Oh so you wanna play it like this? Low height protects from neirby aerial bomb explosions, missiles, mines and artillery? WOW! Here's a better idea: Infantryman is then invincible: he's fricken' small! First of all with your T-72's ''Survivability'' my own father nearly died in Afghan, back in 80s. He ended up with a burning tank, others dead and him hiding behing a well, being shot at with DShK with prox fuzes. He had his leg wounded with shrapnell. REAL SAFE, eh? Neonazi punk.......
Just in case anybody is confused out there. The Iraqis were using the T 72m which was the export model. By the time the battle of 73 Easting occured, the Republican guard was down to half grain on their rounds and had not received any new replacement parts on T 72 in over a year. I think the combination of all of these things is fairly significant. While I am glad that the US has the M1A2, lets not get over confident.
@powerofthroughts Really? :))) And how exactly all these what you've said is opposite to what I said about Iraqi T-72s? That Iraqi T-72 were garbage and totally obsolete in 1991 and 2003.
@powerofthroughts Nope... Iraqi T-72 in hands of well trained crew is still a garbage! Differences with original Soviet T-72 are too many and too significant. They could fight against M48/60A1/Centurion... but not against modern MBTs.
@MrNikolay178 Мда... далеки вы от сегодняшних реалий. Вариантов Т-72 столько по миру существуют, что предложения их модернизации не дает только ленивый. Даже страны вообще никакого отношения к Т-72 не имеющие предлагают модернизацию (Франция, Израиль). Это как тюнинг. Почему в России можно тюнинговать немецкие машины, а кому-то нельзя тюнинговать Т-72? :)
@BitnikGr тюнинг, это не производство. Я бы не возражал против -" тюнинга, производства", образцов советской техники странами бывшего СССР. Если бы эти страны так же по братски разделили бы внешний долг СССР перед западом. Наследием СССР используют по полной, а долги платит Ваня.
@MrNikolay178 Я и не говорил о производстве. Это просто апгрейд имеющегося парка с целью продажей зарубеж. Уже большую часть советских Т-80ых продали. Вот и Т-72 распродадут. А создают они только "Оплот".
"Наследием СССР используют по полной, а долги платит Ваня." - А вот здесь ты наверное прав на все 100%. Если уж РФ взяла на себя все обязательства и долги СССР, то должна бы получить и все наследие, что касается авторских прав... если уже не Харькосвских машин, то Тагильских точно.
It's not quite true. It depends on the design of ERA. For example, NOZH, which in this film, increases protection from RPG in 2-2.5 times, from armor-piercing shells - in 1.5-2.
It's not quite true. It depends on the design of ERA. For example, NOZH, which in this film, increases protection from RPG in 2-2.5 times, and from armor-piercing rounds - in 1.5-2.
everyone just copies the americans ten or 15 years after they come out with this stuff. ballistic computer for the main gun, the comander has the option to take over the main gun, gun stabilizers .. the amercians have had this stuff since the 80's. way to catch up
@bigslice19 You are wrong. In last 50 years Western tanks incorporated more ideas from Soviet tanks, than vice versa. I don't even want to start counting... Especially when you are talking about gun stabilizers, which were simultaneously developed in East and West in 50s and since then all tanks have fully stabilized guns... but you think that this is American invention of 80s... Get educated :)
@BirgirZ They would loose any way. Maybe Coalition forces would have more losses... but even if Iraq had same Abrams and Challengers they would lose..
I must say, I prefer Ukrainian work over russian. Ukrainians manage to put the same thing somewhat better. Back in Soviet times, Ukrainian-made tanks were always given to the units of the elite status. And nowadays, they managed to upgrade what they got to the poin they are almost entirely alien to those who created original. Either way, I prefer western designs. Westerns' are all about saving crewmens' lives, and kicking ass from afar. Argue at your discretion.
@Egodraco From afar? Western tanks have problem then since late T-72, T-80 and T-90 can fire ATGMs from beyond the accurate range of western tanks.
Placing ammo in a hull is actually ok since its protected by the main armor. Whether that armor is strong enough to handle the modern AT weapons is different story. In big combat is bustle goes BANG the crew is at least contused. In any case if attacked from above the crew is dead as well as tank since roof will be penetrated easily.
@Egodraco "Westerns' are all about saving crewmens' lives" - How many soldiers man a western tank? 4? So basically they risk 30% more manpower in tank battles compared to 3 men crew, right?
What is the frontal projection in square meters of Western tanks? - Bigger target = saving the crew? Coool...
And last one... "kicking ass from afar" - From how far exactly?
Isn't this basically like the T-90? Or is this designed to be for export? Either way this has to be a very under-rated tank. Thanks for uploading this!
@TheJojo45678 yeah. if i had to get tanks for an army i would get some T-72s and modernize them. forget about the M1 Abram they cost to much and they are far too exspenseve to operate.
When US/UK got T-72 and T-80 and tested them, they realized that had a war occurred in Europe against USSR, they'd get totally crushed since no existing round could penetrate T-72 when its equipped with K-5 ERA while the ATGMs T-72/T-80 could fire would disable western armor in open plains/deserts. At the time soviet armor was vastly superior to western when viewed in attack scenario.
@Spetsnazovets The only t72 i have seen upgraded or otherwise have there turrets lying 10 to 20 meters away and the hull on fire as its ammo cooks off .so you keep doing your research the truth is lying on every battlefield from Iraq to Lebanon to Serbia so i think its you who knows shit . reality is proof .
@MrStewart149 You are an utter fool. All the exported T-72 that US/NATO encountered had maximum of 400mm of RHA on the front and it was pure steel armor at that, Russians kept the REAL T-72 with composite armor, AKA Chobham style, to themselves and it was further supplemented by Kontakt-5 ERA. Tests of T-72B equipped with Kontakt-5 ERA (Standard equipment) were ran in 1997 by NATO where Kontakt-5 ERA completely neutralized M-829A1 DU APFSDS. NATO was disinformed as USSR intended.
@Spetsnazovets lolol sure it was and yet timmy the taliban was taking them out with rpg and guided missiles during the russian occupation . I understand your patriotic sentiments but your talking bullshit as the americans would say and if it was not for your nationalistic prejudice you would perhaps be able to understand that' instead you spout statements about armour types and thickness.you need to get out of the house more . lolol
@MrStewart149 You are a moron the caliber of which there are few. There were no T-72 in Afghanistan. There were T-55 and T-62 there as well as BMP. FYO even basic RPG-7 with HEAT round can penetrate ALL EXISTING TANKS from above and from behind. Its done that successfully in Iraq on many occasions since 2003.
I'm American b4 u call me a russian..."taliban was taking them out with rpg and guided missiles during the russian occupation ."
What Spetsnaz says is true. Plus 1 RPG-29 penetrated the front armor of a Challenger 2 which has the same but improved armor as the Abrams. It's not like America is invincible...you should get that propaganda out of your head....
In Iraq...there were no modern T-72s...only outdated ones and T-55s...might as well shoot fish in barrel (be more fair)
Plus you'd know the different types of ERA if you had half a brain..
Kontakt-5 (1-3 Generations)
Relikt + Kaktus ERA.
Kontakt-5 Defeated all NATO Rounds (Importantly the US M829A1) till the US came out with the M829A3.
The Russians countered with Relikt + Kaktus which is 2x stronger then K5 and defeats M829A3...So far the US hasn't bothered to develop a new round to pierce it...probably because they prefer to prey on 3rd world countries that barely have any tanks.
The T-72 was intended to be an inexpensive tank like the T-62, and not an MBT like the T-64/T-80. Because of the original design trade-offs the T-72 is to small and light to go toe to toe with Western MBT's. Adding armor brings diminishing returns while increasing costs to procure and sustain.
Add to this the flaw of ammo storage in the armor envelope and you've got a very problematic tank.
The T-72 reminds me of the latest Israeli M-60's, pushing an old design farther than it merits.
Modernized T-72 = T-90 and the Ukrainian Version and they are still very good tanks...
Yes the ammo storage is a problem in the Regular Modernized T-72s but the latest ERA protects the tanks from most modern ammo but it's fixed i believe in the T-90 (The ammo storage problem).
Plus our Abrams is more susceptible to RPGs then the Russian tanks as well.
@Kallosar The ammo storage problem has most cetainly NOT been solved in the T-72 and T-90. Ammo is still below the turret, where the "jack in the box" has always kept it. The T-84, made in the Ukraine, solved the problem with a new turret with an ammo storage bussel.
As for the M-1A1 being susceptible to RPG fire, that I'm writing this is proof that it isn't.
Destroyed Abrams in Iraq...my cousin's boyfriend served in Iraq...he told me about RPG-7s and RPG-29s used by the Insurgents...what they did to the Abrams wasn't exactly pretty...
Plus an RPG-29 pierced the front armor of a Challenger 2 tank which has the same armor as an Abrams but improved with ERA....but the RPG-29 went right through and took out the driver's legs....The M1 is vulnerable to RPG...face the facts...it doesnt even have ERA yet
You are from Peru but your cousin has a boyfriend who is in the US Army, who you've spoken to, who briefed you on the M-1. Yeah...
Sure he wasn't a fighter pilot, or a ninja, or a pastry chef?
I was an Army Officer whose served in Iraq. There were no RPG-29's, just plenty of RPG-7's. I was hit twice by RPG's and me, my crew, and my tank were just fine, thanks for asking.
Also, the M-1 does not have ERA because it dosen't need it. The M-1 has been through 3 armor upgrades already...
Yes and I live in Norcal in a Middle/Upper class neighborhood...yes...i have the article as well...Challenger 2 hit by a RPG-29 pierces through all layers of the armor...and the C2 basically uses the same armor as the Abrams except improved with ERA
Yeah I'm sure you'll feel safe in your M1 when you don't face a third world country and when they don't have 80 year old tanks.
So, now you are saying you got your info from an ARTICLE, and not your sister's uncle's cousin's brother's father?
Wow, I've wasted my entire life on training and experience with armor, when I could have just had a quick coversation with a completed stranger and learned just as much. Tragic...
Any way, I don't mean to ruin a perfectly good delusion, but the armor package on the Challenger and M-1 are different, and have been since the M-1IP; certainly since the HA.
lolumad? He was in the Marines. Plus the Insurgents handle all types of equipment even Russian made RPG-29s which are snuck in. Plus if u even bothered to read the Article u'd know the RPG-29 was shot at the front..+ the Challenger 2 is better protected then the Abrams.
Plus what happens when your hit by a shell on the side of the turret that's not a 80 year old...say by a Tungsten round by a T-90 or an Oplot-M...yeah good luck especially when u failed life by joining the army
The problem I'm having with your story is that you know nothing about armor yourself. You've never served on the tanks you are talking about, certainly never served on one in combat, yet you claim expertise greater than anyone who has.
As a result of this illusion of information you've got, half of what you are saying is wrong. The other half is more wrong.
So, unless you can cite some source of information better than someone your cousin is fucking, this conversation is concluded.
The Source: The hundreds of articles written about how an RPG-29 penetrated the most "protected" tank used by British forces..a tank that's better protected then the Abrams...you claim the Abrams is the best tank in the world simply because it withstood AK fire and 70year old RPG fire..get shot at by a L55 while still inside....You also claim that the Abrams is better then the Leo 2A6, T-90, Oplot-M...yet they've withstood 120MM L44 Shots from the Abrams and even M829 rounds
@Waltham1892 I'd like to ask. What grenade hit your tank? HEAT or HE-FRAG? Did your tank have TUSK kit?
There are many different grenades made for RPG-7. HEAT, HE-FRAG, tandem-warhead HEAT, thermobaric. Also the single-charge HEAT came is about 3-4 different versions each with different armor-piercing rating. If your tank was hit with HE-FRAG round, of which Iraqi insurgents have a lot, then those wouldn't penetrate any tank today.
@Waltham1892 Fair enough. If it was HEAT then it'd be one from WAY back before M1 Abrams was in series production. The PG-7V and PG-7VL would only penetrate the roof of Abrams and maybe from dead behind. They have no more then 400mm RHA penetration rating. There were a lot sent to Saddam and being of utterly obsolete spec were as useless as the tanks of Iraqi army
Plus Kontakt-5 ERA used by Russian forces was proven Immune to all NATO Rounds until the M829A3 came out then the Russians countered with Relikt ERA which is 2x stronger....the Abrams doesn't even have ERA....why don't you test an RPG-29 to the side of the tank directly where the commander sits and see the damage...or a shot from a 125mm gun that's not using ammo from the 60s...
@Spetsnazovets actually we were scared when we saw it, but when we looked at it we realized it was a death trap like EVERY other pice of soviet engineering. plus our A-10s could decimate every single existing russian tank in just a matter of days had a war erupted... its not all about tanks you know.
@hotpocketpoison You just quoting Tom Clancy who is a moron. The only thing in common between GENUINE Soviet T-72B and export T-72Ms that US/NATO encountered was overall shape. In 1996 Kontakt-5 equipped T-72B was fired at by Abrams using an M829 APFSDS which failed to penetrate 100% of the time. Also US/NATO were fired at with a 3BM13 APFSDS with steel core that USSR decommissioned in 1973. As for A-10 - Russia has Su-25 that'd do same to any NATO tank. Go read up on T-72 from NON-NATO sources.
@Spetsnazovets the A-10 is equipped with a gau-8 last i checked the su25 doesnt have that, plus nato weapons tech is way more advanced than russian tech. and thats why we have the m829 A2, A3 and soon the A4. built to penetrate Relikt and kaktus ERA. and i never asked about the gulf war. plus whenever i get info on how crappy russian tanks are you people call it "propaganda" and even when i go on other sites IT STILL SAYS THE SAME THING!
@hotpocketpoison Su-25 has a 30mm GSh-2-30 with AP rounds. Don't need to shred tank to kill crew.
US tech is merely prettier named but Russian stuff way more rugged and reliable and needlessly complex
FYO Relikt and Kaktus ERA are not even installed anywhere so you have no idea if new APFSDS will beat it
Reiterating that Russian tanks with composite armor were never exported outside USSR. M1A1 failed in Saudi Arabie last year together with Leo-2 and LeClerk while T-90 made it and won.
@hotpocketpoison Su-25 doesn't need a Gatling. It has GSh-30-2 with 30mm rounds. Enough to kill any tank. Relikt and Kaktus are still classified so there is no NATO round in existence that can penetrate it.
You checked info on stuff that was used in combat against US. But Russians have long proven that stuff that STAYED IN RUSSIAN MILITARY was still superior to US
A-10'd get smashed with Tunguska point defence system and S-300 and TOR systems would kill most before they get close. Anything else?
@hotpocketpoison Had you found some GENUINE data rather then typical NATO sources info you'd know that USSR exported HEAVILY downgraded tanks, planes and radars that was nowhere near USSR spec. T-72 that was exported had 300mm steel armor at the thickest with no laser ranging, secure comms and with obsolete rounds. You guys in US can stay in your rosy world where your tech is best. When the time comes and your military will get a HOT welcome you'll learn the truth.
Tank is in fact Ukrainian, well at least the modernization program is, the T-72 theoretically could be from Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Poland, USSR, or India. These are the countries that produced/produce T-72's.
Ez szép volt ! Ez van akkor amikor egy laikus pöcs nekilát bemutatni egy harckocsit,a videón meg legalább három,de inkább négy tipus szaladgál ! Hajrá csak így tovább : Töltőautómatára,stabilizátorra már nem futotta ?
silverajskj, It is not a modernised T-64, definatly a T-72 chassis, the turret has some similarities to the T-64BM Bulat, the front and front side armour layout is also similar, other than that its all pure T-72.
nice video! a little bit fastenned as reality, mobilty improvment look down to the original T72, one of the most improvement is to use a real powerpack ( 1st exchange within one hour not one day).
Miami vice song rulez!
Paciat 1 month ago
@Paciat haahaa, I was like "hmm this sounds familiar... MIAMI VICE!" :D
keletoniatehsecond 3 weeks ago
Doesn't stand up to CHARM that well.
haha.
2349DF 2 months ago
"Autonomous remotely-controlled"... isn't that an oxy-moron?
TheTomyossarian 3 months ago
@BitnikGr
Oh so you wanna play it like this? Low height protects from neirby aerial bomb explosions, missiles, mines and artillery? WOW! Here's a better idea: Infantryman is then invincible: he's fricken' small! First of all with your T-72's ''Survivability'' my own father nearly died in Afghan, back in 80s. He ended up with a burning tank, others dead and him hiding behing a well, being shot at with DShK with prox fuzes. He had his leg wounded with shrapnell. REAL SAFE, eh? Neonazi punk.......
Egodraco 5 months ago
Just in case anybody is confused out there. The Iraqis were using the T 72m which was the export model. By the time the battle of 73 Easting occured, the Republican guard was down to half grain on their rounds and had not received any new replacement parts on T 72 in over a year. I think the combination of all of these things is fairly significant. While I am glad that the US has the M1A2, lets not get over confident.
Colfax11000 5 months ago
@powerofthroughts Really? :))) And how exactly all these what you've said is opposite to what I said about Iraqi T-72s? That Iraqi T-72 were garbage and totally obsolete in 1991 and 2003.
BitnikGr 5 months ago
@powerofthroughts Nope... Iraqi T-72 in hands of well trained crew is still a garbage! Differences with original Soviet T-72 are too many and too significant. They could fight against M48/60A1/Centurion... but not against modern MBTs.
BitnikGr 5 months ago
и здесь хохлы под запад прогибаются - проститутки. Наверно подогнали под натовские стандарты.
MrNikolay178 5 months ago
@MrNikolay178 Мда... далеки вы от сегодняшних реалий. Вариантов Т-72 столько по миру существуют, что предложения их модернизации не дает только ленивый. Даже страны вообще никакого отношения к Т-72 не имеющие предлагают модернизацию (Франция, Израиль). Это как тюнинг. Почему в России можно тюнинговать немецкие машины, а кому-то нельзя тюнинговать Т-72? :)
BitnikGr 5 months ago
@BitnikGr тюнинг, это не производство. Я бы не возражал против -" тюнинга, производства", образцов советской техники странами бывшего СССР. Если бы эти страны так же по братски разделили бы внешний долг СССР перед западом. Наследием СССР используют по полной, а долги платит Ваня.
MrNikolay178 5 months ago
@MrNikolay178 Я и не говорил о производстве. Это просто апгрейд имеющегося парка с целью продажей зарубеж. Уже большую часть советских Т-80ых продали. Вот и Т-72 распродадут. А создают они только "Оплот".
"Наследием СССР используют по полной, а долги платит Ваня." - А вот здесь ты наверное прав на все 100%. Если уж РФ взяла на себя все обязательства и долги СССР, то должна бы получить и все наследие, что касается авторских прав... если уже не Харькосвских машин, то Тагильских точно.
BitnikGr 5 months ago
@BitnikGr не берусь утверждать, но по моему "Оплот" создан на базе Т-72 без каких либо конструкционных существенных изменений.
MrNikolay178 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BitnikGr не берусь утверждать, но по моему "Оплот" создан на базе Т-72 без каких либо конструкционных существенных изменений.
MrNikolay178 5 months ago
Why to moderniside, when you could build more those DEADLY T-90 TANKS!!!
MrSuurijohtaja 7 months ago
@MrSuurijohtaja This is an upgrade proposition from Ukraine to foreign operators of T-72.
BitnikGr 5 months ago
T-80UD found in this video... heheh
101cyberdyne 10 months ago
ERA armor dont stop solid penertrator rounds its to stop RPG and other small rockets and missiles.
NielsShoe 11 months ago
@NielsShoe
It's not quite true. It depends on the design of ERA. For example, NOZH, which in this film, increases protection from RPG in 2-2.5 times, from armor-piercing shells - in 1.5-2.
malakhovva 11 months ago 3
@malakhovva No match for the Bill 2!
ollonsvin 4 months ago
@NielsShoe
It's not quite true. It depends on the design of ERA. For example, NOZH, which in this film, increases protection from RPG in 2-2.5 times, and from armor-piercing rounds - in 1.5-2.
malakhovva 11 months ago
@NielsShoe ERA does stop penetrator round by exploding and breaking the penetrator and cuting its energy!
OverG88 4 months ago
dat 80s music
b00rk 1 year ago
everyone just copies the americans ten or 15 years after they come out with this stuff. ballistic computer for the main gun, the comander has the option to take over the main gun, gun stabilizers .. the amercians have had this stuff since the 80's. way to catch up
bigslice19 1 year ago
@bigslice19 You are wrong. In last 50 years Western tanks incorporated more ideas from Soviet tanks, than vice versa. I don't even want to start counting... Especially when you are talking about gun stabilizers, which were simultaneously developed in East and West in 50s and since then all tanks have fully stabilized guns... but you think that this is American invention of 80s... Get educated :)
BitnikGr 5 months ago
The gulf war would have been a much harder fight if the Iraqis had upgraded there T-55s and T-72s
BirgirZ 1 year ago
@BirgirZ They would loose any way. Maybe Coalition forces would have more losses... but even if Iraq had same Abrams and Challengers they would lose..
BitnikGr 5 months ago
I must say, I prefer Ukrainian work over russian. Ukrainians manage to put the same thing somewhat better. Back in Soviet times, Ukrainian-made tanks were always given to the units of the elite status. And nowadays, they managed to upgrade what they got to the poin they are almost entirely alien to those who created original. Either way, I prefer western designs. Westerns' are all about saving crewmens' lives, and kicking ass from afar. Argue at your discretion.
Egodraco 1 year ago
@Egodraco From afar? Western tanks have problem then since late T-72, T-80 and T-90 can fire ATGMs from beyond the accurate range of western tanks.
Placing ammo in a hull is actually ok since its protected by the main armor. Whether that armor is strong enough to handle the modern AT weapons is different story. In big combat is bustle goes BANG the crew is at least contused. In any case if attacked from above the crew is dead as well as tank since roof will be penetrated easily.
Spetsnazovets 1 year ago
@Egodraco "Westerns' are all about saving crewmens' lives" - How many soldiers man a western tank? 4? So basically they risk 30% more manpower in tank battles compared to 3 men crew, right?
What is the frontal projection in square meters of Western tanks? - Bigger target = saving the crew? Coool...
And last one... "kicking ass from afar" - From how far exactly?
BitnikGr 5 months ago
name of the song in the background of this video? btw, excelent video, and tank!
specnaz91 1 year ago
Nice! & yeah it looks like a T-90.....
lst1195 1 year ago
Isn't this basically like the T-90? Or is this designed to be for export? Either way this has to be a very under-rated tank. Thanks for uploading this!
TheJojo45678 1 year ago
@TheJojo45678 Yes, it designed for export only. Ukraine has another tanks - Bulat and Oplot.
malakhovva 1 year ago 4
@malakhovva so is this better in combat or t-90?
hatemf23 1 year ago
@TheJojo45678 T-90 is much better armored and much more mobile
Spetsnazovets 1 year ago
@TheJojo45678 yeah. if i had to get tanks for an army i would get some T-72s and modernize them. forget about the M1 Abram they cost to much and they are far too exspenseve to operate.
yurik19881 2 months ago
very cool video but whats the best t-72 variation or derative.i know my country,s al khalid tank is more superior than the t72mp
147saad 1 year ago
@147saad
Upgrade them Al'khalids to T-90s..o wait India has T-90s as well...that would be awkward lol
Kallosar 1 year ago
When US/UK got T-72 and T-80 and tested them, they realized that had a war occurred in Europe against USSR, they'd get totally crushed since no existing round could penetrate T-72 when its equipped with K-5 ERA while the ATGMs T-72/T-80 could fire would disable western armor in open plains/deserts. At the time soviet armor was vastly superior to western when viewed in attack scenario.
Spetsnazovets 1 year ago 14
@Spetsnazovets keep telling those fairy tales lllolollollolololololo
MrStewart149 1 year ago
@MrStewart149 If you had half a brain and did some research you'd know. But ypou are yet another "wannabe know-it-all" but who knows shit. Bye
Spetsnazovets 1 year ago
@Spetsnazovets The only t72 i have seen upgraded or otherwise have there turrets lying 10 to 20 meters away and the hull on fire as its ammo cooks off .so you keep doing your research the truth is lying on every battlefield from Iraq to Lebanon to Serbia so i think its you who knows shit . reality is proof .
MrStewart149 1 year ago
@MrStewart149 You are an utter fool. All the exported T-72 that US/NATO encountered had maximum of 400mm of RHA on the front and it was pure steel armor at that, Russians kept the REAL T-72 with composite armor, AKA Chobham style, to themselves and it was further supplemented by Kontakt-5 ERA. Tests of T-72B equipped with Kontakt-5 ERA (Standard equipment) were ran in 1997 by NATO where Kontakt-5 ERA completely neutralized M-829A1 DU APFSDS. NATO was disinformed as USSR intended.
Spetsnazovets 1 year ago
@Spetsnazovets lolol sure it was and yet timmy the taliban was taking them out with rpg and guided missiles during the russian occupation . I understand your patriotic sentiments but your talking bullshit as the americans would say and if it was not for your nationalistic prejudice you would perhaps be able to understand that' instead you spout statements about armour types and thickness.you need to get out of the house more . lolol
MrStewart149 1 year ago
@MrStewart149 You are a moron the caliber of which there are few. There were no T-72 in Afghanistan. There were T-55 and T-62 there as well as BMP. FYO even basic RPG-7 with HEAT round can penetrate ALL EXISTING TANKS from above and from behind. Its done that successfully in Iraq on many occasions since 2003.
Spetsnazovets 1 year ago
@MrStewart149
I'm American b4 u call me a russian..."taliban was taking them out with rpg and guided missiles during the russian occupation ."
What Spetsnaz says is true. Plus 1 RPG-29 penetrated the front armor of a Challenger 2 which has the same but improved armor as the Abrams. It's not like America is invincible...you should get that propaganda out of your head....
In Iraq...there were no modern T-72s...only outdated ones and T-55s...might as well shoot fish in barrel (be more fair)
Kallosar 1 year ago
@MrStewart149
Plus you'd know the different types of ERA if you had half a brain..
Kontakt-5 (1-3 Generations)
Relikt + Kaktus ERA.
Kontakt-5 Defeated all NATO Rounds (Importantly the US M829A1) till the US came out with the M829A3.
The Russians countered with Relikt + Kaktus which is 2x stronger then K5 and defeats M829A3...So far the US hasn't bothered to develop a new round to pierce it...probably because they prefer to prey on 3rd world countries that barely have any tanks.
Kallosar 1 year ago
@Kallosar lol ok you are right of course lolololollllolollololololol
MrStewart149 1 year ago
Comment removed
Kallosar 1 year ago
@MrStewart149
ya i no. cool story bro. too bad brits need Americans to do all their fighting :-/
Kallosar 1 year ago
The T-72 was intended to be an inexpensive tank like the T-62, and not an MBT like the T-64/T-80. Because of the original design trade-offs the T-72 is to small and light to go toe to toe with Western MBT's. Adding armor brings diminishing returns while increasing costs to procure and sustain.
Add to this the flaw of ammo storage in the armor envelope and you've got a very problematic tank.
The T-72 reminds me of the latest Israeli M-60's, pushing an old design farther than it merits.
Waltham1892 1 year ago
@Waltham1892
Modernized T-72 = T-90 and the Ukrainian Version and they are still very good tanks...
Yes the ammo storage is a problem in the Regular Modernized T-72s but the latest ERA protects the tanks from most modern ammo but it's fixed i believe in the T-90 (The ammo storage problem).
Plus our Abrams is more susceptible to RPGs then the Russian tanks as well.
Kallosar 1 year ago
@Kallosar The ammo storage problem has most cetainly NOT been solved in the T-72 and T-90. Ammo is still below the turret, where the "jack in the box" has always kept it. The T-84, made in the Ukraine, solved the problem with a new turret with an ammo storage bussel.
As for the M-1A1 being susceptible to RPG fire, that I'm writing this is proof that it isn't.
Waltham1892 1 year ago
@Waltham1892
/watch?v=CUvoaD6Vnkg
Destroyed Abrams in Iraq...my cousin's boyfriend served in Iraq...he told me about RPG-7s and RPG-29s used by the Insurgents...what they did to the Abrams wasn't exactly pretty...
Plus an RPG-29 pierced the front armor of a Challenger 2 tank which has the same armor as an Abrams but improved with ERA....but the RPG-29 went right through and took out the driver's legs....The M1 is vulnerable to RPG...face the facts...it doesnt even have ERA yet
Kallosar 1 year ago
You are from Peru but your cousin has a boyfriend who is in the US Army, who you've spoken to, who briefed you on the M-1. Yeah...
Sure he wasn't a fighter pilot, or a ninja, or a pastry chef?
I was an Army Officer whose served in Iraq. There were no RPG-29's, just plenty of RPG-7's. I was hit twice by RPG's and me, my crew, and my tank were just fine, thanks for asking.
Also, the M-1 does not have ERA because it dosen't need it. The M-1 has been through 3 armor upgrades already...
Waltham1892 1 year ago
@Waltham1892
Yes and I live in Norcal in a Middle/Upper class neighborhood...yes...i have the article as well...Challenger 2 hit by a RPG-29 pierces through all layers of the armor...and the C2 basically uses the same armor as the Abrams except improved with ERA
Yeah I'm sure you'll feel safe in your M1 when you don't face a third world country and when they don't have 80 year old tanks.
"telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1551418/MoD-kept-failure-of-best-tank-quiet.html"
google that plz
Kallosar 1 year ago
So, now you are saying you got your info from an ARTICLE, and not your sister's uncle's cousin's brother's father?
Wow, I've wasted my entire life on training and experience with armor, when I could have just had a quick coversation with a completed stranger and learned just as much. Tragic...
Any way, I don't mean to ruin a perfectly good delusion, but the armor package on the Challenger and M-1 are different, and have been since the M-1IP; certainly since the HA.
Nice try though.
Waltham1892 1 year ago
@Waltham1892
lolumad? He was in the Marines. Plus the Insurgents handle all types of equipment even Russian made RPG-29s which are snuck in. Plus if u even bothered to read the Article u'd know the RPG-29 was shot at the front..+ the Challenger 2 is better protected then the Abrams.
Plus what happens when your hit by a shell on the side of the turret that's not a 80 year old...say by a Tungsten round by a T-90 or an Oplot-M...yeah good luck especially when u failed life by joining the army
Kallosar 1 year ago
The problem I'm having with your story is that you know nothing about armor yourself. You've never served on the tanks you are talking about, certainly never served on one in combat, yet you claim expertise greater than anyone who has.
As a result of this illusion of information you've got, half of what you are saying is wrong. The other half is more wrong.
So, unless you can cite some source of information better than someone your cousin is fucking, this conversation is concluded.
Waltham1892 1 year ago
@Waltham1892
The Source: The hundreds of articles written about how an RPG-29 penetrated the most "protected" tank used by British forces..a tank that's better protected then the Abrams...you claim the Abrams is the best tank in the world simply because it withstood AK fire and 70year old RPG fire..get shot at by a L55 while still inside....You also claim that the Abrams is better then the Leo 2A6, T-90, Oplot-M...yet they've withstood 120MM L44 Shots from the Abrams and even M829 rounds
Kallosar 1 year ago
Unless you intended to kill your enemy with paper-cuts, I'd forget about those articles you've read.
Now that you've marked yourself as an arm-chair general with no training, experience, or insight, I'm going to hit the block button.
Life it to short to play with fools. I'm sure that is something I and your fictional Marine would agree upon.
Waltham1892 1 year ago
@Waltham1892
lolumad? Scared because you failed in life by joining the army...go die for me poor hick
Kallosar 1 year ago
@Waltham1892
plus way to deny the articles....should be noted that an "Army Officer" refused to comment on a Challenger 2 being pierced by a RPG-29....
Kallozar: 1
Random hicK: 0
Kallosar 1 year ago
@Waltham1892 I'd like to ask. What grenade hit your tank? HEAT or HE-FRAG? Did your tank have TUSK kit?
There are many different grenades made for RPG-7. HEAT, HE-FRAG, tandem-warhead HEAT, thermobaric. Also the single-charge HEAT came is about 3-4 different versions each with different armor-piercing rating. If your tank was hit with HE-FRAG round, of which Iraqi insurgents have a lot, then those wouldn't penetrate any tank today.
Spetsnazovets 1 year ago
The gentleman who fired the RPG caught the attention of my wingman, and as a result, was in no fit condition to tell anyone what he had fired.
I can say, based on the point of impact, that the warhead must have been a HEAT type round.
As for what equipment my tank had or didn't have, I'd rather not discuss that in an open forum.
Waltham1892 1 year ago
@Waltham1892 Fair enough. If it was HEAT then it'd be one from WAY back before M1 Abrams was in series production. The PG-7V and PG-7VL would only penetrate the roof of Abrams and maybe from dead behind. They have no more then 400mm RHA penetration rating. There were a lot sent to Saddam and being of utterly obsolete spec were as useless as the tanks of Iraqi army
Spetsnazovets 1 year ago
@Waltham1892
Plus Kontakt-5 ERA used by Russian forces was proven Immune to all NATO Rounds until the M829A3 came out then the Russians countered with Relikt ERA which is 2x stronger....the Abrams doesn't even have ERA....why don't you test an RPG-29 to the side of the tank directly where the commander sits and see the damage...or a shot from a 125mm gun that's not using ammo from the 60s...
K2 deflected L55 120MM from a Leo 2..
T-90 Relikt ERA defeated Modern NATO Rounds...
List goes on
Kallosar 1 year ago
@Spetsnazovets actually we were scared when we saw it, but when we looked at it we realized it was a death trap like EVERY other pice of soviet engineering. plus our A-10s could decimate every single existing russian tank in just a matter of days had a war erupted... its not all about tanks you know.
hotpocketpoison 9 months ago
@hotpocketpoison You just quoting Tom Clancy who is a moron. The only thing in common between GENUINE Soviet T-72B and export T-72Ms that US/NATO encountered was overall shape. In 1996 Kontakt-5 equipped T-72B was fired at by Abrams using an M829 APFSDS which failed to penetrate 100% of the time. Also US/NATO were fired at with a 3BM13 APFSDS with steel core that USSR decommissioned in 1973. As for A-10 - Russia has Su-25 that'd do same to any NATO tank. Go read up on T-72 from NON-NATO sources.
Spetsnazovets 9 months ago
@Spetsnazovets the A-10 is equipped with a gau-8 last i checked the su25 doesnt have that, plus nato weapons tech is way more advanced than russian tech. and thats why we have the m829 A2, A3 and soon the A4. built to penetrate Relikt and kaktus ERA. and i never asked about the gulf war. plus whenever i get info on how crappy russian tanks are you people call it "propaganda" and even when i go on other sites IT STILL SAYS THE SAME THING!
hotpocketpoison 9 months ago
@hotpocketpoison Su-25 has a 30mm GSh-2-30 with AP rounds. Don't need to shred tank to kill crew.
US tech is merely prettier named but Russian stuff way more rugged and reliable and needlessly complex
FYO Relikt and Kaktus ERA are not even installed anywhere so you have no idea if new APFSDS will beat it
Reiterating that Russian tanks with composite armor were never exported outside USSR. M1A1 failed in Saudi Arabie last year together with Leo-2 and LeClerk while T-90 made it and won.
Spetsnazovets 9 months ago
@hotpocketpoison Su-25 doesn't need a Gatling. It has GSh-30-2 with 30mm rounds. Enough to kill any tank. Relikt and Kaktus are still classified so there is no NATO round in existence that can penetrate it.
You checked info on stuff that was used in combat against US. But Russians have long proven that stuff that STAYED IN RUSSIAN MILITARY was still superior to US
A-10'd get smashed with Tunguska point defence system and S-300 and TOR systems would kill most before they get close. Anything else?
Spetsnazovets 9 months ago
@hotpocketpoison Had you found some GENUINE data rather then typical NATO sources info you'd know that USSR exported HEAVILY downgraded tanks, planes and radars that was nowhere near USSR spec. T-72 that was exported had 300mm steel armor at the thickest with no laser ranging, secure comms and with obsolete rounds. You guys in US can stay in your rosy world where your tech is best. When the time comes and your military will get a HOT welcome you'll learn the truth.
Spetsnazovets 9 months ago
@Spetsnazovets LOL ABRAMS PWNS T72. T72 SUCKS MAH DICK LOL RUSSIA SUCKS!!11
uzickimajmunac 2 months ago
@uzickimajmunac Well this comment certainly displays the intelligence of the person that posted it...
Spetsnazovets 2 months ago
I love how this documentry is about a russian tank and the narrator has a russian accent instead of british
aussieblackhawk123 2 years ago
Tank is in fact Ukrainian, well at least the modernization program is, the T-72 theoretically could be from Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Poland, USSR, or India. These are the countries that produced/produce T-72's.
Maloross 1 year ago
@patrikasLTL I don't mean a PC-Simulator, but a real combat simulation (Like Miles, or AGDUS).
Cougar545x39 2 years ago
Haha from 8:02 to 9:38 it is actually T-80UD.
dragonzmaj1 2 years ago
yea u r right, its T80...wheels are different :) although the same factory makes them both, and a dozer blade is the same on all T-64< series tanks
tbilisicentral 2 years ago
Ez szép volt ! Ez van akkor amikor egy laikus pöcs nekilát bemutatni egy harckocsit,a videón meg legalább három,de inkább négy tipus szaladgál ! Hajrá csak így tovább : Töltőautómatára,stabilizátorra már nem futotta ?
Cwoszirtesadam 2 years ago
I would like to see a simulated battle in open terrain between a german and a soviet tank platoon.
Cougar545x39 2 years ago
I think those are called T-90s
Boinkmakr 2 years ago
No, the original T-90 was developed from the T-72BM, the T-72 featured in this video is of completely different family.
vtkrey 2 years ago
T72 recondisionned Army Algerian
XToXicLiNkCoMpUt3rX 2 years ago
Сразу видно глубоко в нем не копались так для виду рюшичек навесили,лишь бы спихнуть кому нибудь.
PetrovAlexandr 2 years ago
Ну если не знаеш то зачем языком трепать...
sirokko090 2 years ago
Послушал бы хоть, что тебе говорят... глядишь, и не молол бы чепуху. "Рюшечки" блин...
KozakhDrakaris 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
its modernised t-64 noobs.... ukraina have a lot of them
silverajskj 2 years ago
it's T-72...
KozakhDrakaris 2 years ago
you wish
silverajskj 2 years ago
silverajskj, It is not a modernised T-64, definatly a T-72 chassis, the turret has some similarities to the T-64BM Bulat, the front and front side armour layout is also similar, other than that its all pure T-72.
vtkrey 2 years ago
I want one for christmas
sparks444 3 years ago
Veryy cool video thnx!
berkut2006 3 years ago 6
nice video! a little bit fastenned as reality, mobilty improvment look down to the original T72, one of the most improvement is to use a real powerpack ( 1st exchange within one hour not one day).
type99dot5 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@type99dot5
LOL ABRAMS PWNS T72. T72 SUCKS MAH DICK LOL RUSSIA SUCKS!!11
20324758 2 years ago
@20324758
Hehe...call of duty kid...
vtkrey 2 years ago
Manoeuvrability seems to be as poor as on the original T-72. And still no powerpack
Krotpoulay 3 years ago