@Khristophoros1001 I asked you for technical facts comparisment with those tanks, you are giving me empty mantras again.
First of all, Russia didnt invade Georgia, where did you pulled that out? We fought them back as they killed our citizens of South Ossetia, militia couldnt fight them, so we had to send Federal military.
Second, fought poorly? We finished war in 4-5 days. Georgian military was using equipment that even Iraqis didnt have, + their troops were with American weapon equiped.
@vaskez01248 There is no such thing like a "Infantry support tank" any more, it is a tank or apc, T-72 was one of the most feared tanks in the world in the 70s, it was a great tank in his times but now there better tanks out there, t-72 weren't made to fight against moderns M1 abrams, they were design to annihilate m-60s and Chieftains, so people that say crap about the t-72 is because they dont know anything about military.
@Moution23 "Fear" form T-72 was fabricated by the West and East,coz they both benefited form that propaganda.Killing m-60 was t-64 job,and T-72 was created to mix a MBT and IFV..T-72 was not pureblooded MBT, but mainly infantry support tank,to increase survivability, fire power,range and lethality over enemies IFV-s, but for less cost than expensive MBT. If t-72 was so great as MBT, then why Soviets built t-80?.T-64 was pureblooded MBT, and then it was replaced with t-80.
"Fear" form T-72 was fabricated by the West and East,coz they both benefited form that propaganda.Killing m-60 was t-64 job,and T-72 was created to mix a MBT and IFV..T-72 was not pureblooded MBT, but mainly infantry support tank,to increase survivability, fire power,range and lethality over enemies IFV-s, but for less cost than expensive MBT. If t-72 was so great as MBT, then why Soviets built t-80?.T-64 was pureblooded MBT, and then it was replaced with t-80.
@uzickimajmunac What a stupid comment. This tank is 40 years old. Of course an Abrams will destroy it. The T90 is more modern and may stand a better chance.
@MrCommunismftw it wont only stand a chance but the abrams tank wont stand a chance the t90 range is 5km while abrams is 2miles the arena and shtora active protection systems make hitting this tank immpossible, kontack 5 reactive armor makes the t90 tank almost impenetrable plus the t90 tank has far better off road capabilities
@T6B6H6 probably about 500 000 $ or so, but i doubt you could aquire one XD. also its obsolete because they(russians) have the T-90 now which is way better
I find the most modern Russian/Soviet MBT's most interesting! Even though they aren't as good as modern western MBT's. But I just love seeing them in a combat situation or when they are in a war theater, it's just so crude and awesome!
@Khristophoros1001 dude this tank was made in the 70's of course its gonna be crudy is 40 years old the new russian tanks t 90 and t 95 could easily take on any western tank
@meee2014 You mean the T-95 that's been cancelled because it's development was to expensive to complete? The T-90 can challenge modern western MBT's but everything isn't about the tank, there is also crew training and terrain. I wouldn't say that the T-90 can easily take on any western MBT, just as any western MBT can't easily take out the T-90. I like the T-90 but I prefer Leopard 2 and the Challenger 2 MBT's better.
@Khristophoros1001 Good as Western MBT? Like what for example? L2A6 is only who has a chance to defeat T-90A. Not even talking about T-90MS. M1 Abrams is debunked and proved that it is nothing special, just because USA destroyed bunch Iraqi made T-72Ms and Babils doesnt mean it is best.
@realIBeliX Like I said, its not all about the tank.... The most important thing is the crew and how well they are trained. And on paper any modern western MBT can challenge the T-90, the M1A2 Abrams, Challenger 2 and Leopard 2A5-A7 can all on paper destroy T-90's just like the T-90 can destroy western tanks. But in reality western tanks have an upper hand because they are better trained in tank combat then their Russian counterpart.
@realIBeliX By looking at history, when the Russian army invaded Georgia it performed quite poor against an even poorer army. The Georgian army was far worse trained and equipped then Saddam's army. And I don't doubt that the Russian army within 10 years will be as powerful as any western European country today with the same level of technology and training. Most Russian crews (tanks, fighters etc) are poorly trained because the government isn't giving enough cash for the military.
this tank is friggen leathal!!,,,just any of the thausands of Iraqi tanker that we sent to meet ALLA! M1A2 kicked T-72 and T-80's asses and the same gun thatRussia uses for it's T-90 series is the same 125mm gun used on all tanks in Russia since the T-64's came on line back in early 1960's...
@bobb22ful You know nothing about tank warfare son. All the stuff that you wrote is wrong
1st Iraq never had T 80 of eny kind , and they only had T 72M and local buld T 72M.
2cd The T 64 has a 2A46M-1whilt the T 80 and 90 2A46M whitch are basicly the same thing a smoot barrel tube of 125 mm.And the most important thing is what do they fire . Iraq never had modern tank shells or AT missles that the russians have .
@bobb22ful M1 kicked T-72M (Polish and Hungarian made T-72 aka called Monkey models, very downgraded variant, worse even that T-55) which were used as bunkers and they got digged into ground, because Saddam didnt have trainer tank crewman.
T-80U never was in combat against any western tank. By the way, there are hundreds of old tanks who still use 120mm, dummy.
they're both great tanks... I would prefer M1 and Leopard Of Course.. in T-72 ur not safe as m1 and leopard. in tskhinvali i got hit by rpg-7 (with a cumulative round u PG-7VR missile) and it wasn't easy to jump out from the burning tank. but i love t-72's firepower . sorry for my language ;)
That classification is outdated - they're all MBTs today - Main Battle Tank.
It's significantly lighter than it's western counterparts though because it's smaller, and replaced a crew member, the loader, by an automatic loader system.
its a great tank, its just a little dated compared to most modern tanks. I think the modernized ones are almost on the same level as the M1A1, but thats just an opinion. anyways its a kick ass medium tank!
@VulpesTragicus You are racist coz mother was fucking some black guy.Right wind women loves the big black dick.They must do that,coz right wingers are bitches so they don't have dicks.
@TheRussian460 Jesus-H you are a loser. Telling someone to research some is NOT a source. The point of providing a source for your claim is to show that YOU researched the subject and are providing your source of information. You are not a fluent English speaker, as your comments are barely legible. I've seen how terrible russia is. The politicians are more corrupt than those in mexico and teens often beat those who don't conform to their ways to death in the street. You fail and so does the t72
@VulpesTragicus A loser?!You are 47 years old right wing idot,that argues on the YT ,and you call somebody else a idiot.And you ask for source of info,but you don't give any source neither.You are a definition as pathetic hypocritical loser.HAHAHAHA
@TheRussian460 If you can not read and write at an 8th grade level, then you are considered illiterate. I love the irony of your comment. You say that I haven't supported my claim that abrams<t72(abrams is best b/c it looks cooler and runs on jewish oil) yet you didn't support your claim that russian education is superior.
@VulpesTragicus And if you are 47 years old and ugly right winger, commenting on YT,then you are considered a pathetic loser.Illiterate means that you can't read or write,not by your grammar mistakes.When a sociopath don't have any argument,he usually try to attack the way it is writtened.The way you comment on other people who don't think like you,show tipical behavior of an sociopath.
@TheRussian460 The T72 has yet do anything but suck. You don't even speak English properly either.
I have already stated the facts, maybe the russian education omits reading comprehension from its curriculum, but then again; eastern europeans are genetically inferior to Western Europeans in terms of intelligence.
@VulpesTragicus You compare intelligence on basics that Eastern Europeans don't speak some Western language?!Than that means,that if Westerner don't speak some Eastern European language is than inferior to Eastern people.On the other hand,you don't speak Russian.He speaks English and Russian,and you only English.By your logic,that means you are inferior to him.You see how your own theory proves that you are pathetic little loser.
@VulpesTragicus He speaks good English,coz you understand him.If he dose not speak English,than it will be impossible for you to reply him,coz you didn't know what he was writting.Da li razumes sta sam napisao?Did you understanded that?If you didn't ,than you are inferior to me.That means that you are a degeneric sociopath.And that means that you are 47 years old pathetic loooooooooooooser :))))))))))))
@TheRussian460 Why do you have this backwards idea that anyone who insults you is a "kid" stuck in your tiny mind? Why do you brag about how much you know about tanks even though it's trivial information? Why is this the only thing you do on youtube? LOL ABRAMS PWNS T72. T72 SUCKS MAH DICK LOL RUSSIA SUCKS!
@VulpesTragicus Because a 47 years old loser,who put insulting comments on YT is a kid.You have a body of a 47 year old loser,and mind of a 10 years old loser.Man who is 47 years old,and is not capable to put non-insulting comments,but comments like a 10 year old spoiled brat... IS A KID.And a pathetic L.O.S.E.R..Not to mention...a sociopath.
@TheRussian460 Removing your dumb comment won't remove it from my inbox, mr. youtube war expert.
On-topic: What's so bad about being a "nationalistic kid". Obviously you are a russian nationalist due to your avatar and username. You also seem to be a kid (or a man-child) because of your only presence on this site revolves around you bragging about how much trivial information you know.
BTW russian tanks suxxor because they always get blown up when they face American ones.
@VulpesTragicus" You also seem to be a kid (or a man-child) because of your only presence on this site revolves around you bragging about how much trivial information you know." HAHAHAHA That comes for a 47 years old no lifer,that presence on this site revolves around you insult people (out of jealousy) who are smarter than you.Pathetic 47 years old no lifer man-child,comments on site that is usually watched a 10-30 years old people.
Oh and the and the t72 combat weight is 90,310lb compared to the more heavily armored Abrams weighing in at a combat weight of 125,890lb the t72 is a desperate excuse for a modern MBT same thing with any other T series tanks NATO would crush any russian tank the challenger two would wipe out any russian tank as well and by the way I got all this info from a tank encyclopedia I have which is better than Wikipedia which I can tell most of you are using for info lol
@ak907jk - For one thing, you dont know shit on tanks besides wikipeda copy+paste. Second, you are only 1 of many genius who thinks weight = protection. Where is logical evidence how NATO tanks crush all Eastern ones? Even on T-72A models was close RHA to early Abrams. Where is logical evidence to back your claims?
@bittemeinrammstein yea it's called barnes and nobles or you local library dumbass so go back to your wikpedia or whatever shit site you get info from don't come bitching at me how Russian tanks are fucking god tanks because you can't see advantages in any other tank that is called ignorance my friend so why don't you STFU and go jack off to your ultimate god tank that is so much better than eveything else even though it has been proven in combat and lost fuckin faggot.
@ak907jk - Okay.. how about Steven Zaloga book who compares Abrams to T-72. He is American guy by the way. He outlines all of how Abrams is crap tank. You wank to fake data on Gulf war who is pulled straight from your asshole. But tell me to read books? Kid, I am formerly T-72 crewman. I know personally Abrams crewman. So as Gulf war veterans. xaxa... you fail here on epic way. xD
@bittemeinrammstein oh yea I am sorry you are crewman of t72 how could I argue with a 15yr old kid saying he's a tank crewman I forgot to say I am aero space engineer and I also created abrams and own my own country lol yep I so fail go and read your kremmlin propaganda news paper and I will look for your book at the library next time I am there.
@ak907jk - Yes, you do failed on epic way. You post rediculous data who have no factual backing. You know nothing about any tank besides crap you look from wikipedia. You presume rediculous things. You do not have to believe who I am, but you being fried here by facts is enough.))
@ak907jk - T-72M is export tank... it is the only one taken to combat. And with crap sights, crap crews, crap ammunition from 70's, crap tactics, and crap armour. So what is proved? That USA can shoot some static targets who is not even paying attention... great. But no proving. T-72M is simply crap export model who is basically paper tank to scare enemy rather than combat him. You are simply too idiot to understand this.
He has tank encyclopedia, lets go home comrades, no one can challenge man with encyclopedia, what a joke, listen up, thousands upon thousands of T-72s never were and mowing down numerious 40 year old tanks with goat herders for a crew is not a big achievement, now get lost amatuer before you get chewed up.
@vtkrey Um it's called a library retard why don't you visit one because the Iraqi army before US wiped them out was considered one of the most potent fighting forces in the middle east hardly sheep herders and if they are 40yr old tanks why are people bitching they are the best think about it they are generations behind NATO tanks.
@ak907jk - Iraq considered the most potent? HA... no. Iraq had large tank force. That is all. Numbers dont translate to superiority. Most advanced tank Iraq operated on his main forces was Chinese Type-69-II and it was crap copied from Soviet designs from 60's. You simply have no idea what you talk about. Iraq was no organised, bankrupt, and training was complete shit. So good for you, your country can defeat some idiots with old Chinese and Czech tanks of crap quality.
@bittemeinrammstein ok if your russian tank is such a fucking god tank that can just destroy anything and has never lost a battle then why didn't the soviets just wipe out NATO in cold war I mean they so won in afghanistan with these super tanks that have no weaknesses or disadvantages they are capable of beating anything in the modern world even though they come from some poor ass country mate I apologize since Tseries are invincible and out class everything
@ak907jk - Once again you prove me you are dumb. When I ever said T-72 was god tank or invencible? When I ever said it have no disadvantages or weakness? You presume too much. Invading NATO will start WW3, and we did not want that, or nuclear wasteland world. Also, T-72 was never used in Afghanistan.
@ak907jk - There is many more factors than just tank itself, kid. Abrams is capable to defeat our tanks. But also our tanks is capable to defeat Abrams. You simply fail to understand how tank battle comes down to hundreds of factors. Not simply type of round, and weight of tank. But Abrams also suffers server disadvantages. USA should focus to produce new tank completely.
@bittemeinrammstein NATO should just buy all their tanks from that SUPER RICH country that put billions of dollars into their military since Russia seems to the best country when it come to military not like they are scared of chezchen rebels so they lay the largest mine fields in the world lol instead of using their master tanks.
@ak907jk - xaxa... Again, dumb reply. You believe money translates to power of tank. That is idiocy. Chechen war is over. We won. Maybe you missed that on your great library(?) Anyway, check your own tanks on Iraq... insurgency blow them to shit. Any tank on such situations as urban area will get nailed because it is simply not designed for that.
well maybe you should move to the US and build them a better tank since the ones they use are so bad anyways NATO has best tank crews in world so it really doesn't matter Israeli tank crews are the best so is UK
@ak907jk - So NATO has best tank crews, but Israel to? Make up your mind. xaxa. And where is your evidence to support this? This is simply an other assumption from kid who don't know anything about warfare.))
@bittemeinrammstein It is because eastern europeans are genetically inferior to western europeans in terms of conceptualization power, so of course they are superior by wide margin in the tanks(not that they need to be due to all russian tanks being inferior to american ones).
@VulpesTragicus - XAXA...Your first part is just pure idiocy that I will not even comment. Second part, inferior to American ones? What disneyland you got that from? Even from T-80U and M1A1-Abrams in 1980's, T-80U had 1,350mm RHA against HEAT, while M1A1 could compete with only 600mm against HEAT, according to US expert "Zaloga". Check his writtings. Thanks for failing. Try again.))
@bittemeinrammstein Typical communist, refuses to ignore an argument something that he disagrees with because you lack the essential thought process. Russian tanks are inferior to us tanks because they are built by dumb commies. Everyone knows that the russian military is a shell of its former self after it lost the cold war. Russia sucks and so do you faggot!
@VulpesTragicus Tipical loser-sociopath.Branding someone a communist,when you don't have any argument in a 1st place yourself.Cock suckin faggot!!!!!!And a 47 years old loser.
@VulpesTragicus Typical 47 years old right-wing loser.When you don't have argument,brand him a (without any proof) "commie".All your comments are nothing more then insult.No facts,or opinions.Only insults.Your only presence on this site revolves around you insulting people who dose not think like you.You are sad angry pathetic little man.And your incapability to comment in calm and orderly maner,show serious mental disorder.
Genius, M-47 Patton was 44t heavy, while T-55 was 36t, and still T-55 was better protected tank than M-47 (203mm is more than 100mm, so your logic "heavier - better" have no sense.
I wander what "tank encyclopedia" you used as source, but I can tell you that whoever wrote that is complete moron.
Max armor thickness on T-80U from late 80's is 1340mm RHA while M1A1 Abrams from same era had 700mm...
just check any Zaloga's book before you post any crappy claims...
The Abrams M256 Rheinmetall 120mm smoothbore gun firing DU rounds would decimate this tank the Abrams uses a combination of chobham,Kevlar, and composite armor the T72 uses composite steel with ERA the Abrams has a far superior targeting system and 3rd generation thermal optics there is a reason there thousands upon thousand of destroyed t72s and only 29 Abrams destroyed lol no match I'm tired of Russian fan boys from UK
@ak907jk - Russian tanks uses DU ammunitions also, idiot. DU dont mean automatic win. Chobham is simply composite armour, dumby.
Ofcourse modern Abrams optics is superior to old T-72 models. That is silly. Compare T-80U, or T-90A maybe... you will find the fight.)) Where is "thousands upon thousands of destroyed t72s"? Iraq operated only 800~ from the whole Gulf war. And much of them survive the war. So as, most who was destroyed was because of airstrikes...
@bittemeinrammstein you should go to god damn library in operation desert storm 3800 coalition tanks went up against over 3000 iraqi T72 plus thousands of support vehicles like BMPs dumbass now go back to your little Russian propaganda site next you will be telling me Abrams and challenger has like tin armor and no electronics retard. and the ones that "survived" the crews had surrendered so before you go on ranting like a fanatical dumbass on youtube why don;t you visit a library
@ak907jk - Do you know what is Kursk? Most large tank battle of history... 5,000~ tanks was present there. But somehow in disneyland you live there was battle of 6,800 Abrams and T-72. xaxa. Fail. So as to check data on Iraq tanks... export model shit from Czechs called T-72M who have cast armour, crap sights, crap range, also crap crews who use training steel ammunition. You simply dont understand what you are talking. Silly kid who wanks on Gulf war.))
@ak907jk - Here is simple fact for you... Iraq on Gulf war have only 800~ T-72M who have worst performance than even T-72A. And only Republican Guards operated them. 95% of US tank kills from that war was from air bombings. Only 4% was from US vehicle kills. split between Abrams and Bradley. 1% from set demolitions. Even from 73 and 74 eastings battles who was biggest tank engagments from that war, only 85 Iraq tanks was destroyed, and most of that was old Type-59/69 tanks from China. xaxa.
@TheRussian460 Thats simply not true. Iam sorry i know you care for this stuff but the L55 120 mm with KE penetrators like M829A2 and and M829A3 do defeat ERA Kontakt 5. They were designed to do so and it was proven they do. Russian T72B's were hit in Georgia by KE Ammuniton of even russian production and were defeated. thats how it is. :)
@possumGFX - In what disneyland you saw this? Georgians did not even use tanks against us. Georgian tanks was crushed by AT teams in Tskhinvalli before our tanks was even there.
@TheRussian460 The ERA Kontakt 5 is a reactive type of armor that can be equipped on any tank or armored vehicle. With that armor, in case it is hit..you can make a treehouse immune to old Sabot penetrators. M829A2 will go through ERA 5 and it is in service since 1993. youre like 18 years to late with your info. And your time on youtube wont harden your favorite tanks armor :)
@TheRussian460 They had a prototype of the Leopard 2 with a 140mm gun. They didnt put it into production..you know why? Cause of the lack of adversaries to use this gun against. The 120 mm Rheinmetall tank gun of the Leo/Abrams + the up to date ammunition provided for this gun...defeats ANY existing armored vehicle in the world. Get over it.
T72 was meant to equip the vast warsaw pact armies and allies with reasonable prized tanks easy to produce and deployed in masses. It never was meant to deal with the modern western tanks in one on one engagements. it would have been 3 T72 against one abrams/leo2/challenger.
Russian export tanks are not equiped with extras like night sights and its therefore not fair to match a pristene U.S or British tank to something thats been around for much longer and without the proper equipment.
@TheRussian460 I don't know anything about "rocket fuel". An abrams engine is designed to run off of practically any kind of fuel, but "rocket fuel" isn't one of them. Eastern block tanks are easily outclassed by western tank forces mainly due to the sensory and coordination capabilities of our tanks, as well as the superior training of our professional crews. On open ground, there isn't an Eastern tank in the world that handle an Abrams, Challenger, Merkava, Leopard, or LeClerc.
@TheRussian460 Your info is a little scewered. An RPG-7 does not have the capability to knock out an Abrams tank. It could disable it if it struck it in the right spot; but not knock it out and kill crew. I know this first hand, and from direct experience, so don't try to tell me what I know or don't know. I was in an Abrams in 2003 that took 5 RPG-7 hits without damage to onboard systems, the gun, or the drive.
@TheRussian460 You haven't provided a source to back your claim up. Hearsay does not count. These were nearly the same tanks as what was used by most of the warsaw pact (T-72M1). Did they have an Iraq only production line or something? Do you believe export customers would be stupid enough to not notice these serious downgrades? They were oil rich and paid millions for the tanks, they would have known if they were pieces of junk.
@Sismiques Russian tanks were a model series ahead of what was exported. That was the real difference. The Russians made the T-72B while selling the T-72M1, essentially a late T-72A. The US does the same thing. The T-72M1 was not very different from late model T-72As and did have composite armor and the dolly parton turret. Republican guard Asad Babils were essentially T-72M1s, while the more common Asad Babils were T-72Ms. The major tank on tank battle at 73 easting was republican guard.
@ringoffire02 - T-72M1 dont have composite armour, dumby. He have only steel armours who is thin. T-72M1 sights allows him only firing on day time at 2,000m. T-72A can fire on 3,200m on day time. You simply do not know nothing about eastern tanks.)))
@ringoffire02 - Most export models of T-72 came from Poland and Czechs, dumbarse. And besides, if you think that T-72M or M1 is anything even close with T-72A, you are insane.
@bittemeinrammstein Many of the T-72s in Iraqi service came directly from Russia. And I guess you count being factual as insane as you make retarded statements with absolutely no proof. If the export tanks were so shitty and downgraded, why are many STILL IN SERVICE IN THE RUSSIAN MILITARY? Thats right, RGF uses 300 of the T-72S, the same T-72S that were manufactured for Iraq but never made it after the UN embargo. Stop making excuses for the T-72s poor performance in the Gulf war.
@ringoffire02 Your also spreading bullshit. The Iraqi exported version of the T72 is the T-72M. And shut the fuck up, T72S never existed in Iraq, it NEVER even set foot in there. And never even say that T72 had "poor" performance in the Gulf war, most US tankers mistake T-54's as T-72's and the majority were destroyed by AT and aircraft, its not a tank war only. And seriously? T-72M's were made in Russia as scrap heaps and sent to Czech and Poland for them to make it a little better.
@999cheetos999 The Republican guard used the T-72M1. And the T-72S was destined to be in Iraq, but currently serves in the Russian Ground Forces. The majority of Iraqi tanks were destroyed by armor, not air power. You are repeating a myth. Look up the battle of 73 easting that I already mentioned on this page. The T-72M was never a scrap heap and showed itself to be superior to the Iranian Chieftain and M-60A1, which also weren't scrap heaps. Wake up and face reality.
@ringoffire02 The Czech and Polish "upgraded" T-72M resulted to the T-72M1. 73 Easting ,USA used a Blitzkrieg like tactic, T-72's were caught unprepared, some veterans from that battle recall Iraqi tankers still trying to enter their tanks and BMP's and Bradleys also participated. I call the T-72M a scrap heap because its the weakest T-72 variant out there, seeing that Russia also sold many countries half-propellant ammunition, its really surprising how tankers can still dominate in those things
@999cheetos999 No it was the US unit that was ambushed by dug in T-72s. Read about it. A Bradley was destroyed by a T-72. The ammunition was NOT half propellant, it dented M1A1 armor whereas T-55 armor bounced off. Half propellant charge ammunition would have been weaker than the T-55 ammunition. The T-72M1 was designed in Russia and is equivalent to the T-72A, the most common T-72 in Russian service. I have already posted a source on this.
@TheRussian460 Range in tanks does not matter. At all. Also, your statistics on its fuel consumption are complete bullshit. The Abrams gets 0.6mpg. At 35mph, it would be using less than a gallon of fuel per minute using some basic math. You are pulling most of the "facts" in your posts out of your ass and they are obviously false. And if turbines suck so much, why did your government use one on the T-80?
The Asad Babil was the most common tank in Iraqi service. The "spare" parts were supplied mostly by the Russians, much like the T-90s are now assembled in India. This was done to get around international sactions. Most Russian tanks at this time period did NOT have Kontakt-5. The armor of the Asad Babil was roughly equivalent to the T-72A. Give me a solid source that shows otherwise and I will believe you. The burden of proof for your ridiculous monkey model claims lies on you.
@Sismiques The number is still classified and it was not penetrated by direct hits at close range in friendly fire incidents from other Abrams with M829A1 rounds. Protection would have to be greater than 700mm RHAe on gulf war model M1A1s. The very early 80s M1 was quite different from the one used in the gulf war. The M829A1 has 600-700mm RHA penetration.
@TheRussian460 As I stated before, examinations of east german records following the fall of the Berlin wall showed that soviet tanks stationed there were indeed using the much of the same ammunition as the Iraqis. The M829A2 was NOT present and was designed to defeat K-5. Your tanks don't suck, but they aren't the best tanks ever. No tank is the best tank, they all have advantages in various areas.
@TheRussian460 No, M829A1 was used in the trial. M829A2 was created in 1993 and rushed into service and was designed to defeat K-5. M-829A3 was designed to defeat Relikts and future ERAs by preventing ERA ignition in the first place. Also, K-5 does not cover every surface. Two times better is a gross exaggeration without proof. The article that came from the trials never stated that K-5 is immune. No tank is immune. DU is not dangerous to the crew. It is called DEPLETED for a reason.
@Sismiques It doesn't fire ATGMs because it doesn't need ATGMs. The Refleks-M takes over 15 seconds of uninterrupted sight on target to hit at long range and its doubtful it can penetrate the front armor of the Abrams due to the poor performance of the Kornet, which failed to penetrate in 2003 and has the same stated penetration. A better alternative is already nearly finished, the MRM-CE, which destroyed a moving T-72 from 5.2km. It can be fired without line of sight from enfilade.
@bittemeinrammstein The kornet consistently failed to penetrate the front armor of the T-90 WITHOUT ERA, which is 500-600mm RHAe in a Russian test. Its performance(1200mm) is way overestimated. As for the Israelis, only 22 of the 400 Merkavas were penetrated. Most of the Merkava's penetrated were old Mk2s and they were penetrated in the sides and rear. Only 5 tanks suffered severe damage and only 2 were beyond repair.
@TheRussian460 The turret was composite armor, the tank had laminate armor, and is considered superior to the T-72A. Also, about your T-80 production numbers, there have only been 5400 total T-80s manufactured by 2005. You claimed there were 3000 T-80Us in operation by the time of the Gulf war. This is completely unrealistic and I need to see a credible source on this.
T-54, T-62, T-72, all equally worthless, but did burn equally well.
beardo52 1 day ago
@Khristophoros1001 I asked you for technical facts comparisment with those tanks, you are giving me empty mantras again.
First of all, Russia didnt invade Georgia, where did you pulled that out? We fought them back as they killed our citizens of South Ossetia, militia couldnt fight them, so we had to send Federal military.
Second, fought poorly? We finished war in 4-5 days. Georgian military was using equipment that even Iraqis didnt have, + their troops were with American weapon equiped.
realIBeliX 2 weeks ago
I like the basic layout of the T-72. I wonder how a non stripped T-72 would actually fair against a Western tank like the Chieftan or Leopard.
sissonsk 1 month ago
i love this tank
EMIR72CC 1 month ago
just donate those tanks to our country
kaynie143 1 month ago
1 M1A1/2 can take a whole army of these tuna cans.
ooxcfhxoo 1 month ago
@ooxcfhxoo ironic that the t90 is superior to the abarms in every way
meee2014 1 month ago
@ooxcfhxoo T 72 is a infantry support tank.Not a main battler tank.T 80 is a MBT.
vaskez01248 1 month ago
@vaskez01248 There is no such thing like a "Infantry support tank" any more, it is a tank or apc, T-72 was one of the most feared tanks in the world in the 70s, it was a great tank in his times but now there better tanks out there, t-72 weren't made to fight against moderns M1 abrams, they were design to annihilate m-60s and Chieftains, so people that say crap about the t-72 is because they dont know anything about military.
Moution23 2 weeks ago
@Moution23 "Fear" form T-72 was fabricated by the West and East,coz they both benefited form that propaganda.Killing m-60 was t-64 job,and T-72 was created to mix a MBT and IFV..T-72 was not pureblooded MBT, but mainly infantry support tank,to increase survivability, fire power,range and lethality over enemies IFV-s, but for less cost than expensive MBT. If t-72 was so great as MBT, then why Soviets built t-80?.T-64 was pureblooded MBT, and then it was replaced with t-80.
vaskez01248 1 week ago
@vaskez01248 You dont have a clue about Russian miltiary man, go to sleep
Moution23 1 week ago
@vaskez01248 T-72 was mainly for support of IFVs and not an MBT, huh ? You get this "info" from comics or ?
Cnupoc 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Fear" form T-72 was fabricated by the West and East,coz they both benefited form that propaganda.Killing m-60 was t-64 job,and T-72 was created to mix a MBT and IFV..T-72 was not pureblooded MBT, but mainly infantry support tank,to increase survivability, fire power,range and lethality over enemies IFV-s, but for less cost than expensive MBT. If t-72 was so great as MBT, then why Soviets built t-80?.T-64 was pureblooded MBT, and then it was replaced with t-80.
vaskez01248 1 week ago
This was the best tank of its time. The muzzle velocity on that gun tho is kinda small.
ruski1945 1 month ago
@ruski1945 matters what rounds you using
meee2014 1 month ago
1:01
Oh god listen to that engine ! :9
Zlee4567 1 month ago 2
Scrap
aymansh91 1 month ago
Not the greatest tank in the work but it certainly does it's job.
2349DF 2 months ago
LOL ABRAMS PWNS T72. T72 SUCKS MAH DICK LOL RUSSIA SUCKS!!11
uzickimajmunac 2 months ago
@uzickimajmunac
you are wrong man. I can assure you that if you put american crews in T72 and irakies in Abrams the Americans will still win.
LokiG36 2 months ago
@uzickimajmunac What a stupid comment. This tank is 40 years old. Of course an Abrams will destroy it. The T90 is more modern and may stand a better chance.
MrCommunismftw 2 months ago
@MrCommunismftw yaeh from 5,5 km distance))
DeathSetler 2 months ago
@MrCommunismftw it wont only stand a chance but the abrams tank wont stand a chance the t90 range is 5km while abrams is 2miles the arena and shtora active protection systems make hitting this tank immpossible, kontack 5 reactive armor makes the t90 tank almost impenetrable plus the t90 tank has far better off road capabilities
meee2014 1 month ago
@uzickimajmunac Did you think before you write it?
sla165 2 months ago
I WANT ONE OF THOSE . how much does it cost .
T6B6H6 2 months ago
@T6B6H6 probably about 500 000 $ or so, but i doubt you could aquire one XD. also its obsolete because they(russians) have the T-90 now which is way better
Nebulak187 2 months ago
@Nebulak187 It is much cheaper is the T-72.And with the purchase also no problem.
sla165 2 months ago
@T6B6H6 Would you like to buy a T-72 tank?
sla165 2 months ago
@sla165 yes what a nice war machine i like it . i wanna buy one .
T6B6H6 2 months ago
@sla165 yes I would
yurik19881 1 month ago
@yurik19881 Then I accomplish your goal in a personal message in detail.
sla165 1 month ago
@sla165 no you did not, because you did not sale me a tank
yurik19881 1 month ago
I find the most modern Russian/Soviet MBT's most interesting! Even though they aren't as good as modern western MBT's. But I just love seeing them in a combat situation or when they are in a war theater, it's just so crude and awesome!
Khristophoros1001 3 months ago
@Khristophoros1001 dude this tank was made in the 70's of course its gonna be crudy is 40 years old the new russian tanks t 90 and t 95 could easily take on any western tank
meee2014 3 months ago
@meee2014 You mean the T-95 that's been cancelled because it's development was to expensive to complete? The T-90 can challenge modern western MBT's but everything isn't about the tank, there is also crew training and terrain. I wouldn't say that the T-90 can easily take on any western MBT, just as any western MBT can't easily take out the T-90. I like the T-90 but I prefer Leopard 2 and the Challenger 2 MBT's better.
Khristophoros1001 3 months ago
@Khristophoros1001 Good as Western MBT? Like what for example? L2A6 is only who has a chance to defeat T-90A. Not even talking about T-90MS. M1 Abrams is debunked and proved that it is nothing special, just because USA destroyed bunch Iraqi made T-72Ms and Babils doesnt mean it is best.
realIBeliX 2 weeks ago
@realIBeliX Like I said, its not all about the tank.... The most important thing is the crew and how well they are trained. And on paper any modern western MBT can challenge the T-90, the M1A2 Abrams, Challenger 2 and Leopard 2A5-A7 can all on paper destroy T-90's just like the T-90 can destroy western tanks. But in reality western tanks have an upper hand because they are better trained in tank combat then their Russian counterpart.
Khristophoros1001 2 weeks ago
@Khristophoros1001 Better trained? I would love to know how you know that. Share me maybe your both military experiances with us.
On paper, what paper, show me those? Sorry buddy, but M1A2 is debunked and has many reasons why it is inferior to L2, CH2 and T-90.
realIBeliX 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
Khristophoros1001 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@realIBeliX By looking at history, when the Russian army invaded Georgia it performed quite poor against an even poorer army. The Georgian army was far worse trained and equipped then Saddam's army. And I don't doubt that the Russian army within 10 years will be as powerful as any western European country today with the same level of technology and training. Most Russian crews (tanks, fighters etc) are poorly trained because the government isn't giving enough cash for the military.
Khristophoros1001 2 weeks ago
nice tank
MlLAN93BG 3 months ago 2
This thank is very small :S
TurkmenBazooka61 3 months ago
Is this in NCO academy?
Jedker 3 months ago
despite it being lousy to most western people i actullay kinda like the T-72 its effective if you use it right
TheArbiter138 3 months ago
@TheArbiter138 i love all T series tanks
bearsfan97 3 months ago 2
@bearsfan97 me too, but the T 72 is my fav
yurik19881 2 months ago
....booring video
lamtbrugernavn 4 months ago
is very good tank but with him is possible build
new 4rd genration tank 2011 t-90ms !
TATARSTAN59500 4 months ago
this tank is friggen leathal!!,,,just any of the thausands of Iraqi tanker that we sent to meet ALLA! M1A2 kicked T-72 and T-80's asses and the same gun thatRussia uses for it's T-90 series is the same 125mm gun used on all tanks in Russia since the T-64's came on line back in early 1960's...
bobb22ful 4 months ago
@bobb22ful so looks t-90ms 4rd generation tank haha
TATARSTAN59500 4 months ago
@bobb22ful You know nothing about tank warfare son. All the stuff that you wrote is wrong
1st Iraq never had T 80 of eny kind , and they only had T 72M and local buld T 72M.
2cd The T 64 has a 2A46M-1whilt the T 80 and 90 2A46M whitch are basicly the same thing a smoot barrel tube of 125 mm.And the most important thing is what do they fire . Iraq never had modern tank shells or AT missles that the russians have .
BGSlopy 3 months ago
@bobb22ful M1 kicked T-72M (Polish and Hungarian made T-72 aka called Monkey models, very downgraded variant, worse even that T-55) which were used as bunkers and they got digged into ground, because Saddam didnt have trainer tank crewman.
T-80U never was in combat against any western tank. By the way, there are hundreds of old tanks who still use 120mm, dummy.
realIBeliX 2 weeks ago
i've been T-72 driver in the georgian army for 2 years.. I love this old wolf machine! u cant imagine how great tank is it !
fuckrussia69 4 months ago
@fuckrussia69 it is an easy prey for tank busting missiles, these days.
What would you say if you were driving a Leopard 2 or M1.
PERSIAisHISTORY 4 months ago
@PERSIAisHISTORY
they're both great tanks... I would prefer M1 and Leopard Of Course.. in T-72 ur not safe as m1 and leopard. in tskhinvali i got hit by rpg-7 (with a cumulative round u PG-7VR missile) and it wasn't easy to jump out from the burning tank. but i love t-72's firepower . sorry for my language ;)
fuckrussia69 4 months ago
@fuckrussia69 what war were you in that you got hit by a rpg
collinsx62 4 months ago
@collinsx62
tskhinvali. i got it from the rooftop
fuckrussia69 4 months ago
120 mm right?
McCoolVIDIO 6 months ago
@McCoolVIDIO
125mm smoothbore
TachyonDriver 4 months ago
@setorando2
That classification is outdated - they're all MBTs today - Main Battle Tank.
It's significantly lighter than it's western counterparts though because it's smaller, and replaced a crew member, the loader, by an automatic loader system.
Suyamu 6 months ago
its a great tank, its just a little dated compared to most modern tanks. I think the modernized ones are almost on the same level as the M1A1, but thats just an opinion. anyways its a kick ass medium tank!
freedomlandtrooper 6 months ago
ПЛЗ!
TheAGeNt2212 6 months ago
если кто эксперт, это у него так родная движка шумит?
TheAGeNt2212 6 months ago
шумная машина, очень!
TheAGeNt2212 6 months ago
this tank sucks
ShowTime571 6 months ago
COMES IN EVERY RUSSIANS HAPPY MEAL
punkrockerpele 6 months ago
Do these tanks have horns or something? I thought I heard the driver of one of them honking his at 4:38.
RGAF1987 6 months ago
@TheRussian460 Please explain how racism = ignorance.
VulpesTragicus 6 months ago
@VulpesTragicus You are racist coz mother was fucking some black guy.Right wind women loves the big black dick.They must do that,coz right wingers are bitches so they don't have dicks.
vaskez01248 1 month ago
@TheRussian460 Jesus-H you are a loser. Telling someone to research some is NOT a source. The point of providing a source for your claim is to show that YOU researched the subject and are providing your source of information. You are not a fluent English speaker, as your comments are barely legible. I've seen how terrible russia is. The politicians are more corrupt than those in mexico and teens often beat those who don't conform to their ways to death in the street. You fail and so does the t72
VulpesTragicus 6 months ago
@VulpesTragicus A loser?!You are 47 years old right wing idot,that argues on the YT ,and you call somebody else a idiot.And you ask for source of info,but you don't give any source neither.You are a definition as pathetic hypocritical loser.HAHAHAHA
vaskez01248 1 month ago
@TheRussian460 If you can not read and write at an 8th grade level, then you are considered illiterate. I love the irony of your comment. You say that I haven't supported my claim that abrams<t72(abrams is best b/c it looks cooler and runs on jewish oil) yet you didn't support your claim that russian education is superior.
VulpesTragicus 6 months ago
@VulpesTragicus And if you are 47 years old and ugly right winger, commenting on YT,then you are considered a pathetic loser.Illiterate means that you can't read or write,not by your grammar mistakes.When a sociopath don't have any argument,he usually try to attack the way it is writtened.The way you comment on other people who don't think like you,show tipical behavior of an sociopath.
vaskez01248 1 month ago
@TheRussian460 The T72 has yet do anything but suck. You don't even speak English properly either.
I have already stated the facts, maybe the russian education omits reading comprehension from its curriculum, but then again; eastern europeans are genetically inferior to Western Europeans in terms of intelligence.
VulpesTragicus 6 months ago
@VulpesTragicus You compare intelligence on basics that Eastern Europeans don't speak some Western language?!Than that means,that if Westerner don't speak some Eastern European language is than inferior to Eastern people.On the other hand,you don't speak Russian.He speaks English and Russian,and you only English.By your logic,that means you are inferior to him.You see how your own theory proves that you are pathetic little loser.
vaskez01248 1 month ago
@VulpesTragicus He speaks good English,coz you understand him.If he dose not speak English,than it will be impossible for you to reply him,coz you didn't know what he was writting.Da li razumes sta sam napisao?Did you understanded that?If you didn't ,than you are inferior to me.That means that you are a degeneric sociopath.And that means that you are 47 years old pathetic loooooooooooooser :))))))))))))
vaskez01248 1 month ago
@TheRussian460 Why do you have this backwards idea that anyone who insults you is a "kid" stuck in your tiny mind? Why do you brag about how much you know about tanks even though it's trivial information? Why is this the only thing you do on youtube? LOL ABRAMS PWNS T72. T72 SUCKS MAH DICK LOL RUSSIA SUCKS!
VulpesTragicus 6 months ago
@VulpesTragicus Because a 47 years old loser,who put insulting comments on YT is a kid.You have a body of a 47 year old loser,and mind of a 10 years old loser.Man who is 47 years old,and is not capable to put non-insulting comments,but comments like a 10 year old spoiled brat... IS A KID.And a pathetic L.O.S.E.R..Not to mention...a sociopath.
vaskez01248 1 month ago
@TheRussian460 Removing your dumb comment won't remove it from my inbox, mr. youtube war expert.
On-topic: What's so bad about being a "nationalistic kid". Obviously you are a russian nationalist due to your avatar and username. You also seem to be a kid (or a man-child) because of your only presence on this site revolves around you bragging about how much trivial information you know.
BTW russian tanks suxxor because they always get blown up when they face American ones.
VulpesTragicus 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@VulpesTragicus" You also seem to be a kid (or a man-child) because of your only presence on this site revolves around you bragging about how much trivial information you know." HAHAHAHA That comes for a 47 years old no lifer,that presence on this site revolves around you insult people (out of jealousy) who are smarter than you.Pathetic 47 years old no lifer man-child,comments on site that is usually watched a 10-30 years old people.
vaskez01248 1 month ago
@setorando2 It's called "main battle tank".
BabylonianSage 6 months ago
@setorando2 there is no more thing like heavy medium or something,there is MBT now. Heavies,light,medium were in WW2 i think
mladenbla 7 months ago
The U.S. is LUCKY this didnt come out in time for the Vietnam war.
NSalex12 7 months ago
Oh and the and the t72 combat weight is 90,310lb compared to the more heavily armored Abrams weighing in at a combat weight of 125,890lb the t72 is a desperate excuse for a modern MBT same thing with any other T series tanks NATO would crush any russian tank the challenger two would wipe out any russian tank as well and by the way I got all this info from a tank encyclopedia I have which is better than Wikipedia which I can tell most of you are using for info lol
ak907jk 7 months ago
@ak907jk - For one thing, you dont know shit on tanks besides wikipeda copy+paste. Second, you are only 1 of many genius who thinks weight = protection. Where is logical evidence how NATO tanks crush all Eastern ones? Even on T-72A models was close RHA to early Abrams. Where is logical evidence to back your claims?
bittemeinrammstein 7 months ago
@bittemeinrammstein yea it's called barnes and nobles or you local library dumbass so go back to your wikpedia or whatever shit site you get info from don't come bitching at me how Russian tanks are fucking god tanks because you can't see advantages in any other tank that is called ignorance my friend so why don't you STFU and go jack off to your ultimate god tank that is so much better than eveything else even though it has been proven in combat and lost fuckin faggot.
ak907jk 7 months ago
@ak907jk - Okay.. how about Steven Zaloga book who compares Abrams to T-72. He is American guy by the way. He outlines all of how Abrams is crap tank. You wank to fake data on Gulf war who is pulled straight from your asshole. But tell me to read books? Kid, I am formerly T-72 crewman. I know personally Abrams crewman. So as Gulf war veterans. xaxa... you fail here on epic way. xD
bittemeinrammstein 7 months ago
@bittemeinrammstein oh yea I am sorry you are crewman of t72 how could I argue with a 15yr old kid saying he's a tank crewman I forgot to say I am aero space engineer and I also created abrams and own my own country lol yep I so fail go and read your kremmlin propaganda news paper and I will look for your book at the library next time I am there.
ak907jk 7 months ago
Comment removed
bittemeinrammstein 7 months ago
@ak907jk - Yes, you do failed on epic way. You post rediculous data who have no factual backing. You know nothing about any tank besides crap you look from wikipedia. You presume rediculous things. You do not have to believe who I am, but you being fried here by facts is enough.))
bittemeinrammstein 7 months ago
@ak907jk - T-72M is export tank... it is the only one taken to combat. And with crap sights, crap crews, crap ammunition from 70's, crap tactics, and crap armour. So what is proved? That USA can shoot some static targets who is not even paying attention... great. But no proving. T-72M is simply crap export model who is basically paper tank to scare enemy rather than combat him. You are simply too idiot to understand this.
bittemeinrammstein 7 months ago
@ak907jk
He has tank encyclopedia, lets go home comrades, no one can challenge man with encyclopedia, what a joke, listen up, thousands upon thousands of T-72s never were and mowing down numerious 40 year old tanks with goat herders for a crew is not a big achievement, now get lost amatuer before you get chewed up.
vtkrey 7 months ago
@vtkrey Um it's called a library retard why don't you visit one because the Iraqi army before US wiped them out was considered one of the most potent fighting forces in the middle east hardly sheep herders and if they are 40yr old tanks why are people bitching they are the best think about it they are generations behind NATO tanks.
ak907jk 7 months ago
@ak907jk - Iraq considered the most potent? HA... no. Iraq had large tank force. That is all. Numbers dont translate to superiority. Most advanced tank Iraq operated on his main forces was Chinese Type-69-II and it was crap copied from Soviet designs from 60's. You simply have no idea what you talk about. Iraq was no organised, bankrupt, and training was complete shit. So good for you, your country can defeat some idiots with old Chinese and Czech tanks of crap quality.
bittemeinrammstein 7 months ago
@bittemeinrammstein ok if your russian tank is such a fucking god tank that can just destroy anything and has never lost a battle then why didn't the soviets just wipe out NATO in cold war I mean they so won in afghanistan with these super tanks that have no weaknesses or disadvantages they are capable of beating anything in the modern world even though they come from some poor ass country mate I apologize since Tseries are invincible and out class everything
ak907jk 7 months ago
@ak907jk - Once again you prove me you are dumb. When I ever said T-72 was god tank or invencible? When I ever said it have no disadvantages or weakness? You presume too much. Invading NATO will start WW3, and we did not want that, or nuclear wasteland world. Also, T-72 was never used in Afghanistan.
bittemeinrammstein 7 months ago
@bittemeinrammstein yep your welcome so what tank can defeat the T72,T80,T90 please what tank should the US buy
ak907jk 7 months ago
@ak907jk - There is many more factors than just tank itself, kid. Abrams is capable to defeat our tanks. But also our tanks is capable to defeat Abrams. You simply fail to understand how tank battle comes down to hundreds of factors. Not simply type of round, and weight of tank. But Abrams also suffers server disadvantages. USA should focus to produce new tank completely.
bittemeinrammstein 7 months ago
@bittemeinrammstein NATO should just buy all their tanks from that SUPER RICH country that put billions of dollars into their military since Russia seems to the best country when it come to military not like they are scared of chezchen rebels so they lay the largest mine fields in the world lol instead of using their master tanks.
ak907jk 7 months ago
@ak907jk - xaxa... Again, dumb reply. You believe money translates to power of tank. That is idiocy. Chechen war is over. We won. Maybe you missed that on your great library(?) Anyway, check your own tanks on Iraq... insurgency blow them to shit. Any tank on such situations as urban area will get nailed because it is simply not designed for that.
bittemeinrammstein 7 months ago
well maybe you should move to the US and build them a better tank since the ones they use are so bad anyways NATO has best tank crews in world so it really doesn't matter Israeli tank crews are the best so is UK
ak907jk 7 months ago
@ak907jk - So NATO has best tank crews, but Israel to? Make up your mind. xaxa. And where is your evidence to support this? This is simply an other assumption from kid who don't know anything about warfare.))
bittemeinrammstein 7 months ago
@bittemeinrammstein It is because eastern europeans are genetically inferior to western europeans in terms of conceptualization power, so of course they are superior by wide margin in the tanks(not that they need to be due to all russian tanks being inferior to american ones).
VulpesTragicus 6 months ago
@VulpesTragicus - XAXA...Your first part is just pure idiocy that I will not even comment. Second part, inferior to American ones? What disneyland you got that from? Even from T-80U and M1A1-Abrams in 1980's, T-80U had 1,350mm RHA against HEAT, while M1A1 could compete with only 600mm against HEAT, according to US expert "Zaloga". Check his writtings. Thanks for failing. Try again.))
bittemeinrammstein 6 months ago
@bittemeinrammstein Typical communist, refuses to ignore an argument something that he disagrees with because you lack the essential thought process. Russian tanks are inferior to us tanks because they are built by dumb commies. Everyone knows that the russian military is a shell of its former self after it lost the cold war. Russia sucks and so do you faggot!
VulpesTragicus 6 months ago
@VulpesTragicus Tipical loser-sociopath.Branding someone a communist,when you don't have any argument in a 1st place yourself.Cock suckin faggot!!!!!!And a 47 years old loser.
vaskez01248 1 month ago
@VulpesTragicus Typical 47 years old right-wing loser.When you don't have argument,brand him a (without any proof) "commie".All your comments are nothing more then insult.No facts,or opinions.Only insults.Your only presence on this site revolves around you insulting people who dose not think like you.You are sad angry pathetic little man.And your incapability to comment in calm and orderly maner,show serious mental disorder.
vaskez01248 1 month ago
@ak907jk
Genius, M-47 Patton was 44t heavy, while T-55 was 36t, and still T-55 was better protected tank than M-47 (203mm is more than 100mm, so your logic "heavier - better" have no sense.
I wander what "tank encyclopedia" you used as source, but I can tell you that whoever wrote that is complete moron.
Max armor thickness on T-80U from late 80's is 1340mm RHA while M1A1 Abrams from same era had 700mm...
just check any Zaloga's book before you post any crappy claims...
GvardiyaBY 7 months ago
The Abrams M256 Rheinmetall 120mm smoothbore gun firing DU rounds would decimate this tank the Abrams uses a combination of chobham,Kevlar, and composite armor the T72 uses composite steel with ERA the Abrams has a far superior targeting system and 3rd generation thermal optics there is a reason there thousands upon thousand of destroyed t72s and only 29 Abrams destroyed lol no match I'm tired of Russian fan boys from UK
ak907jk 7 months ago
@ak907jk - Russian tanks uses DU ammunitions also, idiot. DU dont mean automatic win. Chobham is simply composite armour, dumby.
Ofcourse modern Abrams optics is superior to old T-72 models. That is silly. Compare T-80U, or T-90A maybe... you will find the fight.)) Where is "thousands upon thousands of destroyed t72s"? Iraq operated only 800~ from the whole Gulf war. And much of them survive the war. So as, most who was destroyed was because of airstrikes...
bittemeinrammstein 7 months ago
@bittemeinrammstein you should go to god damn library in operation desert storm 3800 coalition tanks went up against over 3000 iraqi T72 plus thousands of support vehicles like BMPs dumbass now go back to your little Russian propaganda site next you will be telling me Abrams and challenger has like tin armor and no electronics retard. and the ones that "survived" the crews had surrendered so before you go on ranting like a fanatical dumbass on youtube why don;t you visit a library
ak907jk 7 months ago
@ak907jk - Do you know what is Kursk? Most large tank battle of history... 5,000~ tanks was present there. But somehow in disneyland you live there was battle of 6,800 Abrams and T-72. xaxa. Fail. So as to check data on Iraq tanks... export model shit from Czechs called T-72M who have cast armour, crap sights, crap range, also crap crews who use training steel ammunition. You simply dont understand what you are talking. Silly kid who wanks on Gulf war.))
bittemeinrammstein 7 months ago
@ak907jk - Here is simple fact for you... Iraq on Gulf war have only 800~ T-72M who have worst performance than even T-72A. And only Republican Guards operated them. 95% of US tank kills from that war was from air bombings. Only 4% was from US vehicle kills. split between Abrams and Bradley. 1% from set demolitions. Even from 73 and 74 eastings battles who was biggest tank engagments from that war, only 85 Iraq tanks was destroyed, and most of that was old Type-59/69 tanks from China. xaxa.
bittemeinrammstein 7 months ago
@TheRussian460 Thats simply not true. Iam sorry i know you care for this stuff but the L55 120 mm with KE penetrators like M829A2 and and M829A3 do defeat ERA Kontakt 5. They were designed to do so and it was proven they do. Russian T72B's were hit in Georgia by KE Ammuniton of even russian production and were defeated. thats how it is. :)
possumGFX 7 months ago
@possumGFX - In what disneyland you saw this? Georgians did not even use tanks against us. Georgian tanks was crushed by AT teams in Tskhinvalli before our tanks was even there.
bittemeinrammstein 7 months ago
@TheRussian460 The ERA Kontakt 5 is a reactive type of armor that can be equipped on any tank or armored vehicle. With that armor, in case it is hit..you can make a treehouse immune to old Sabot penetrators. M829A2 will go through ERA 5 and it is in service since 1993. youre like 18 years to late with your info. And your time on youtube wont harden your favorite tanks armor :)
possumGFX 7 months ago
@TheRussian460 They had a prototype of the Leopard 2 with a 140mm gun. They didnt put it into production..you know why? Cause of the lack of adversaries to use this gun against. The 120 mm Rheinmetall tank gun of the Leo/Abrams + the up to date ammunition provided for this gun...defeats ANY existing armored vehicle in the world. Get over it.
possumGFX 7 months ago
T72 was meant to equip the vast warsaw pact armies and allies with reasonable prized tanks easy to produce and deployed in masses. It never was meant to deal with the modern western tanks in one on one engagements. it would have been 3 T72 against one abrams/leo2/challenger.
possumGFX 7 months ago
@TheRussian460 LOL ABRAMS PWNS T72. T72 SUCKS MAH DICK LOL RUSSIA SUCKS!!11
timewarptelevision 7 months ago
@timewarptelevision lol profit???
teecee92 7 months ago
@teecee92 Haven't had any profit yet. Not sure how I will.
timewarptelevision 7 months ago
no light Tank the t-90 is better better better better
TheSeneca16 7 months ago
@setorando2 both wrong, its a Main Battle Tank. nobody made anything else after the second world war
ChristofUK 8 months ago
beautiful, watched this like twenty times now.
Xterminate13 8 months ago
Russian export tanks are not equiped with extras like night sights and its therefore not fair to match a pristene U.S or British tank to something thats been around for much longer and without the proper equipment.
54687y 8 months ago
@TheRussian460 That's a fact. Sorry if you don't like it.
gurumagoo 8 months ago
@TheRussian460 I don't know anything about "rocket fuel". An abrams engine is designed to run off of practically any kind of fuel, but "rocket fuel" isn't one of them. Eastern block tanks are easily outclassed by western tank forces mainly due to the sensory and coordination capabilities of our tanks, as well as the superior training of our professional crews. On open ground, there isn't an Eastern tank in the world that handle an Abrams, Challenger, Merkava, Leopard, or LeClerc.
gurumagoo 8 months ago
@gurumagoo Apart form a new T-90 modern advanced than an Abrams
54687y 8 months ago
@gurumagoo Apart from a T-90 , more advanced and modern than an Abrams
54687y 8 months ago
@54687y yeah right
gurumagoo 8 months ago
@TheRussian460 Your info is a little scewered. An RPG-7 does not have the capability to knock out an Abrams tank. It could disable it if it struck it in the right spot; but not knock it out and kill crew. I know this first hand, and from direct experience, so don't try to tell me what I know or don't know. I was in an Abrams in 2003 that took 5 RPG-7 hits without damage to onboard systems, the gun, or the drive.
gurumagoo 8 months ago
@setorando2 no, medium tank
kaufi1977 8 months ago 7
@kaufi1977
you both failed
it's the MAIN battle tank, the era of medium/heavy tanks in soviet tank industry ended in 1960's
Scoutrussp7 8 months ago
@kaufi1977
No, it is MBT (main battletank). Last medium tank designed by USSR was T-62.
GvardiyaBY 7 months ago
@kaufi1977 no its an MBT, heavy/medium/light tank designations don't apply any more
pwnedbyscope 7 months ago
@kaufi1977 it's a MBT (main battle tank)... old WWII classification to heavy, medium and light tank is not in use for like... 50 years
Mandrak789 6 months ago
@Mandrak789 specifications CSLA (Czechoslovak People's Army): medium tank (from multiple sources)
kaufi1977 6 months ago
@TheRussian460
Please show me where you're getting your reliable information from. If it's a viable source, I'll believe you. I promise.
VeloxStang 8 months ago
@TheRussian460 You haven't provided a source to back your claim up. Hearsay does not count. These were nearly the same tanks as what was used by most of the warsaw pact (T-72M1). Did they have an Iraq only production line or something? Do you believe export customers would be stupid enough to not notice these serious downgrades? They were oil rich and paid millions for the tanks, they would have known if they were pieces of junk.
ringoffire02 8 months ago
@ringoffire02
Do you have rocks in your head?
Even the Warsaw Pact members didn't get tanks from the USSR, as good as the ones USSR had, and they knew it.
Sismiques 8 months ago
@Sismiques Russian tanks were a model series ahead of what was exported. That was the real difference. The Russians made the T-72B while selling the T-72M1, essentially a late T-72A. The US does the same thing. The T-72M1 was not very different from late model T-72As and did have composite armor and the dolly parton turret. Republican guard Asad Babils were essentially T-72M1s, while the more common Asad Babils were T-72Ms. The major tank on tank battle at 73 easting was republican guard.
ringoffire02 8 months ago
@ringoffire02 - T-72M1 dont have composite armour, dumby. He have only steel armours who is thin. T-72M1 sights allows him only firing on day time at 2,000m. T-72A can fire on 3,200m on day time. You simply do not know nothing about eastern tanks.)))
bittemeinrammstein 8 months ago
@bittemeinrammstein Yes they do. Go to historywarsweapons[dot]com and go to T-72. Stop lying.
ringoffire02 8 months ago
@ringoffire02 - Most export models of T-72 came from Poland and Czechs, dumbarse. And besides, if you think that T-72M or M1 is anything even close with T-72A, you are insane.
bittemeinrammstein 8 months ago
@bittemeinrammstein Many of the T-72s in Iraqi service came directly from Russia. And I guess you count being factual as insane as you make retarded statements with absolutely no proof. If the export tanks were so shitty and downgraded, why are many STILL IN SERVICE IN THE RUSSIAN MILITARY? Thats right, RGF uses 300 of the T-72S, the same T-72S that were manufactured for Iraq but never made it after the UN embargo. Stop making excuses for the T-72s poor performance in the Gulf war.
ringoffire02 8 months ago
@ringoffire02 Your also spreading bullshit. The Iraqi exported version of the T72 is the T-72M. And shut the fuck up, T72S never existed in Iraq, it NEVER even set foot in there. And never even say that T72 had "poor" performance in the Gulf war, most US tankers mistake T-54's as T-72's and the majority were destroyed by AT and aircraft, its not a tank war only. And seriously? T-72M's were made in Russia as scrap heaps and sent to Czech and Poland for them to make it a little better.
999cheetos999 8 months ago
@999cheetos999 The Republican guard used the T-72M1. And the T-72S was destined to be in Iraq, but currently serves in the Russian Ground Forces. The majority of Iraqi tanks were destroyed by armor, not air power. You are repeating a myth. Look up the battle of 73 easting that I already mentioned on this page. The T-72M was never a scrap heap and showed itself to be superior to the Iranian Chieftain and M-60A1, which also weren't scrap heaps. Wake up and face reality.
ringoffire02 8 months ago
@ringoffire02 The Czech and Polish "upgraded" T-72M resulted to the T-72M1. 73 Easting ,USA used a Blitzkrieg like tactic, T-72's were caught unprepared, some veterans from that battle recall Iraqi tankers still trying to enter their tanks and BMP's and Bradleys also participated. I call the T-72M a scrap heap because its the weakest T-72 variant out there, seeing that Russia also sold many countries half-propellant ammunition, its really surprising how tankers can still dominate in those things
999cheetos999 8 months ago
@999cheetos999 No it was the US unit that was ambushed by dug in T-72s. Read about it. A Bradley was destroyed by a T-72. The ammunition was NOT half propellant, it dented M1A1 armor whereas T-55 armor bounced off. Half propellant charge ammunition would have been weaker than the T-55 ammunition. The T-72M1 was designed in Russia and is equivalent to the T-72A, the most common T-72 in Russian service. I have already posted a source on this.
ringoffire02 8 months ago
@TheRussian460 Range in tanks does not matter. At all. Also, your statistics on its fuel consumption are complete bullshit. The Abrams gets 0.6mpg. At 35mph, it would be using less than a gallon of fuel per minute using some basic math. You are pulling most of the "facts" in your posts out of your ass and they are obviously false. And if turbines suck so much, why did your government use one on the T-80?
ringoffire02 8 months ago
The Asad Babil was the most common tank in Iraqi service. The "spare" parts were supplied mostly by the Russians, much like the T-90s are now assembled in India. This was done to get around international sactions. Most Russian tanks at this time period did NOT have Kontakt-5. The armor of the Asad Babil was roughly equivalent to the T-72A. Give me a solid source that shows otherwise and I will believe you. The burden of proof for your ridiculous monkey model claims lies on you.
ringoffire02 8 months ago
@ringoffire02
And what did those early Abrams have, but a mere maximum of 400-500mm equivilent of RHA?
The T-72B(M) has 540mm RHA equivilent without ERA
Sismiques 8 months ago
@Sismiques The number is still classified and it was not penetrated by direct hits at close range in friendly fire incidents from other Abrams with M829A1 rounds. Protection would have to be greater than 700mm RHAe on gulf war model M1A1s. The very early 80s M1 was quite different from the one used in the gulf war. The M829A1 has 600-700mm RHA penetration.
ringoffire02 8 months ago
@TheRussian460 As I stated before, examinations of east german records following the fall of the Berlin wall showed that soviet tanks stationed there were indeed using the much of the same ammunition as the Iraqis. The M829A2 was NOT present and was designed to defeat K-5. Your tanks don't suck, but they aren't the best tanks ever. No tank is the best tank, they all have advantages in various areas.
ringoffire02 8 months ago
@ringoffire02
"Soviet tanks", what, the ones that belonged to the DDR or the USSR?
Besides, Kontakt-5 is the old ERA, Kaktus is newer.
Sismiques 8 months ago
@Sismiques Kaktus is theoretical, it does not actually exist yet.
ringoffire02 8 months ago
@ringoffire02
It does exist, besides Relikt was chosen instead for tanks, while Kaktus was chosen for IFVs due to lightewr weight.
Sismiques 8 months ago
@Sismiques Credible source on its existence?
ringoffire02 8 months ago
@TheRussian460 No, M829A1 was used in the trial. M829A2 was created in 1993 and rushed into service and was designed to defeat K-5. M-829A3 was designed to defeat Relikts and future ERAs by preventing ERA ignition in the first place. Also, K-5 does not cover every surface. Two times better is a gross exaggeration without proof. The article that came from the trials never stated that K-5 is immune. No tank is immune. DU is not dangerous to the crew. It is called DEPLETED for a reason.
ringoffire02 8 months ago
@ringoffire02
Furthermore, the Abrams doesn't even fire ATGMs from it's main gun, like many Soviet/Russian/Ukrainian tanks can.
The ATGMs outrange the Abrams, if they had ATGMs like the new Merkavas, then they would be able to hit those Soviet tanks at really long ranges.
Sismiques 8 months ago
@Sismiques It doesn't fire ATGMs because it doesn't need ATGMs. The Refleks-M takes over 15 seconds of uninterrupted sight on target to hit at long range and its doubtful it can penetrate the front armor of the Abrams due to the poor performance of the Kornet, which failed to penetrate in 2003 and has the same stated penetration. A better alternative is already nearly finished, the MRM-CE, which destroyed a moving T-72 from 5.2km. It can be fired without line of sight from enfilade.
ringoffire02 8 months ago
@ringoffire02
If the Kornet is such a failure, why did Israel start equping their tanks with active armour?
Furthermore CE isn't even used yet, the Soviet ATGMs ahve been in use for a long time, even Israel recognises the usefulnessfor such ATGMs.
Sismiques 8 months ago
@ringoffire02 - Where Kornet failed? Kornet never tested on Abrams, kid. Ask Israeli's, they will tell you how Kornet does. ;)
bittemeinrammstein 8 months ago
@bittemeinrammstein The kornet consistently failed to penetrate the front armor of the T-90 WITHOUT ERA, which is 500-600mm RHAe in a Russian test. Its performance(1200mm) is way overestimated. As for the Israelis, only 22 of the 400 Merkavas were penetrated. Most of the Merkava's penetrated were old Mk2s and they were penetrated in the sides and rear. Only 5 tanks suffered severe damage and only 2 were beyond repair.
ringoffire02 8 months ago
@TheRussian460 The turret was composite armor, the tank had laminate armor, and is considered superior to the T-72A. Also, about your T-80 production numbers, there have only been 5400 total T-80s manufactured by 2005. You claimed there were 3000 T-80Us in operation by the time of the Gulf war. This is completely unrealistic and I need to see a credible source on this.
ringoffire02 8 months ago