaking so much shit in tv like he does uh deathtrap picka ti materina...
THANX GOD for the end of the Cold War! The T-72 was a real threat for the western allies. We were so close to the WW3, that could mean the end of the World!
@dumitrescusa No, it necessarily was not. The T-72 only had the advantage in large quantities. But besides that, it was realistically weaker than the typical western tank. The only good mod was the B. Then, they modernized them.
@Tyco200Sure thing, but you now that in the WW2, the German tanks were better than the Russians or Allies ones! At last, was the quantity that counted! The Tiger tank was a real beast against the T34! The difference was the number of production rate. The 34/85, in the 80's was still in the Romanian Army service! I served on one of this! The idea was to keep the tank number high, regardless the quality !
@Tyco200 The T-72 was designed to be a cheaper alternative to the T-62 which was too expensive to produce in the numbers the Soviets wanted. It's important to keep in mind that Soviet Tank design was not linear. While T-62 and T-72 were both very similar tanks, they were based on different design lineages and philosophy. The T-62 was designed to be real leap in AFV design while the T-72 was more designed to be a stop-gap with a future in export sale.
@CaptHawkeye I think you mean T-64 not T-62. The T-62 however was a great leap because it was the first tank in the world to feature a smoothbore cannon.
@jhaney931 I was under the impression it was the T-62, since the T-64 was sort of a mulligan design after it was apparent that the 62 had a lot faults. In hindsight you're right though.
@jhaney931 Yes, but at the same time also had major flaws. Including exposed ammunition, very poor crew compartments and the fact that T-55's gun was still slightly better than the 115mm smooth-bore gun. Only thing it had over Western tanks was its smoothbore gun. Besides that, it was doomed.
@CaptHawkeye T-64 you meant, right? And not at all! T-72 was much too inferiot to even match T-64. Unlike T-72, T-64 had quality, true protection and was well done. T-64 was a true leap forward in technology. T-72?... More like a horrible copy cat alternative for Russian allies.
@CaptHawkeye -And besides, Russia freaked the hell out when they found out about the losses sustained in the 1982 Syrian-Lebanon war. M-60A1s beat the T-72s with no problems at all.
@daAnder71 Im former T72 platoon leader and Im 184cm tall. The commander and gunner have plenty of room in T72, much more then in T55. The driver however should be the smaller one 160-170cm at best to have some comfort. Even I could easy fit in and drive it, but I had less comfort in drivers compartment.
@daAnder71 Didn't Germany only get the M-models? The original A models did infact have horrible internal crew spaces... And besides, the tank was not designed to come up in one on one battles. It also has an auto loader that stores its munitions right under the turret. That isn't exactly the SAFEST place to store ammunition. T-64 was a true tank. 72? A Joke Chinese COPY of the 64.
@daAnder71 discovery channel propaganda that ranked the t34 the 3rd greatest tank, or the military channels list that named it the greatest tank ever, plus named the t55 the 8th greatest tank, and named the ak47 the greatest rifle of all time, how many new york times best sellers have you written,NONE tom clancy know more about tanks than you, yes getting your arm ripped off by the auto loader is real comfortable
@daAnder71 Yes, but the fire control was a joke, armor protection okay, and of course, it was cramped. Also, in the T-72, you've got exposed ammo. It's good at shooting an atgm at 6km and then running for its own damn life. Fire control in this T-72 modification was sad... Also Republican Guard T-72M1s were up to the standards of T-72As. M1 package was built for the purpose of saving the low-quality, death trap known as "T-72M" or in my own words "The Roach."
@daAnder71 I've been in a T-72 three or four times at various points in my life. As a fucking nine-year-old, I thought it was cramped. It is in no way, shape, or form, a comfortable vehicle for anyone of normal stature. The Soviet Union had ordered that anyone crewing the T-72 had to be at most, 5ft 4in (source--CCCP army manuals). Export models did change the dimensions (so they could sell it), but that's because they traded bulky but light composite for simple steel, which is thinner.
@redreaper2020 Thanks for that information. Indeed, all tall people, who told me, that T-72 was "quite" comfortable served in the roomier M1-export versions.
Ah, my third favorite tank in the world, we can learn much from the T72 and its derivates, by using its highly destructive 125mm gun. That gun could seriously or fataly destroy an American tank.
@Zillion43 What? Then why did Iraq and Syria both fail so badly against simple M-60A1s? Now, I am not stating that these tanks were not M models, but in the Syrian conflict, Russia did respond quite seriously. Demanding what happened, and what not. Also, T-72 had poor fire control systems in comparison to Western tanks.
@Tyco200 Dont be fooled, Russia exported T-72M's(probably the worst tank theyve come up with). They reduced the armor so badly and downgraded weapons, fire control system. Its up to Poland and Czech to at least make the tanks a little better and export them to Mid East. What resulted was the T-72M1's which only has improved frontal and rear armor, Iraq and other countries had to further upgrade the damn things by themselves, which didnt give good results
@Tyco200 + There ARE MANY VERSIONS OF THE T-72. Russia also has one that is in NATO standards. The T-72-120 is a Russian tank that uses a 120mm smooth bore that fires NATO ammunition(ex.DU) and has a fire control system that was based on the M1,Leopard and Chally, making it a very sophisticated tank. Russia doesnt in any way export T-72B's A's and 90A's. They only export T-72M's and T-72 Ural and the countries which acquire it name it themselves (ex. Iraqi Asad Babil)
@999cheetos999 True, but do remember that T-72M1 was modified up to the least standards of a T-72A. That's a well known fact. And according to many sources, during the 1990s, Russia simply gave samples of old, T-72 B models for the Iraqis to build off of. Lastly, they are now giving out T-72S tanks, that are like the T-72BMs, only, are modified T-72As instead, and only lack the frontal plating on the turret.
@Tyco200 Finding that the T-72M is downgraded, you have to admit that you cannot improve its armor when the base is already done, unless you want to change it as a whole again. Thats a well known fact that the T-72's armor couldnt be "improved" whatever they do, the only option is to place ERA, or sandbags if you like...but ERA is an expensive option. And it will tell you alot because RUSSIA GAVE AMMUNITION WITH """HALF""" PROPELLANT to all of its clients...its surprising to see them penetrate.
@Tyco200 And Russia reacted that way because they didnt expect it to suck that bad. Coming from the reputation as a sophisticated tank in the 1970's, they expected it to fair well against NATO tanks(T-72 is in the same GENERATION as the M60 Patton). They underestimated NATO armor and made the T-72M1 for business purposes and wanted to see what happened. But they were "at least" able to kill 1 M1 Abrams in Iraq and knock out a handful, that tells you alot.
@999cheetos999 Also, in Iraq only two M1s went down to enemy fire. Both of which missed T-72M1s, and ended up being fired upon at point blank range. How will a simple ambush tell us "a lot"? Hell, during the 1982 Lebanon-Israeli conflict, Israeli Centurions knocked out heavily modified T-72M1s, and eventually, Russia themselves panicked.
@999cheetos999 Also, if you simply look at T-90A's structure, they kept: The ammunition storage right under the turret. The tank itself also cannot fire on the move. Which gives it a major disadvantage. Last but not least, T-90 doesn't have the greatest armors available. It still requires quite a few add ons. M1s in Iraq, without add ons, took hundreds of RPG rounds.
@Tyco200 M1's have enough density on their armor to defeat Tandem warheads, T-90A's armor is mainly to defeat Sabot rounds, M1's dont have the qualities of ERA so its easily penetrable with kinetic warheads or HEAT rounds(as I said,Iraqis T-72 disabled M1 Abrams with single hits during a skirmishes).The T-90A's base armor shouldnt be underestimated, it is thinner than DU, but it still is the 2nd hardest material on earth, the same material that Leopard 2A6 uses for its armor.ERA adds more...
@jigglypiggly You should try researching...I dont want to post references here (im too lazy). And im pretty sure im 100% correct, you should try denouncing me rather than making me state citations retard. State your own facts and prove me wrong or continue playing your games
@999cheetos999 Ouch, he uses an ad hominem his first response, instant loss. You seem educated, yet you can't provide sources and citations when you make claims?
Burden of proof, you make claims, you have to back them up.
"The defendant is guilty your honor, someone saw him do it"
"Who?"
"Go find him yourself, retard"
Continue your school yard arguments, "I KNOW YOU ARE, BUT WHAT AM I"
or let me know when you mature up and actually attempt to put citations when you make claims.
@jigglypiggly Okay, also you should also learn basic properties of Depleted Uranium to Wolframium Carbide and compare it, its ceramics vs a moderately low MP substance(U).And also read inserts on the war on Iraq(I presume you know this and I hope that BBC didnt brainwash you yet) and see the Iraqis side of the war.Wolframium Carbide(a ceramic, basic fun facts that its second to diamond in terms of hardness).I recommend you type "The Real M1 Abrams" in the search bar, its an easy way for starters
@jigglypiggly And can you post a video or citation whether or not you can fit in the T-72??? There has been German commanders about your height that can fit into T-72's perfectly. Look for citations yourself, Jesus Christ even most of the Abrams features can be judged with STOCK KNOWLEDGE. Something tells me you dont think that much :(
Are you still claiming that the T-72 knocked out more than 2 Abrams in Operation Desert Storm?
Are you still claiming that the T-72 is better than the M1 Abrams and Challenger 2?
Lmao, keep on pulling that straw man.
Since you are a sourceless peasent who isn't worth my time, I've taken the opportunity to block communications with you, since I don't argue with people who are less intelligent than me.
@jigglypiggly Excellent,this is a decent reply from a FOOL of your caliber.The T-72M did in fact knock out more than 2 Abrams in Iraq(maybe 3 perhaps? and other things the US military hid from the public?) during urban skirmishes (stupid fool, they were knocked out but NOT DESTROYED).The Russians gave the Iraqis downgraded T-72's, call sign T-72M and further upgraded T-72M-1 "Asad Babil", which is in fact NOT EVEN CLOSE to the real Russian T-72B.Your ignorant and you cant even spell "peasant" XD
@999cheetos999 the lion of babylon was a licensed built t72, not a t72m the tank was basically a russian t72 but assembled in iraq with soviet built parts and western eletronic systems made in belgium. no no abarms were knocked out by t72s
@XxxSakura101 80% of the armor that fought Abrams were T-55's and Type 69's, its nearly impossible for a post WWII tank to kill a new gen tank.The T-72M however(though downgraded) were able to stop Abrams in its tracks, not really a "kill" but enough to do a mobility kill. There are numerous times where this happened,friendly fire killed more Abrams than the Iraqis though lol.
@999cheetos999 Killing an tank, knocking out a tank, and delaying a tank are all very different concepts. There has been no incident of any OPFOR armor, The upgraded T-72 Lions, T-55s, Type59s, or 69s knocking out an Abrams tank, yet alone killing it. Only 12 Abrams had been damaged due to non-friendly fire in both wars, all of whom had been due to mines or artillery, with only three being knocked out- all of whom had their transmissions destroyed rendering them inmobile.
@XxxSakura101 I know they are different concepts whats your point...destroy a tanks mobility it cant go further, destroy the turret and you basically have an apc. T-72 Lions are not upgraded, they are T-72A's, one of the first T-72 variants, and Russia sells cheaper, half propellant ammo to the Middle East, do you expect Russia would sell superior equipment overseas?Fuck no.The deaths of Abrams have been lied for in years, who knows how many got knocked out or killed
@packr72 Chobham IS NOT ARMOR fool! And NATO Sabot rounds are as slow as fuck but they have good penetrators. But the main power of the sabot comes from speed, which Russia has. Depleted Uranium with a crappy melting point of 1333 C melts/breaks easily against HEAT warheads and Wolframium Carbide@ 3800 C(T-90's and Leopards Tungsten ceramic armor) is the SECOND HARDEST MATERIAL on earth...
@Zillion43 no it cant, in desert storm that mighty gun couldnt penetrate the armor of an abrams at even 400 meters, the t72, t80, and t90(t72bu) all use the same gun with the same ammo, not a match, plus the russian still haven't designed a tank to take on modern mbts like the abarms, leo2 and chally, the t72 was built to compete with the m60, FAIL, and leo1 and the cheiftan, not the abrams. all nato mbt greatly excede russian built mbts
T-72 has many flaw - weak armour at rear (1 shot of RPG actually blow the ammo chamber and killed all crews). It was a death trap for the crew - but sheer number of it made it effective.
T-55, given it was fighting against an Saudia Arabian M1A1. But serious. Any modern tank in combat against another modern tank with equal quality crew are nearly equalble capable of killing or beeing killed.Some of these have more protection, others have more electronics, but It boils down to that the tank who first manage to score a hit wins.
Americans people don't realize or have a thought, is what the former Warsaw pact and USSR tank are very different, with what cuba, iraq, iran, venezuela, etc have. Export vs import version. IRak is not a industrialize like poland or ukraine.
talk about tank warfare, only the eastern front from 1942 to 1945. and there isnt any real tank warfare after that.
that is the only time period you can see the mass scale use of armored vehicles and is the only time can make your heart pumped with blood in a passion of armored steels. both side had excellent on their own armored tacits and reached the highest any armored fighting vehicle could ever been for the time.
on tank warfare,neither US or UK were any close to third Reich or USSR
@fancczf lol. Tell that to Soviet, Chinese, and North Korean crew of the Russian T-34s, IS class, and T-55. The US Sherman even made fun of the Russian T-34s and ISs. The US M26 and M48 knock out the Soviet T-55 like a guy shooting ducks.
since world war ii, tank warfare was the solo battle between Germans and Russians(people from USSR..), i will still be if the soviet union didnt vanish in the thin air and Germany didnt live in the shadow of wwii being afraid been isolated the entire time.
every single british tank in wwii was rubbish except cromwell and comment, sherman suffered major problem with its engine and interior design, every tank destroyer from m10 to m36 was more of a self-propelled anti tank gun.
@fancczf the shermans burned becasue the the early m4a1 had very thin armor protecting the ammo, german tanks like the panther would sometimes burn even when not hit, the interior of a sherman was very spacious, like american cars and they were easy tanks to build, maintain, and upgrade, the later war shermans the m4a3e8 wooped the t34/85 in korea, and the centurion tank raped the t55 and t62, tanks that were newer than it in the arab israeli wars
T-72, likely the most underrated tank of the 20th century. it has great mobility,small silhuette and gun that can take out any western tank at european ranges.
@kensta2k9 Maybe the latest modernized version of the T-90's gun. T-72, however, was pathetic when against Western designs. Please state where you got that strip of info, please? Incase it is a bull shit myth. ^^ Just a thought!
Abrams destroying T-72's has nothing to do with "which tank is better", but the people who pilot it +strategies. Just because North Vietnam defeated South Vietnam doesn't mean soviet weaponry is any better too. It has to do with the people using it
@ppshchik True, after all, we all recount the numorous encounters with T-54/55s and M-48s'. The M-48s slaughtered the T-54/55s, and the F-4 Phantoms proved superior to the MiG-21s, despite their horrible aerodynamics.
lol saddam used these against abrams a few years back and got his ass absolutely kicked. Thats what happens when you use 30 year old Soviet weapons, build your own pussy.
Saddam only had hos versions called Asad Babil. they had basic rolled steel armor with max thickness of 300mm rather then chobham-style layered composite armor Russians had. Its rounds were steel-core APFSDS that were discarded in 73 by USSR and were rated at 250mm steel armor penetration and apparently didn't even have full propellant. Lack of laser rangefinders, modern comms, engines were derated and so on.
@oldmanwithers1 ha! you got to the the word BLITZKRIEG! LOOK IT UP! thats the germans and russians best tatic . and yes the yank have lost heavely aswell in the iraq war and so on!
remember guys the iraqi or other non warshaw union tanks are badlier than warshaw union tanks there is no example for the soviet T-72's and the iraqi T-72's or not ?
only 13 T72 tanks destroyed in Iraq ppl xD Sorry if i destroyed your imagination xD Iraq had bunch of T64 and T54/55 and Chinese made Type 59 but only 28 T72 xD
in desert warfare who has the best optics is going to win, if you take average northern european your average shooting distance would be less then 500m then the one who gots the first shot on target wins, no matter if your in t-72 or abrams.
no they don't.... just like they say: "T"arget 72, prone to 23 mm cannon. on the other hand, i will agree, it will take about 5-8 23 mm shells to take it out.
Only Polish T-72 tanks had no protective grates against the autoloader.
iraqis made the T-72 Asad Babil with fire controls and engine from the T-62 tank and 300mm STEEL armor.
Soviets use semi-combustable shell casings, when put into the gun and fired theres nothing left. Its not about being struck its about the combustable shell casing catching fire. Ammunition is not exposed- its in the carousel autoloader bellow (even the dude said there are 2 flaps; and it has nitrogen fire extinguishing).
They're not directly comparing Tiger to T-90 as if they were to fight. But I assume they have a rating system to compare the tanks. Like, Tiger gets 5/5 firepower, armor, but 1/5 mobility. Or something.
I would guess they at least included combat history.
It would help if they explained the process of how they chose the tanks huh?
Well when you think of it all Russian tanks follow the same shape but the hull on the T-90 is altered so that makes it unique also as you mention the fire control, also the engines.
Beauty is an opinionated thing and really doesn't matter like you said, but i think M1A2 Abrams is pretty nice looking, as well the K1A1 South Korean tank, maybe because it's based on the Abrams and designed by same company.
@McLarenMercedes for me the Panther and the Tiger Look "Cool" but if i was in WW2 and i hade to choose a Tank id choose T-34 it was considred to have the BEST Armour the Panther also hade sloped armour but the t-34 was thicker
@jasincl the panthers armor was considerbly thicker that the t34, hell the sherman had thicker frontal armor than the t34 and the shermans frontal armor was sloped, the panthers armor was on par with the tiger 1, german and american tank had more crew comforts than russian tanks which makes a huge difference. if you were smart you would want a king tiger, 6 inches of sloped armor and an even deadiler 88mm gun ,no contest
i love this tank its a killer fighting tank, but the interior looks like the people behind it though the man piloting them are just a part of the machines... it looks so SO uncomfortable, its just degrading the skills of the tank commander.
When a machine can jam and fail and a human being cannot, well I'd rather have a loader in my tank then the fastest auto loader available, which is actually the Leclerc's autoloader.
the loader's role extends way beyond simply loading the shell into the cannon, it involves upkeeping the machine guns, fixing jams while everyone is busy doing their job and making me (gunner) sandwiches when were in a tank ambush.
Actually RPG has taken out a M1A1. During the Iraqi invasion a Iraqi got a lucky shot into the engine which caused an uncontrollable fire, so not to let the tank fall into enemy hands they US forces had to destroy it. An RPG-7 can disable any tank but they can not destroy one on its own. The later RPG models such as the RPG-29 can kill a M1A2.
In U.S. u break vehicles, In soviet Russia Vehicles breaks you!!
AceKylar 1 day ago
0:50 That retard really got some inside information on soviet army strategy and tactics. I had no idea they readopted ww1 doctrines.
I always thought the t72 was meant for strategical exploitation (thus the emphasis on high mobility and low visability) and not to be an infantry support, frontal assault vehicle. Discovery channel really furthers ones knowledge...
Frauenman 1 month ago
@Frauenman It's called Manpower focus. You focus a massive mechanized army towards the enemy at a high speed with tons of firepower. Breaking the enemy defences with fear and destruction. It seems this method is much better then the allies firepower focus just throwing all their shit at the enemy and then sneaking behind them.
SMGJohn 1 month ago
@SMGJohn It seems like someone have been playing a little to much Hearts of Iron. I suggest that you regard popular computer games a little more criticly in the future. Soviet tanks of the cold war and even ww2 era was not intended for frontal assault en masse. They were intended to operate with high speed and mobility in the strategical depth, hence the concept of deep operation.
Frauenman 1 month ago
@Frauenman I was talking about cold war. They where mostly mechanized troops and little infantry moving on foot. And no I didn't just randomly pull it out of Hearts of iron I don't even play those games...
This are from Soviet military
SMGJohn 1 month ago
@SMGJohn What you describe as manpower- and firepower focus are both attrition and quantity based. I.E. there are really little difference between them. However the soviet union did not have an attrition based perception of warfare, rather they emphasized mobility and maneuver. This shows especially in how they regarded the usage of tanks. They were not to be pitted head on against the enemy, they were to exploit oppertunities and act in the strategical depth.
Frauenman 3 weeks ago
No. 7 is way too low. When we talk about design, what it was supposed to do, it was no. 2 right behind the T-34. T-72 was designed to be very compact, fast, and had to surpass NATO tanks in a number of important areas. And able to be produced like washing machines - tens of thousands. When U have 1000 low, light, cheap, fast, 125mm gun tanks coming at U from all directions, U can only pray. Ur dead in minutes, nothing except a nuke can stop them. It was exactly how the designers wanted it to be.
soberek 3 months ago
The T-72 would not last 5 minutes against the M1A2 Abrams or Leopard 2 tanks, no doubt it's very obsolete (DEATH TRAP).
hailherrosner 3 months ago
@hailherrosner A modernized t-72 is a very capable vehicle. These death trap myths are simple nonsense.
TheTokkin 3 months ago
@TheTokkin It's not nonsense dude, the T-72 got destroyed in Iraq war, it was no match for the M1 Abrams, it's 1970's technology , maybe the upgraded t-90 could match, maybe, but I highly doubt it! Let me put it to you this way, if you were gonna be one on one against an M1 or Leopard 2 tank, would you want to be in a T-72? I highly doubt it, because you would be going up against modern tanks with Chobhram armour protection, they can survive a hit from 150mm gun, no chance mate!
hailherrosner 3 months ago
@hailherrosner The iraqi vehicles were export versions and were deployed poorly against an overwhelming enemy: hardly a fair comparison. A T-72 with modern targeting and sighting systems is a capable vehicle it might not be an equivalent to Abrams but then again its a good 20 t lighter and half cheaper a very good choice for a middle income country. When we compare a modernized t-72 with abrams, the differences are so small that crew experience and tactics begin to take far greater significance,
TheTokkin 3 months ago
@hailherrosner There were 400 active during the Iraq war, most of them were abandoned before Abrams could fight them because of the fear of A-10 airstrikes. But I barely CARE about IRAQI DOWNGRADED T-72M1's, did you know they were made in Ukraine and Czech?. But anyway Ill take a Russian T-72B than an Abrams and a Leopard 2 tank, any tank that has ATGM's(T-72,Merkava)) can hit your tank 6-7km away, almost thrice the range of an Abrams. And Russians currently have best tank ammo.
999cheetos999 3 months ago
@hailherrosner Also do not in anyway underestimate the T-90, of all my knowledge on tanks the T-90 might be the best tank today. It uses Wolframium Carbide, 10x harder than DU, 2nd toughest material on earth behind diamond, add Kaktus AP armor and its impenetrable! Chobham is not armor, its how you arrange armor. The only tank that could be able to match the T-90 is the Merkava due to its ATGM capability. Most tanks such as the Abrams, Chally, Leopard 2 cannot be compared to the T-90.
999cheetos999 3 months ago
@hailherrosner By the way, there is only 5 years difference between the T-72 and the Abrams tank.
XxxSakura101 2 months ago
@XxxSakura101 A lot of technological advancements can be made within 5 years.
KSGAxAirsoft 2 months ago
LOL! Tom Clancy ... what a retard. That man never ceases to amaze me with the BS coming out of his mouth.
pacus123 6 months ago 10
@pacus123 Tom Clancy knows more about military technology then you. Russian tanks are death traps. The tank is more dangerous to its own crew than the enemy. I'll take an American or British tank over any scrap pile Russians call a tank.
mower2008 2 months ago
@mower2008 Tom Clancy knows s*** all about russian tech, what evidence supports your view they are death traps? it is more of a rumour than fact about the deadly auto loader, Can you tell me one case where that has actually happenned? Finland used T-72 from early 90's until 2004 and it never was reported, please give evidence to back up your claims!
RetroPaintball 1 month ago
@RetroPaintball You really need to work on your penmanship and calm down. Were you not paying attention to the fact that the T-72's ammunition is exposed? That is why American and British tanks chewed them up in the Gulf War. Besides, the Soviets no doubt did everything they could to keep their soldiers from talking about the dangers of the autoloader.
mower2008 1 month ago
@mower2008 The T72s in the gulf war were little better than t 55s. They were degraded export models and the Iraqis were undersupplied, poorly trained and organized. The reason why coalition tanks defeated them had nothing to do with ammunition storage. The t 72 was in service in the Finnish armed forces and I've never heard anyone complain about the supposed dangers of the autoloader: theres plenty of space for the crew to operate safely without losing their arms.
TheTokkin 2 weeks ago
lol russian munchkins
Hypastpist 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
should be no 1
LevTrotsky1917 8 months ago
remember guys, Soviet russia exported T-72M, M means Monkey model, we can say that T-72M is equal to older tanks, maybe 1st Generation tanks such as T-55s
8900609 8 months ago
They can't tell the diffeence between the export 'monkey models' they sold in bulk to the Iraqi's and the Syrians from the domestic models (T-72A) which was actually pretty descent.
Anthrax92007 8 months ago
The T-72 was a downgraded model of the complex T-64. T-64 is smaller and has more little features, like remote AA machine gun control for the commander, better composite armor than T-72, 125mm gun. And this is 1967. T-64B in 1976 could already launch guided missiles up to 5km. T-72B got that abbility in 1984.
patrikasLTL 8 months ago
And no, the main gun of the T-72 was 20 mm larger than those of contemporary Western tanks (1973). Western tanks had 105 mm guns.
ColonelAli 9 months ago
HAHA! Clancy was going to say "piece of Soviet rubbish" at 02:45. He is as bad as a writer as a military analyst..
ColonelAli 9 months ago
@ColonelAli how many russian military authors have published as many best sellers, or high grossing movies, or many different video games, splinter cell, ghost recon, endwar, jack ryan is a beast and dont bad mouth a great author
packr72 7 months ago
@packr72 So? I have read one of his books, "The Teeth of the Tiger", and it sucked. He is incredibly biased, it doesn't matter what kind of movies, games or crap-ass books he writes. I am 6 foot tall - and I fit perfectly fine in a T-72. Clancy talks a lot of crap - in a war, he would be one of the first casualties, because he lacks in respect for his enemy. People who lack respect for their foes are often beaten by their foes (see Nazi Germany).
ColonelAli 7 months ago
@ColonelAli how many new york times best sellers have you written, that what i though, NONE, if its so great why did they rename it the t90,
packr72 6 months ago
@packr72 What does that have to do with anything? The guy is clearly an idiot if I can, 6 feet tall, fit in a T-72 - and no, the T-90 is not another T-72. Read up on the T-90, they are two different tanks but with many similarites..
ColonelAli 6 months ago
@ColonelAli do you know that most t90s are built from the scrapped chasie of the t72 and orignially it was called the t72bu, and the t90 is nothing special, the russians are only building them for the indians now, the russian have said its nothing but a stopgap
packr72 6 months ago
tom clancy should fuck his mother stupid sob that he is i never heard a russian speaking so much shit in tv like he does uh deathtrap picka ti materina...
BRATKOV47KALASHNIKOV 10 months ago
янкам до автомата заряжания как !!!!!!!!!!
aza1977able 1 year ago
янкам до автомата заряжания как !!!!!!!!!!
aza1977able 1 year ago
Hey, its Tom Clancy!
gtaclevelandcity 1 year ago
THANX GOD for the end of the Cold War! The T-72 was a real threat for the western allies. We were so close to the WW3, that could mean the end of the World!
dumitrescusa 1 year ago
@dumitrescusa No, it necessarily was not. The T-72 only had the advantage in large quantities. But besides that, it was realistically weaker than the typical western tank. The only good mod was the B. Then, they modernized them.
Tyco200 1 year ago
@Tyco200Sure thing, but you now that in the WW2, the German tanks were better than the Russians or Allies ones! At last, was the quantity that counted! The Tiger tank was a real beast against the T34! The difference was the number of production rate. The 34/85, in the 80's was still in the Romanian Army service! I served on one of this! The idea was to keep the tank number high, regardless the quality !
dumitrescusa 1 year ago
@Tyco200 The T-72 was designed to be a cheaper alternative to the T-62 which was too expensive to produce in the numbers the Soviets wanted. It's important to keep in mind that Soviet Tank design was not linear. While T-62 and T-72 were both very similar tanks, they were based on different design lineages and philosophy. The T-62 was designed to be real leap in AFV design while the T-72 was more designed to be a stop-gap with a future in export sale.
CaptHawkeye 11 months ago
@CaptHawkeye I think you mean T-64 not T-62. The T-62 however was a great leap because it was the first tank in the world to feature a smoothbore cannon.
jhaney931 11 months ago
@jhaney931 I was under the impression it was the T-62, since the T-64 was sort of a mulligan design after it was apparent that the 62 had a lot faults. In hindsight you're right though.
CaptHawkeye 11 months ago
@jhaney931 Yes, but at the same time also had major flaws. Including exposed ammunition, very poor crew compartments and the fact that T-55's gun was still slightly better than the 115mm smooth-bore gun. Only thing it had over Western tanks was its smoothbore gun. Besides that, it was doomed.
Tyco200 10 months ago
@CaptHawkeye T-64 you meant, right? And not at all! T-72 was much too inferiot to even match T-64. Unlike T-72, T-64 had quality, true protection and was well done. T-64 was a true leap forward in technology. T-72?... More like a horrible copy cat alternative for Russian allies.
Tyco200 10 months ago
@CaptHawkeye -And besides, Russia freaked the hell out when they found out about the losses sustained in the 1982 Syrian-Lebanon war. M-60A1s beat the T-72s with no problems at all.
Tyco200 10 months ago
Comment removed
daAnder71 1 year ago 25
@daAnder71 Im former T72 platoon leader and Im 184cm tall. The commander and gunner have plenty of room in T72, much more then in T55. The driver however should be the smaller one 160-170cm at best to have some comfort. Even I could easy fit in and drive it, but I had less comfort in drivers compartment.
MadIgor1 10 months ago
@daAnder71 Didn't Germany only get the M-models? The original A models did infact have horrible internal crew spaces... And besides, the tank was not designed to come up in one on one battles. It also has an auto loader that stores its munitions right under the turret. That isn't exactly the SAFEST place to store ammunition. T-64 was a true tank. 72? A Joke Chinese COPY of the 64.
Tyco200 9 months ago
@daAnder71 I'm 6' 3" and I could not fit inside the driver's compartment of the T72
jigglypiggly 9 months ago
@daAnder71 discovery channel propaganda that ranked the t34 the 3rd greatest tank, or the military channels list that named it the greatest tank ever, plus named the t55 the 8th greatest tank, and named the ak47 the greatest rifle of all time, how many new york times best sellers have you written,NONE tom clancy know more about tanks than you, yes getting your arm ripped off by the auto loader is real comfortable
packr72 6 months ago
@daAnder71 Yes, but the fire control was a joke, armor protection okay, and of course, it was cramped. Also, in the T-72, you've got exposed ammo. It's good at shooting an atgm at 6km and then running for its own damn life. Fire control in this T-72 modification was sad... Also Republican Guard T-72M1s were up to the standards of T-72As. M1 package was built for the purpose of saving the low-quality, death trap known as "T-72M" or in my own words "The Roach."
Tyco200 4 months ago
@daAnder71 I've been in a T-72 three or four times at various points in my life. As a fucking nine-year-old, I thought it was cramped. It is in no way, shape, or form, a comfortable vehicle for anyone of normal stature. The Soviet Union had ordered that anyone crewing the T-72 had to be at most, 5ft 4in (source--CCCP army manuals). Export models did change the dimensions (so they could sell it), but that's because they traded bulky but light composite for simple steel, which is thinner.
redreaper2020 4 months ago
@redreaper2020 Thanks for that information. Indeed, all tall people, who told me, that T-72 was "quite" comfortable served in the roomier M1-export versions.
daAnder71 4 months ago
Ah, my third favorite tank in the world, we can learn much from the T72 and its derivates, by using its highly destructive 125mm gun. That gun could seriously or fataly destroy an American tank.
Zillion43 1 year ago
@Zillion43 What? Then why did Iraq and Syria both fail so badly against simple M-60A1s? Now, I am not stating that these tanks were not M models, but in the Syrian conflict, Russia did respond quite seriously. Demanding what happened, and what not. Also, T-72 had poor fire control systems in comparison to Western tanks.
Tyco200 10 months ago
@Tyco200 Dont be fooled, Russia exported T-72M's(probably the worst tank theyve come up with). They reduced the armor so badly and downgraded weapons, fire control system. Its up to Poland and Czech to at least make the tanks a little better and export them to Mid East. What resulted was the T-72M1's which only has improved frontal and rear armor, Iraq and other countries had to further upgrade the damn things by themselves, which didnt give good results
999cheetos999 10 months ago
@Tyco200 + There ARE MANY VERSIONS OF THE T-72. Russia also has one that is in NATO standards. The T-72-120 is a Russian tank that uses a 120mm smooth bore that fires NATO ammunition(ex.DU) and has a fire control system that was based on the M1,Leopard and Chally, making it a very sophisticated tank. Russia doesnt in any way export T-72B's A's and 90A's. They only export T-72M's and T-72 Ural and the countries which acquire it name it themselves (ex. Iraqi Asad Babil)
999cheetos999 10 months ago
@999cheetos999 True, but do remember that T-72M1 was modified up to the least standards of a T-72A. That's a well known fact. And according to many sources, during the 1990s, Russia simply gave samples of old, T-72 B models for the Iraqis to build off of. Lastly, they are now giving out T-72S tanks, that are like the T-72BMs, only, are modified T-72As instead, and only lack the frontal plating on the turret.
Tyco200 9 months ago
@Tyco200 Finding that the T-72M is downgraded, you have to admit that you cannot improve its armor when the base is already done, unless you want to change it as a whole again. Thats a well known fact that the T-72's armor couldnt be "improved" whatever they do, the only option is to place ERA, or sandbags if you like...but ERA is an expensive option. And it will tell you alot because RUSSIA GAVE AMMUNITION WITH """HALF""" PROPELLANT to all of its clients...its surprising to see them penetrate.
999cheetos999 9 months ago
@Tyco200 And Russia reacted that way because they didnt expect it to suck that bad. Coming from the reputation as a sophisticated tank in the 1970's, they expected it to fair well against NATO tanks(T-72 is in the same GENERATION as the M60 Patton). They underestimated NATO armor and made the T-72M1 for business purposes and wanted to see what happened. But they were "at least" able to kill 1 M1 Abrams in Iraq and knock out a handful, that tells you alot.
999cheetos999 10 months ago
@999cheetos999 Also, in Iraq only two M1s went down to enemy fire. Both of which missed T-72M1s, and ended up being fired upon at point blank range. How will a simple ambush tell us "a lot"? Hell, during the 1982 Lebanon-Israeli conflict, Israeli Centurions knocked out heavily modified T-72M1s, and eventually, Russia themselves panicked.
Tyco200 9 months ago
@999cheetos999 Also, if you simply look at T-90A's structure, they kept: The ammunition storage right under the turret. The tank itself also cannot fire on the move. Which gives it a major disadvantage. Last but not least, T-90 doesn't have the greatest armors available. It still requires quite a few add ons. M1s in Iraq, without add ons, took hundreds of RPG rounds.
Tyco200 9 months ago
@Tyco200 M1's have enough density on their armor to defeat Tandem warheads, T-90A's armor is mainly to defeat Sabot rounds, M1's dont have the qualities of ERA so its easily penetrable with kinetic warheads or HEAT rounds(as I said,Iraqis T-72 disabled M1 Abrams with single hits during a skirmishes).The T-90A's base armor shouldnt be underestimated, it is thinner than DU, but it still is the 2nd hardest material on earth, the same material that Leopard 2A6 uses for its armor.ERA adds more...
999cheetos999 9 months ago
@999cheetos999 [multiple citations needed]
jigglypiggly 9 months ago
@jigglypiggly You should try researching...I dont want to post references here (im too lazy). And im pretty sure im 100% correct, you should try denouncing me rather than making me state citations retard. State your own facts and prove me wrong or continue playing your games
999cheetos999 9 months ago
@999cheetos999 Ouch, he uses an ad hominem his first response, instant loss. You seem educated, yet you can't provide sources and citations when you make claims?
Burden of proof, you make claims, you have to back them up.
"The defendant is guilty your honor, someone saw him do it"
"Who?"
"Go find him yourself, retard"
Continue your school yard arguments, "I KNOW YOU ARE, BUT WHAT AM I"
or let me know when you mature up and actually attempt to put citations when you make claims.
jigglypiggly 9 months ago
@jigglypiggly Okay, also you should also learn basic properties of Depleted Uranium to Wolframium Carbide and compare it, its ceramics vs a moderately low MP substance(U).And also read inserts on the war on Iraq(I presume you know this and I hope that BBC didnt brainwash you yet) and see the Iraqis side of the war.Wolframium Carbide(a ceramic, basic fun facts that its second to diamond in terms of hardness).I recommend you type "The Real M1 Abrams" in the search bar, its an easy way for starters
999cheetos999 9 months ago
@999cheetos999 yeah a video on youtube with less than 3000 views is a credible source
packr72 7 months ago
@jigglypiggly And can you post a video or citation whether or not you can fit in the T-72??? There has been German commanders about your height that can fit into T-72's perfectly. Look for citations yourself, Jesus Christ even most of the Abrams features can be judged with STOCK KNOWLEDGE. Something tells me you dont think that much :(
999cheetos999 9 months ago
@999cheetos999 Two more replies, no sources in either.
It sucks being uneducated, no?
Are you still claiming that the T-72 knocked out more than 2 Abrams in Operation Desert Storm?
Are you still claiming that the T-72 is better than the M1 Abrams and Challenger 2?
Lmao, keep on pulling that straw man.
Since you are a sourceless peasent who isn't worth my time, I've taken the opportunity to block communications with you, since I don't argue with people who are less intelligent than me.
Ciao ~
jigglypiggly 9 months ago
@jigglypiggly Excellent,this is a decent reply from a FOOL of your caliber.The T-72M did in fact knock out more than 2 Abrams in Iraq(maybe 3 perhaps? and other things the US military hid from the public?) during urban skirmishes (stupid fool, they were knocked out but NOT DESTROYED).The Russians gave the Iraqis downgraded T-72's, call sign T-72M and further upgraded T-72M-1 "Asad Babil", which is in fact NOT EVEN CLOSE to the real Russian T-72B.Your ignorant and you cant even spell "peasant" XD
999cheetos999 9 months ago
@999cheetos999 the lion of babylon was a licensed built t72, not a t72m the tank was basically a russian t72 but assembled in iraq with soviet built parts and western eletronic systems made in belgium. no no abarms were knocked out by t72s
packr72 7 months ago
@999cheetos999 no wrong no tank was lost damaged but not destroyed
Blueatchley12 3 months ago
@999cheetos999 No they did not, no Abrams had ever been knocked out by opposing armor, yet alone the T-72.
XxxSakura101 2 months ago
@XxxSakura101 80% of the armor that fought Abrams were T-55's and Type 69's, its nearly impossible for a post WWII tank to kill a new gen tank.The T-72M however(though downgraded) were able to stop Abrams in its tracks, not really a "kill" but enough to do a mobility kill. There are numerous times where this happened,friendly fire killed more Abrams than the Iraqis though lol.
999cheetos999 2 months ago
@999cheetos999 Killing an tank, knocking out a tank, and delaying a tank are all very different concepts. There has been no incident of any OPFOR armor, The upgraded T-72 Lions, T-55s, Type59s, or 69s knocking out an Abrams tank, yet alone killing it. Only 12 Abrams had been damaged due to non-friendly fire in both wars, all of whom had been due to mines or artillery, with only three being knocked out- all of whom had their transmissions destroyed rendering them inmobile.
XxxSakura101 2 months ago
@XxxSakura101 I know they are different concepts whats your point...destroy a tanks mobility it cant go further, destroy the turret and you basically have an apc. T-72 Lions are not upgraded, they are T-72A's, one of the first T-72 variants, and Russia sells cheaper, half propellant ammo to the Middle East, do you expect Russia would sell superior equipment overseas?Fuck no.The deaths of Abrams have been lied for in years, who knows how many got knocked out or killed
999cheetos999 2 months ago
@999cheetos999 era is a cheap aletrnative that isnt as effective as chopham armor, plus depleted uranium is stronger and harder than tungsten
packr72 7 months ago
@packr72 Chobham IS NOT ARMOR fool! And NATO Sabot rounds are as slow as fuck but they have good penetrators. But the main power of the sabot comes from speed, which Russia has. Depleted Uranium with a crappy melting point of 1333 C melts/breaks easily against HEAT warheads and Wolframium Carbide@ 3800 C(T-90's and Leopards Tungsten ceramic armor) is the SECOND HARDEST MATERIAL on earth...
999cheetos999 7 months ago
@Zillion43 no it cant, in desert storm that mighty gun couldnt penetrate the armor of an abrams at even 400 meters, the t72, t80, and t90(t72bu) all use the same gun with the same ammo, not a match, plus the russian still haven't designed a tank to take on modern mbts like the abarms, leo2 and chally, the t72 was built to compete with the m60, FAIL, and leo1 and the cheiftan, not the abrams. all nato mbt greatly excede russian built mbts
packr72 7 months ago
T-72 has many flaw - weak armour at rear (1 shot of RPG actually blow the ammo chamber and killed all crews). It was a death trap for the crew - but sheer number of it made it effective.
looxgood 1 year ago
Wait, thirty seconds into the video, they show a T-55...
cmdrnmartin 1 year ago
T-72 VS Merkava CAST YOUR VOTE
The winner: The US M1A1 Abram tank
PEDROCLASSIC 1 year ago
@PEDROCLASSIC
T-55, given it was fighting against an Saudia Arabian M1A1. But serious. Any modern tank in combat against another modern tank with equal quality crew are nearly equalble capable of killing or beeing killed.Some of these have more protection, others have more electronics, but It boils down to that the tank who first manage to score a hit wins.
fitte6 1 year ago
The eastern bloc tank against NATO
PEDROCLASSIC 1 year ago
Americans people don't realize or have a thought, is what the former Warsaw pact and USSR tank are very different, with what cuba, iraq, iran, venezuela, etc have. Export vs import version. IRak is not a industrialize like poland or ukraine.
bellotacositacandy 1 year ago
talk about tank warfare, only the eastern front from 1942 to 1945. and there isnt any real tank warfare after that.
that is the only time period you can see the mass scale use of armored vehicles and is the only time can make your heart pumped with blood in a passion of armored steels. both side had excellent on their own armored tacits and reached the highest any armored fighting vehicle could ever been for the time.
on tank warfare,neither US or UK were any close to third Reich or USSR
fancczf 1 year ago
@fancczf lol. Tell that to Soviet, Chinese, and North Korean crew of the Russian T-34s, IS class, and T-55. The US Sherman even made fun of the Russian T-34s and ISs. The US M26 and M48 knock out the Soviet T-55 like a guy shooting ducks.
916ppl 1 year ago
since world war ii, tank warfare was the solo battle between Germans and Russians(people from USSR..), i will still be if the soviet union didnt vanish in the thin air and Germany didnt live in the shadow of wwii being afraid been isolated the entire time.
every single british tank in wwii was rubbish except cromwell and comment, sherman suffered major problem with its engine and interior design, every tank destroyer from m10 to m36 was more of a self-propelled anti tank gun.
fancczf 1 year ago
@fancczf the shermans burned becasue the the early m4a1 had very thin armor protecting the ammo, german tanks like the panther would sometimes burn even when not hit, the interior of a sherman was very spacious, like american cars and they were easy tanks to build, maintain, and upgrade, the later war shermans the m4a3e8 wooped the t34/85 in korea, and the centurion tank raped the t55 and t62, tanks that were newer than it in the arab israeli wars
packr72 6 months ago
I remember my grandpa telling me a story: He was to short to join the navy...to tall to serve in a t72.
kop4321 1 year ago
IS-3 is beautiful to me.Am I gay?
rAdziu993 1 year ago
@rAdziu993 Maybe in a mechanical sense lol :P
halas1 1 year ago
T-72, likely the most underrated tank of the 20th century. it has great mobility,small silhuette and gun that can take out any western tank at european ranges.
SuperFinnish 1 year ago
@SuperFinnish its gun is to be said to be 3 time's more powerfull than the m1a2 main gun !! FACT!! LOOK IT UP
kensta2k9 1 year ago
@kensta2k9 Maybe the latest modernized version of the T-90's gun. T-72, however, was pathetic when against Western designs. Please state where you got that strip of info, please? Incase it is a bull shit myth. ^^ Just a thought!
Tyco200 1 year ago
Abrams destroying T-72's has nothing to do with "which tank is better", but the people who pilot it +strategies. Just because North Vietnam defeated South Vietnam doesn't mean soviet weaponry is any better too. It has to do with the people using it
ppshchik 1 year ago
@ppshchik True, after all, we all recount the numorous encounters with T-54/55s and M-48s'. The M-48s slaughtered the T-54/55s, and the F-4 Phantoms proved superior to the MiG-21s, despite their horrible aerodynamics.
Tyco200 1 year ago
Myth upon a myth, covered in myth. what a load of crap
TocTep 1 year ago
Wow... Kinda scarry :/ Tank was dangerous to opporate...
Tyco200 1 year ago
lol saddam used these against abrams a few years back and got his ass absolutely kicked. Thats what happens when you use 30 year old Soviet weapons, build your own pussy.
oldmanwithers1 1 year ago
Saddam only had hos versions called Asad Babil. they had basic rolled steel armor with max thickness of 300mm rather then chobham-style layered composite armor Russians had. Its rounds were steel-core APFSDS that were discarded in 73 by USSR and were rated at 250mm steel armor penetration and apparently didn't even have full propellant. Lack of laser rangefinders, modern comms, engines were derated and so on.
Spetsnazovets 1 year ago
learn some more, then post
TocTep 1 year ago
@oldmanwithers1 ha! you got to the the word BLITZKRIEG! LOOK IT UP! thats the germans and russians best tatic . and yes the yank have lost heavely aswell in the iraq war and so on!
kensta2k9 1 year ago
remember guys the iraqi or other non warshaw union tanks are badlier than warshaw union tanks there is no example for the soviet T-72's and the iraqi T-72's or not ?
detlev07 1 year ago
3:30 is BS, actually most T-72 crews loved the tank.
ArmAFan 2 years ago
only 13 T72 tanks destroyed in Iraq ppl xD Sorry if i destroyed your imagination xD Iraq had bunch of T64 and T54/55 and Chinese made Type 59 but only 28 T72 xD
nedeljko031 2 years ago
Sorry mate but T-64 was never exported. Iraq had T-62s
Spetsnazovets 1 year ago
in desert warfare who has the best optics is going to win, if you take average northern european your average shooting distance would be less then 500m then the one who gots the first shot on target wins, no matter if your in t-72 or abrams.
SuperFinnish 2 years ago
Target-72
DonMeaker 2 years ago
some times T-72 got hit many times (5-8) and continie to fight.
Goldrag 2 years ago
no they don't.... just like they say: "T"arget 72, prone to 23 mm cannon. on the other hand, i will agree, it will take about 5-8 23 mm shells to take it out.
InfernalThunder 2 years ago
Only Polish T-72 tanks had no protective grates against the autoloader.
iraqis made the T-72 Asad Babil with fire controls and engine from the T-62 tank and 300mm STEEL armor.
Soviets use semi-combustable shell casings, when put into the gun and fired theres nothing left. Its not about being struck its about the combustable shell casing catching fire. Ammunition is not exposed- its in the carousel autoloader bellow (even the dude said there are 2 flaps; and it has nitrogen fire extinguishing).
patrikasLTL 2 years ago
An A10C Thunderbolt II will pulvavise this tank.
1ohtaf1 2 years ago
lol exposed ammo, why dont tank designers have any common sense?
for example the bmp (russian armored infantry carrier) has a fuel tank as its back door!
stevewestingale 2 years ago
The main fuel tank is inside the vehicle, the door fuel tanks are extra, for long drives.
vtkrey 2 years ago
Where else would you put it?
DonMeaker 2 years ago
in m113 fuel tank inside and each rpg-7 hit burn all inside
Goldrag 2 years ago
yea, and since the m113s armour is made of aluminium it comes burning poison.
SuperFinnish 2 years ago
125 mm gun in this time be only on ship
Goldrag 2 years ago
Damn tank, trying to fire its crew members.
Spanky00Cheeks 2 years ago
ha the best tanks today are the challenger the m1 and the leo 2
its made by westerner haha^^
watzman123321123321 2 years ago
yes i agree, but the T90 /T95 are way better value for money.
hond0000 2 years ago
Value for money? Not much value if they cant get the job done and kept getting blown up.
1ohtaf1 2 years ago
T-90 blown up? where??
Goldrag 2 years ago
Never happened.
vodkasvictim 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
1ohtaf1 say "they cant get the job done and kept getting blown up"
and this is bullshit, because T-90 nerer been destroyed.
Goldrag 2 years ago
Russians have a better tank now. It's the T-90 which should have been on this top 10 but this is made by westerners......
eviltwin777 2 years ago
T-90 isn't be in war. in list no more good tank - in this list most useful tank. On first place T-34
Goldrag 2 years ago
It was in Chechnya and Georgia conflict but not in wide use.
eviltwin777 2 years ago
No this list is best tanks Leopard 2 is #1
M1 Abrams #2
OlderG0ds 2 years ago
oww... strange video. Tiger more good then T-90? or leo-2 was many times in war?
Goldrag 2 years ago
I thought it was a bit strange too.
They're not directly comparing Tiger to T-90 as if they were to fight. But I assume they have a rating system to compare the tanks. Like, Tiger gets 5/5 firepower, armor, but 1/5 mobility. Or something.
I would guess they at least included combat history.
It would help if they explained the process of how they chose the tanks huh?
OlderG0ds 2 years ago
@Goldrag It is an intertaining video They compare them by popularity ..i guess
obeybosss 1 year ago
nice thinking but the T-90 is a T-72 with wegded shaped ERA and a little bit more advanced Fire Control System, Still a old Soviet Era tank.
Sturmgewehr14 2 years ago
Well when you think of it all Russian tanks follow the same shape but the hull on the T-90 is altered so that makes it unique also as you mention the fire control, also the engines.
eviltwin777 2 years ago
T-90 comes from the T-72B series, it has improved vastly since it was still called the T-72B.
vtkrey 2 years ago
those Russian Tanks are ugly as sin imo......idk what they are using now so idk if it is different but w/e hehe
CMDRFandragon 2 years ago
tanks are not designed to look pretty, they are designed to be deadly
who cares if it's ugly as long as it does what it's designed to do on the battlefield
name one "beautiful" tank
McLarenMercedes 2 years ago 7
well not beautiful but definitly a "cooler" looking tank imo is the German Leopard II or the King Tiger from WWII, but yeah i see what u mean
CMDRFandragon 2 years ago
Beauty is an opinionated thing and really doesn't matter like you said, but i think M1A2 Abrams is pretty nice looking, as well the K1A1 South Korean tank, maybe because it's based on the Abrams and designed by same company.
OlderG0ds 2 years ago
@McLarenMercedes Panther tank, M1A1, MErkava. They're all beautiful.
Nelsonwmj 1 year ago
@McLarenMercedes the markeva,abrahams,leopard 2......those are beautiful tanks.
but i agree with you
BattlestarHailfire 1 year ago
@McLarenMercedes I can name one, The T-72 I think it looks awesome I love soviet military design not ugly as fuck like the US tanks.
aranax69 1 year ago
@McLarenMercedes Leopard 2A6NL!
sportlife18 1 year ago
@McLarenMercedes you can't say they are ugly they are somewhat "beautiful" to me
ThaSweKillah 1 year ago
@McLarenMercedes Is-7tank looks sexy
agearmaster1 1 year ago
@McLarenMercedes The Panther is beautiful.
apache249 1 year ago 20
@McLarenMercedes for me the Panther and the Tiger Look "Cool" but if i was in WW2 and i hade to choose a Tank id choose T-34 it was considred to have the BEST Armour the Panther also hade sloped armour but the t-34 was thicker
jasincl 1 year ago
@jasincl the panthers armor was considerbly thicker that the t34, hell the sherman had thicker frontal armor than the t34 and the shermans frontal armor was sloped, the panthers armor was on par with the tiger 1, german and american tank had more crew comforts than russian tanks which makes a huge difference. if you were smart you would want a king tiger, 6 inches of sloped armor and an even deadiler 88mm gun ,no contest
packr72 7 months ago
@jasincl jesus what the hell did i say! I EMANT PANTHER NOT T.34 THE IS-2 HADE THICKER ARMOUR god am getting confused
jasincl 7 months ago
@ 2:57 thats Tom Clancy!!
damagejackal10 2 years ago
i heard the autoloader tore off some of its gunners arms nasty
oosulley 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
comunisti...i love when abrams m1 kick ass the t 72 ahahah
djsimo149 2 years ago
don't call me that you ass
nguyen5055 2 years ago
learn better english first you wop
McLarenMercedes 2 years ago
yes suck my dick idiot you understand???
djsimo149 2 years ago
if satan produced a tank....It would be Rosie Odonald!
cameltoejoe69 2 years ago
i love this tank its a killer fighting tank, but the interior looks like the people behind it though the man piloting them are just a part of the machines... it looks so SO uncomfortable, its just degrading the skills of the tank commander.
wizzzer1337 2 years ago
just listen to what they say!!!
usmarine4597 2 years ago
to reduce weight and size of the overall tank.
and the T-72 autoloader is pretty reliable and simple to maintain!
usmarine4597 2 years ago
If you need to maintenance an autoloader whats the point?
dawnninjawolf 3 years ago
I think Tom Clancys comments are a death trap to my mind.
PeDoDoKu 3 years ago
the strange thing is that no other tank has an autoloader. the only one i know is the leclerc
atecjon 3 years ago
Autoloaders are not reliable!
Plastrio 3 years ago
And a human being is?
PeDoDoKu 3 years ago
When a machine can jam and fail and a human being cannot, well I'd rather have a loader in my tank then the fastest auto loader available, which is actually the Leclerc's autoloader.
longbowgold67 3 years ago
"Autoloaders are not reliable!"
Perhaps. The main reason, though, is that a trained human loader is normally faster than an autoloader.
Magni56 2 years ago
right!
but with the T-72 they replaced the loader with an autoloader to save weight
and size.
usmarine4597 2 years ago
The Swedish S-Tank had an very reliable autoloader with 3 ammo -alternatives. It took appx 3 sec to reload.
ubergstr 3 years ago
the loader's role extends way beyond simply loading the shell into the cannon, it involves upkeeping the machine guns, fixing jams while everyone is busy doing their job and making me (gunner) sandwiches when were in a tank ambush.
IDFArmor 2 years ago
Actually RPG has taken out a M1A1. During the Iraqi invasion a Iraqi got a lucky shot into the engine which caused an uncontrollable fire, so not to let the tank fall into enemy hands they US forces had to destroy it. An RPG-7 can disable any tank but they can not destroy one on its own. The later RPG models such as the RPG-29 can kill a M1A2.
cbsbyte 3 years ago
Many M1A2 Abrams got shot in the rear with RPG7s without disabling it.
1ohtaf1 2 years ago
@1ohtaf1 Well it´s soviet equivalent of 72 LAW
GeneralCalculus 1 year ago
the t-72 is the main battle tank of the bulgarian army
thunderbedford 3 years ago