Receive an Amazing New Player Pack, only available for the next 30 days! Play Call of War for FREE on PC or Mobile 💥 callofwar.onelink.me/q5L6/3e7c7402

@dimasrizki4933

3 жыл бұрын

Can you review about t72 Poland (PT-⁹91 Twardy tank)

@yeetseekingmissile3252

3 жыл бұрын

T26 was probably was the worst or the t28

@RTankist

3 жыл бұрын

The T-72 Is good tank for me

@jansedlak8626

3 жыл бұрын

You could maybe review polish tank force and tell everyone how bad it is. :(

@bren2385

3 жыл бұрын

GREAT VIDEO ALMOST DOCUMENTARY STANDARDS 😉👍

the costcutting on the T-72 makes a great deal of sense when you realize the full Soviet Army order of battle consisted of 220 tank and motor rifle division, and many of them would be serving as second or third echelon troops in the event of a major conventional war. so you give the best equipment to the full strength Class A divisions that will be the tip of the spear, and fill out the rest of the order of battle with Class B and C divisions that are staffed with more reservists

@janwitts2688

3 жыл бұрын

Wasn't the difference that a tank division had 2 regiments of tanks and 1 of infantry and a rifle div had 2 of infantry and one of tanks ...

@Salt0fTheEarth

3 жыл бұрын

@@janwitts2688 not quite. A tank division had three tank regiments and one motor rifle regiment, and a motor rifle division had three motor rifle regiments and one tank regiment. Every motor rifle regiment has an organic tank battalion, and every tank regiment has an organic motor rifle battalion (battalions are also 3:1 mixes).

@marcodelguerra

3 жыл бұрын

THAT IS ONE THING I LOVE ABOUT RUSSIA AND THE FORMER SOVIET UNION!!!! THEY KNOW REAL WARFARE AND MAKE PRATICAL , REAL USEFUL WEAPONS FOR WAR..NOT THE NATO IF YOU HAVE 10 TRILLION DOLLARS WORTH OF INFRASTRUTURE THAN THEIR WEAPONS MIGHT WORK....URA!!!!!!!!!!!URA!!!!!!!!!!URA!!!!!!!!!!!!!

@gennarosavastano9424

2 жыл бұрын

@@marcodelguerra hahaahhaahahaha, practical? Yea, sending thousands of own soldiers to die under own artillery fire, very stalin-practical :D

@marcodelguerra

2 жыл бұрын

@@gennarosavastano9424 YOU ARE DEFENITALY ITALIAN.........................

Red effect: you make own tank Me: WTF

@ruthlesslyuninfluencedbyin2525

3 жыл бұрын

With Uruguayan help, it could be the best. With Uruguayan help, it could be the best. With Uruguayan help, it could be the best. With Uruguayan help, it could be the best. With Uruguayan help, it could be the best. With Uruguayan help, it could be the best. With Uruguayan help, it could be the best.

T-72 with T-54 roadwheels is cursed

@arandomt-9056

3 жыл бұрын

*as long as it works comrade*

@fulcrum2951

3 жыл бұрын

It does make a logistical sense

@AnikaJarlsdottr

Жыл бұрын

*Blursed

@ErumTheProwler

10 ай бұрын

Don't fix what works

The T-72 gang shall never falter! Also, oooh a new sponsor

@Honorless83

3 жыл бұрын

It was good enough and the Soviets made many Rubles selling it but Tanks that are comparable equals to it come down to the crews & countries they serve. I'd bet on any Israeli Centurion, Challenger or the faaaar btr Merkavas, all GER made Leopards & especially US made MBT's with said Country's crews vs any of the horrid sandbox Regimes/ Countries who don't foster their military officers/crews to think for themselves. Bottom Line while Tech is Grest it's a Crew and Command structure that truly makes any Tank superior. But after the nxt Gen of AFV's sadly Tanks will be the weapons of a bygone era.

@Werepie

2 жыл бұрын

NLAW goes woosh.

@MiguelMartinez-jw4mw

2 жыл бұрын

* javelin has entered the chat *

@kuunoooo7293

Жыл бұрын

@@MiguelMartinez-jw4mw javelin in 1990 ??

@hawkeye7527

Жыл бұрын

​@@kuunoooo7293 He is referring to 2022/23 Russo-Ukrainian Conflict

2:29 tank gunner called redeffect as an asshole

@nicolaeerik-liviu3640

3 жыл бұрын

Viva la Federația 😂😂😂

@romanbuinyi

3 жыл бұрын

​@@nicolaeerik-liviu3640 Someone still remembers that game? Its funny that it ends with cliffhanger, but there was no continuation :D

@nicolaeerik-liviu3640

3 жыл бұрын

@@romanbuinyi yea😁

@opfoca1oparrowmarinerecon154

3 жыл бұрын

@Arnaldo Gonzalez i agree

@mal1808

3 жыл бұрын

@@opfoca1oparrowmarinerecon154 What game are they talking about?Is it cod ghosts?

I saw the title and bimm, I'm here. Long live the T-72 gang!

@mariasvensson4140

3 жыл бұрын

nah t 34 gang

@chromemustang

3 жыл бұрын

@@mariasvensson4140 does the t-34 auto eject shells? i think not!

@mariasvensson4140

3 жыл бұрын

@@chromemustang no but it has stalinium

@petar6295

3 жыл бұрын

I am M-84 gang but that is yugoslav linces T-72 so i am T-72 gang

@nesmenikodavasbije6353

3 жыл бұрын

@@petar6295 Me too! Tako je druze 😉

T-72 was like the T-34 of Cold war: cheap, reliable, easy to master, and would get the job done by sheer numbers. T-80U was badass but too expensive.

@rinaldoman3331

3 жыл бұрын

But only in 80's reveals tanks that could outstand T-64 and T-72 but in 1985 there was very badass T-72B. There was best tanks of 1960's-1970's.

@ynkn_kIO

3 жыл бұрын

@MSgt Baca Firstly, how you designated the tank was the American T34 heavy or a Sherman with rocket launchers(Caliope). The T34 heavy was ditched because it was too heavy and the Calliope, well you know how reliable Shermans tended to be. But you were probably referring to the Soviet T-34 and how unreliable the tank is a commen myth. Sure, early T-34s had terrible quality, but by 1943, most of these problems were weeded out, though I’m not saying there were some defects. The T-34 is not the best tank in World War two, in fact there is no best tank. However, the T-34 was not as problematic as the German big cats and the tank fitted well with Soviet doctrine. Would you take one perfect tank over two ok tank? What was your source for 260/400 T-34s breaking down? And was this during Barbarossa or the early stages of WW2?

@acceleration4443

3 жыл бұрын

@MSgt Baca This is pure bs, T34’s were fine tanks. This argument of urs is usually worded something like "the lifespan of a T-34 tank on the battlefield was X hours, so the Soviets saw no reason to produce a tank that lasted X+1 hours". The number varies, but the sentiment is generally the same slight rewording of the "human waves" myth, pushing a narrative of disposable soldiers with disposable weapons sent to die in incredible numbers. However, one would consider it strange that an army whose main breakthrough exploitation tank was so short-lived would not only survive in a war characterized by long and deep armoured thrusts measuring hundreds of kilometers, but excel in it. Even a brief glance at contemporary documents demonstrates that reliability was always an important component of Soviet tank manufacturing. Let us begin at the beginning, before there was even such a thing as a T-34. When it was discovered that the A-32 chassis was capable of carrying additional weight, the first trials were performed were reliability trials. The A-32 with the additional weight was subjected to a 1230 km march in addition to off-road mobility trials specifically to determine how the extra armour that was planned would impact the function of the tank's mechanisms. 1230 km already sounds like a lot for a "disposable" tank, but this was much less than 3000 km covered by the first A-32 in prior trials. The A-20 was also no slouch, having travelled 4200 km. As the T-34 evolved into the tank we know today through 1940, reliability of new components was constantly being tested. The V-2 engine, its warranty period set at 150 hours, was tested in a BT-7M tank over a 2050 km march in May. Meanwhile, the T-34 was breaking in its new Hadfield steel tracks links on a variety of surfaces, including the toughest challenge a tank's tracks can face: cobblestones highways. After the 417 km mark was reached, the track links were examined carefully, wear was measured and found that the track lifespan could be improved. Findings were sent to scientists, and the trials continued, since the tracks were still in usable condition. If the tank was simply expected to drive a short into battle and die, there would be no point in putting in any of this work. When trials of three production T-34 tanks were held at the end of 1940, the engines had finally met their warranty period requirement, but this was no longer enough for the army. A new 250 hour warranty period was now required. Increasing the tank's reliability to new heights was one of the dominant themes of the entire report. Work continued throughout 1940. Towards the end of the year, the Committee of Defense gave their requirements for reliability in the new generation of tanks: 7000 km of driving or 600 engine-hours in between major repairs. Considering that this kind of reliability was not reached until long after the war, the technical know-how of the committee members may have been lacking, but it was quite clear that the government wanted a reliable tank, not a disposable one. Unfortunately, as the tanks were prioritized for the army, it was harder and harder to get one's hands on a tank that could be driven to death so that a post-mortem may reveal why it broke down. A plea from factory #75 director Kochetkov shortly before the outbreak of hostilities is rather illuminating about two things: the factory's desire to increase reliability and the expected lifespan for the V-2 engine (150-200 hours) by the summer of 1941. With the start of the war, the situation naturally worsened. As production was affected by the departure of skilled workers and evacuation of factories, the lifespan of components, specifically the engine, decreased to 100 hours. 100 hours is not that bad of a warranty period, especially considering that's how much Americans were getting out of their R-975 engines in training conditions, but what is made even more clear from the document is that the tanks are clearly lasting longer than their engines. As the war went on, the amount of service expected out of every vehicle was not reduced, but increased. For instance, a new gearbox developed in 1942 was put through 3700 km trials, tires made in 1943 were put through 2000+ km trials. When reliability issues cropped up, such as with experimental tracks, these issues were quickly addressed. By 1945 the requirement for the lifespan of track links, an expendable and rather easily replaceable component of the tank, was increased to 1500 km. Similarly, the warranty period of the engine was increased to 250 hours. Recall that this is the warranty period, not the maximum or even average lifespan. The average lifespan by this point in the war was 250-300 engine hours with individual tanks lasting for even longer. Starshina Kharitonov's tank, for instance, surpassed his warranty period by at least 400 km. Senior Sergeant Russkih's tank fought for over 305 hours. Guards Senior Lieutenant Skvortsov's tank gave out at 308 hours. Guards Starshina Perederiy drove one tank for an impressive 370 hours and then 310 hours with no breakdowns in a different tank. These are just a handful of stories. Being able to drive for thousands of kilometers and hundreds of hours is certainly not the sign of an expendable tank. The government's demand for reliable tanks, the industry's ability to provide them, and the army's ability to put them to good use is evident in contemporary documents. In the west reliability means “never breaks down”... in the East it means “easy to fix”. You can see this in plenty of equipment both sides used. For example... the m16 is rather much more reliable “in a sense that it has fewer malfunctions then a ak47 since it is a closed bolt system.” But dear Jesus are u fucked if ur m16 jams in a fire fight. Meanwhile the Ak47... while less reliable then the m16... is much more simple and easier to fix fast. Look up field strips of both weapons and you will see this.

@acceleration4443

3 жыл бұрын

@MSgt Baca you are an idiot. Your “only 160 were combat losses”... argument doesn’t mean shit. You gave no argument into how the other tanks broke down. Did they break down 5 miles into the battle? Or 500? Ur argument basically is... if a vehicle ever breaks down it sucks. According to u, every other tank from every other nation was just as bad as the t34. Since every tank during ww2 had to break down at some point. I already proved that t34’s were on par with US tanks on the grounds of reliability. All you are doing is obfuscating and providing bad arguments.

@flexprime2010

3 жыл бұрын

@@acceleration4443 thanks for the read, it was very informative

An interesting note: T-72 ural was more expensive than base T-64, however it was more popular with the Russian command as it had more interchangeable parts with the T-54 and T-62

0:05 T-54/55: am I a joke to you?

@aletron4750

3 жыл бұрын

T62, IS3, T34, and PT76: am i joke to you as well?

@Kalashnikov413

3 жыл бұрын

He said "3 major MBT"

@xmeda

3 жыл бұрын

@@aletron4750 not IS3, but T-10 was in service probably till the end of soviet union...

@tomfrank6766

3 жыл бұрын

@@xmeda T-10 was put out of active service in the 70s. T-54/55 is in my opinion one of the most important Tanks of the USSR

@xmeda

3 жыл бұрын

@@tomfrank6766 don't hurry too much.. some T10 were in service in late 80". And also T-62 is important machine. It is still in service :) But sure, T55 is the most produced and still serving in many countries as MBT today. It can still render ANY modern tank inoperable with that 100mm cannon and even if used more and more in SPG role, it is well protected agains infantry fire and smaller cannons. With ERA upgrades, passive nightvision and modern rounds it is a reliable workhorse. Many are being used in Syria for example.

It was so bad they made at least 25 thousand tanks and used it for 50 years.

@z1ll4jr53

3 жыл бұрын

Yeah bro, literally useless.

@EmbeddedWithin

2 жыл бұрын

Yeah of course, very bad man.

@acvaticlifE

2 жыл бұрын

Still make it, a lot of countries still use it and it's still being upgraded...but yeah, it's awful :D

@EmbeddedWithin

2 жыл бұрын

@@acvaticlifE Definitely awful. It killed about 5 million enemy tanks and around 10 million enemy soldiers in all of the proxy wars that any country that used them had combined+ a few “major” wars Pretty bad, innit?

@alsanchez5038

Жыл бұрын

Times have changed 😊

A blessing from the Lord! I see that you got a new sponsor now. Feels weird without the usual WT ad.

@ar0568

3 жыл бұрын

After their recent br changes? Good riddance

@EmbeddedWithin

2 жыл бұрын

@@ar0568 I noticed P2W players take less damage from those BR changes.and I am sorry to admit that I am one, it I only have a few, pls don’t gang up on me just because I bought something WITH MY OWN MONEY, but I think they’re just asking players to go p2w cos it’s less affected by BR changes.

after 2 years of conflict the T-72 has proved itself with proper upgrades and trained crew it goes toe to toe with the most modern western tanks with a mere fraction of their cost

Short answer: No. Not just because it is my by far favorite MBT. It’s not the worst but I’m also willing to acknowledge it is not the best. But, one thing it is is competitive. Modernizations of it are keeping it competitive and a very deadly threat for its opponents.

@strgunlinr2464

2 жыл бұрын

Ukraine said nlaw

@gamingrex2930

2 жыл бұрын

@@strgunlinr2464 Ngl top armour targeting munitions are cheating. Plus the design is dated as fuck. Too bad putin didn’t read the “give the tank APS pls” memo

@Sodapop-rd5ku

Жыл бұрын

​@@strgunlinr2464 the t72 was made at a time before hand guided smart missiles The t72 was good... FOR ITS TIME Like how the US in 1941 used M18 Hellcats The T72 was made for war, they were just not used in the right war (or time)

As I watched this video I was struck by how much easier it is to get tech specs on AFVs, as compared to when these things hit service. In the 70s all you had were the May Day parade, and publicity photos. When I got out in 1981, there were still debates about the T-64, T-72, T-80 were different vehicles or variants.

In itself the T72 was a good tank, well developed for its purpose within its given usage doctrine. This is what most people tend to forget because they take the Gulf war in Iraq and wars of Syria against Israel as examples but this is not correct. Iraq and Syria could never develop the environment for which the T72 was created with air superiority and so on.

@clubtcb

3 жыл бұрын

Also keep in mind they operated the downgraded export version and in Iraq's case even inferior domestically produced variants with weak armor and munitions

@thelovertunisia

3 жыл бұрын

@@clubtcb Indeed. But against an industrialised opponent like the US, the T72 should have been used within its intended doctrine of usage which includes a numerous mechanised infantry, an airforce capable of air superiority and a global battlefield intelligence picture that allows situational awareness and not fighting as fixed pillboxes as the iraqis have done against overwhealming US firepower.

@MegaSmouke

2 жыл бұрын

From crew stand point T-72 was (and still is) a very bad machine. First, the mounted 12.7 gun is not motorized, so you need to stick out from tank when using it. And during war 12.7 gun using a lot against infantry. Compare to T-64 where you can sit behind the armor and shoot enemies, T-72 is horrible and garantee your death if you try to use 12.7 gun. Second is targeting system, when you have much greater chance to just miss your target. And "positive" side which was described in this video, that ammunition in T 72 is closer to the floor is actually a bad design, because now tank can blown up riding on mine. Because mine can deform tank's floor and detonate ammunition. That's why T-64 and T-80 keeps ammunition higher.

@chan13153

2 жыл бұрын

They seem to be doing a bad job in Ukraine.

@thelovertunisia

2 жыл бұрын

@@chan13153 They were never meant to fight urban conflict against manpads but they were intended to fight Nato tanks en masse in the 1980s.

For its cost, the T-72 was imo the best Reliable, cheap, maintainable, upgradable, easy to mass produce and you can sell it to other nations for a profit unlike most other MBTs And even to this day, the T-72B3 remains in service for the russian army, and for a good reason

@declanmccaffrey515

2 жыл бұрын

because they have no other replacement. it was built for a conscript army. look at dessert storm they got massacred, the auto loader is complete shit and achieving victory by just throwing as many men as you can at the enemy isn't impressive its just sad, especially with the predicted losses. this tank suck compared to every other western MBT.

@guvyygvuhh298

2 жыл бұрын

@@declanmccaffrey515 having a tank is always better than no tank

@declanmccaffrey515

2 жыл бұрын

@@guvyygvuhh298 and having good tanks is better than having shit ones. russias military is seriously falling behind, they only have 19 t14s, if they still want to be considered a super power they need to step it up.

@strgunlinr2464

2 жыл бұрын

@@declanmccaffrey515 age like wine

@mbtenjoyer9487

Жыл бұрын

@@declanmccaffrey515 in desert storm they had poor crew Outdated variant and outdated ammo They didn’t even get the best ammo and tank variant at the time so off course there gonna lose

Having a superior FCS is by far the highest priority requirement on a modern-day battlefield.

@julmdamaslefttoe3559

3 жыл бұрын

debatable

@alperakyuz9702

3 жыл бұрын

After having good reliability and easy to maintain logistics and a gun that can penetrate the enemy in distances that you expect the fcs to be used.

@CheekyBreeky77

10 ай бұрын

​@@alperakyuz9702true superior FCS are useless if the gun can't penetrate the target

boys we know what to get now, quick lets find a t64 graveyard

@andrejkokunesoski1850

3 жыл бұрын

Mi ne možemo ni da nadjemo naše t55, a kamoli t64

@KOS762

3 жыл бұрын

i know exactly what tank to get..... any tank that isn't Russian built.

@alperakyuz9702

3 жыл бұрын

@@KOS762 so arjun?

@KOS762

3 жыл бұрын

@@alperakyuz9702 lol.. sure why not? Argentina had a few tanks.

@cdgncgn

2 жыл бұрын

@@KOS762 any real arguments ? Other than russophobia ??? Hmmm ? But your media make russophobia, hatred something normal. Like the nazis.

I think Red Effect misunderstands what T-64 FCS for those that dont know automatic lead is more or less the Ballistic computer lighting up an area on the gunners reticle where to leadthe target to guarantee a hit where automatic tracking/lead does the same thing however it adjusts the reticle as well as automatically rotates the turret to track the target. Automatic tracking wasn't a feature until T-80U so for the most part T-72 stayed up to par all the way through its service life when figure T-90 is an evolution of T-72 and are built on T-72 hulls. Also a Soviet report from the 80's concluded that despite T-80U being dramatically better than T-72B the accuracy mobility was only 10% better this test sort of was the nail in the coffin for the T-64/T-80 series which us why T-80U was the last major upgrade to the tank since the Russians figured it was more beneficial to upgrade T-72 tank than T-80

Depends on what nation uses them and how effectively they utilized the T72's would be my guest. Just like any MBT out there.

@Tonyx.yt.

2 жыл бұрын

and also depends on wich version of t72 it's, t72b in urss was vastly superior to t72 used by iraq, during 1st gulf war iraq used 125mm steel penetrator apdsfs because urss sold them steel instead of tungsten ones or later uranium deleveloped in the 90's in russia

Still one of the best looking tanks ever made

2:38 why is the armor on the tracks facing forward? I see this on the T-64b on war thunder too

@exseque21

3 жыл бұрын

To make projectiles such as HEAT and *BESH* pre detonate so they dont penetrate as much when the charge reaches the tank.

@switchblade1314

3 жыл бұрын

They're spring loaded panels designed to protect against HEAT when the tank is angled. Basically spaced armour

@ikmalfahmi1298

3 жыл бұрын

if not mistaken to stop projectile like rpg fired from the infront of the tank decreasing its penetration.

@markqqq_

3 жыл бұрын

@@exseque21 🅱️esh

@Kim.Jong-Liu

3 жыл бұрын

the side skirts face forward on certain t64 and t80 models because at a certain angle, they would be able to protect the entire side of the tank the thinking behind this was that tanks would fight along massive fronts rushing together, so there would be little opportunity for enemies to have side shots on tanks. by having the plates facing forward, angled slightly back at around 20 degrees, a HEAT-FS round would be detonated on impact, diffusing most of the explosive jet because of the half a meter or so of air it would have to pass through. of course a downside to these plates would be that someone can aim a bullet through the side skirts should they have a 90 degree side shot.

T-72; The Ryan Air of Tanks, would have been an accurate tile

Since you mentioned Syria, how about a video about how well t-72 tanks are doing today? How powerful and capable they are? With all their variants that the Syrian army posses, and so on.

@MisterChernobyl

Жыл бұрын

💀

@russkatherealoriginal6904

Жыл бұрын

They are working fine. The problem is that they are being sent without infantry support.

I think the numbers thing is going to depend on context. In low intensity operations it makes sense to have a small number of the best, but for total war a good-enough tank could make the difference between having or not having tanks at various points on the line.

The T-72 was/is a GREAT tank.The Merkava never destroyed any T-72s in 1982.

Quantity has a quality of its own. Also, you can quite easily upgrade the T-72 FCS, and then you've got a pretty decent MBT.

@russiandispenser8482

3 жыл бұрын

Well thats what Russians are doing right now.

@nogisonoko5409

3 жыл бұрын

it wasnt the best or heavily armoured, but it was plenty and heavily armed.

Another excellent video. I like them when they go through a series of tanks

It would be interesting hearing you talk a little about the swedish strv103. Maybe make a comparison between it and other contemporary tanks?

It was mostly used by Soviet allied states, it was not great, because it was a stripped down exported version of the T72, however, underestimating the tank may prove deadly, because it certainly wasn't bad, It was very good, cheap and sometimes even reliable.

@penskepc2374

Жыл бұрын

Thats an excuse. The exported T72's were getting decimated by M60 Patton's in desert storm, a tank originally designed to take on the T62's. Its just a shitty tank.

No I think the main reason why the T-72’s reputation is brought down is due to the export models vehicles poor showing in both Gulf Wars both to due to the intentionally watering down of the T-72A into the T-72M and M1 and the incompetent commanders and sheep for crew members against an entire Coalition with some of the best armor, airpower and heavy caliber naval artillery on call. But regardless in the end the T-72 style won out over the other models with it being the basis for the later T-90 and it receiving a lot of upgrades over the past few decades. They still need to be retrofitted with Relikt tho.

@vksasdgaming9472

3 жыл бұрын

Quite true statement. Hard to make good estimate of enemy equipment when you have overwhelming superiority in numbers and technology. Not just in one part, but in all parts of your force. You forgot to mention very open desert terrain which heavily favored already superior party as well.

Any chance you'd make a video on T 72M4CZ?

@HanSolo__

3 жыл бұрын

Up

Please Make a video on Type 59 Bd or durjoy Mbt And please point out the weaknesses and how this tank could be better 🙏🙏💓

T 72 is the goldstandart of tanks.

I feel like combined with soviet doctrine, the T-72 was exactly what they needed. Similar to the T-34 development in the second world war.

My father served on the t72 and went on to the t80 and says that the t80 was unreliable and the tech wasn't fully developed. Meanwhile the t72 is still upgraded to insane levels nowadays.

honestly i think the worst soviet tank was the IS3/ IS series after the IS2 tank... they were heavy and unreliable... (IS2 was actually pretty good)

@your_waifu_hates_you

Жыл бұрын

The is 7 or the t10 is good

@Tutel9528

Жыл бұрын

IS-2 was a rather reliable tank for Soviet standards but it wasn’t a good tank destroyer due to it’s terrible reload speed,optics and cramped interior along with limited ammo.They stored only 8 AP rounds,8!

T-80 and T64 were mostly used by Guard units... T72 were given to the rest...

I was a highly trained gunner in the 1970s and all this fire control system stuff you talk about is not needed when you're a highly trained Gunner. Firing on the move or stationary use of a rangefinder just slowed down you're firing ability with a good Gunner I could fire around every two and a half seconds on the move.

@xXDeltaTwoZeroXx

3 жыл бұрын

While I'm not doubting your masterful gunnery skills, I do hope you forgive me for relying on the M1's cadillac to quickly and accurately fire on targets over range. I also hope you forgive me for not believing you're a gunner in the first place. Knowing that there's no MBT that has achieved a 2.5 second reload while firing on the move or having an autoloader. And I'm sure you would know that if you're able to fire once every 2.5 seconds, or a whopping 24 times a minute, that would be the excellent work of a very capable loader. Assuming if course you both don't pass out from the amount of fumes you let out from that monstrously fast fire rate.

@zap5936

3 жыл бұрын

@@xXDeltaTwoZeroXx please I'm not being critical with you but we were trained for one shot kills and usually fired only twice I had a black skinny loader who was the company reject but I took him on because he could load the main gun so fast. I nicknamed him the rubber band Man

@zap5936

3 жыл бұрын

@@xXDeltaTwoZeroXx we used what we called battle sites. I do have the award to prove it.

@xXDeltaTwoZeroXx

3 жыл бұрын

@@zap5936 I am aware of battle sites and I asked for no proof so please feel no obligation to prove anything to me. I have to say however; thank you for sharing the story about your loader. The nickname gave me a very good laugh.

@zap5936

3 жыл бұрын

@@xXDeltaTwoZeroXx please keep up the good work!

I love your presentations. While the quality of equipment is a huge factor in determining the best or worst from a grouping, it should be evaluated as best you can with the amount of training a force receives.

T-72 was not just for Soviet service, the Non Soviet Warsaw Pact had (rightly) skipped the T-62 and were in a dire need for a replacement for the T-55. The T-72, a cheap tank that improved on every aspect of the T-55 with huge upgrade potential was exactly what the doctor ordered.

@matthiuskoenig3378

3 жыл бұрын

rightly is debatable. there is a reason the T-62 did well on the african and arab market. they were fighting actual wars, rather than a cold stand off with a powerful buddy (the USSR) on their side.

@ausaskar

3 жыл бұрын

T-62 had worse ergonomics, no additional protection and the 115mm was redundant when better 100mm sabots were developed. It was a dead end.

Excellently detailed and insightful analysis. Great work!

This is why you blow up your equipment rather than let it get captured. Keep the enemy from improving their shit and finding weaknesses in your shit

@slavicemperor8279

2 жыл бұрын

Russians did that with T90A in Ukraine. Burned them from the inside and also scrapped Shtora APS so Ukrainians don't get it. All that because they ran out of fuel.

I'd really like to see a collab with you and Spookston. That'd be a pretty great video I think.

would you do a video on the Egyptian produce M1 Abrams

@janwitts2688

3 жыл бұрын

Yes that would be good... as far as I'm aware they are junk because they have basicly no quality control.. but they must have some utility

@MilkTea101

3 жыл бұрын

@@janwitts2688 If it is junk then it does not have utility. If it has somewhat of a utility, it cannot be junk

@janwitts2688

3 жыл бұрын

An inflatable dummy tank has utility as a deceptive weapon but it is junk in direct combat ...

@chaosXP3RT

3 жыл бұрын

All Abrams are garbage

@proger1960

3 жыл бұрын

Yet the M1 was never lost in combat due to enemy fire lol

T-72 has always looked better than T-64 at least.

@EmperorEdu

3 жыл бұрын

Looks more balanced, T-64 is so... Compact...

@henryatkinson1479

3 жыл бұрын

@@EmperorEdu and the roadwheels dont look like they belong on an IFV

I love your videos!!! You do a great job.thank you for your work!! J

Thank you for the information! Best Regards!

Ok for 1973 for sure. Numbers matter just remember shermans against tigers. They overwhelmed them. However the soviet union was a monstrously evil entity on many levels.

Im in school rn but this is more inportant

@MrTheWaterbear

3 жыл бұрын

Schools are closed, or do you live in New Zealand?

@deadliftalot

3 жыл бұрын

@@MrTheWaterbear no they arent In US ,they arent

@EthanDyTioco

3 жыл бұрын

@@MrTheWaterbear online courses

Brilliant video man. Fair play to you.

it was about time to release a new video 😁 btw I love the shape of T72 it's the most imposing tanks for me (by the looks of course )

I loved George Carlin in a Tanker helmet

Smiling when listening to your lines about how 72 WAS. It still IS, Russia is losing about 5 per day in Ukraine.

JEEEE MAN..........YOU REALLY KNOW YOUR STUFF.................!!!!!!!!!!!!!! CONGRATS..AWESOME INFO AS ALWAYS!!!! IT WOULD BE GREAT IF YOU COULD PUT MORE VIDEOS OF TESTS OF THE TANK ROUNDS AND ARMOR . I DO UNDERSTAND THAT MOST OF THE STUFF IS SECRET BUT STILL IT WOULD BE COOL TO SEE..........AGAIN AWESOME CONTENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I would like to request a video on the generation of tanks that were developed by countries outside of the usual major powers in the 1980s, but were never put into full scale production (or are just not well known) due to the end of the cold war. Tanks like the Engesa EE-T1, or the OTO-Melara/Fiat C1 Ariete, Olifant Mk 2, etc. Thanks.

*Reads title* No.. don't say that.. I'm grinding for the T-72 in War Thunder.

@gulagkid799

3 жыл бұрын

War thunder isn't a irl simulator so this video doesn't show it's performance in wt

@tahaemad5809

3 жыл бұрын

I have T-72A and T-72B in warthunder and now im grinding T-90A😁. Good luck for your grinding brother

@hanzup4117

3 жыл бұрын

@@tahaemad5809 Cheers, man. I'm going to need it. I'm not very good haha.

@hanzup4117

3 жыл бұрын

@@gulagkid799 I know, mate.

"Quantity is a quality all it's own!"

@shubhendudash5534

2 жыл бұрын

So true

you forgot to mention the T-72 didn't have a hydraulically rotated turret, it was hand cranked...so to move the gun they had to manually move the turret using a hand cranked gear. the turret moved very slowly as a result, they paid for that design flaw dearly in Desert Storm.

@firepower7017

3 жыл бұрын

That was because those have been imported tanks, not to mention that only Russia and the US seem to either throw away dead stock, or give completely inferior versions of the tanks they fielded.

Frst sentence contains error. Soviet union operated not only T-64, T-72 and T-80, but also previous T-62 and T-55. Even today some units still do use modernised T-62 tanks in east regions.

@wonkagaming8750

3 жыл бұрын

Yeah in reserved and even than many are kept in storage

Why don't every t72, t80, and t90 are being upgraded to the max so like spend all their money they have to upgrade it to as maximum as they can but not only that every I mean every t72, t80, t90 are being upgraded too so not only like a few but every tank and the upgrade are equivalent to 3 of the tanks it'll be a great thing if only Russia could do this :(

T-72 is history! Radio call I remember from my teenage years.

i really like the T-62 for the looks and it's nostalgia (maybe) in uncharted 2. I had a really hard time letting it go in tank games and saying: "come on it's from 1961" so i fell back on the t80 which is aww yeah.

*Javelin missile* revealed all the truth 🤧

@mbtenjoyer9487

Жыл бұрын

What truth ? my guy javelin can take out any tank even the western/NATO one

The T-72 is like the Ak47 of tanks, ain't exactly the best but hella popular

@glebb..3416

2 жыл бұрын

The AKM is still a viable weapon while the t 72 tank sadly is not.

Excellent video!!

Love your content. Stay safe.

Does it really matter that its less accurate than its brothers when you can have 5 guns instead of 1?

@johndane9754

3 жыл бұрын

It mattered to the three out of five tanks.

@helbent4

3 жыл бұрын

Yes, if the enemy is able to achieve a 6-1 kill ratio due to being more accurate. (Such ratios are not impossible. The Germans achieved this in WWII and more relevantly the Israelis achieved this during the Yom Kippur War.)

@saint_alucardwarthunder759

3 жыл бұрын

@@helbent4 Tiger vs bunch of T-34s is not the same as Chieftain/M60 vs a bunch of T-72s

@helbent4

3 жыл бұрын

@@saint_alucardwarthunder759 Maybe not in War Thunder! Which is a lot of fun but nothing like armoured warfare in real life. As well, I imagine you are well versed with the individual stats of every tank from the 1930's to the 90's, or whatever period WT covers. So perhaps you are not seeing the forest for the trees? A critique of an analogy is meaningless because of course no two different units are exactly the same. But conceptually I think my point stands: as has been shown throughout history, including recent history, it is possible to achieve a high enough kill ratio (typically fighting on the defensive) that a favourable correlation of forces (as the Soviets would call it) is negated. It has been done, and this success therefore could be replicated with effort, and this was the theory behind NATO's defensive doctrine.

@saint_alucardwarthunder759

3 жыл бұрын

@@helbent4 it's not about War Thunder (btw in War Thunder Soviet tops are trash), it's about the fact that NATO tanks at the end of 70s were basically M60s, AMX30s and Chieftains which are all far inferior (except Chieftain that was competible) to T-72, T-64 and T-80. High kill ratio doesn't really matter because nobody counts tanks during an advance.

T72 is my first tank that i know from watching syrian civil war news and its still my favorite tank since then.

@bolshevik1017

3 жыл бұрын

3OF26 vs terrorists yeeah

The early T-72 and T-80, like the T-64A, had optical rangefinders. The T-64A, T-72, and T-80 sighting systems were largely similar. But in 1976, the T-64B appeared with a laser rangefinder and a wind sensor. A similar sighting system could be used on the T-72A, but the industry could not provide many such devices. As a result, the sighting system 1A33, was placed only on the T-64B and T-80B. T-72A had a laser rangefinder, but did not have a wind sensor. Moreover, in parallel with the T-64B, an updated version of the T-64A was produced with a sighting system, as on the T-72A. Subsequently, the upgraded T-72BA tanks received an automated sighting system 1A40-1M with a wind sensor and semi-automatic target tracking. A T-72B3 - multi-channel sight with optical and thermal imaging channels and automatic target tracking. A similar sight is now being put on the T-90M.

And Red can you make some tank arena videos? But not only modern but some older tanks like T-55 vs Centurion, or IFV battles like BMP-2m vs M3 bradly.

Yes. the tank Is kinda worst now, but it was once good until the early 1980s.

@militaristaustrian

10 ай бұрын

Its still great

@tonk5242

10 ай бұрын

@@militaristaustrian if it's still good then prove it

@militaristaustrian

10 ай бұрын

@@tonk5242 the Leo dies as Quick yet a t 72 costs onely a forth or if not less meaning buck for Bang you can not top the t 72 who is just sligthly worse then Western mbts( depending Variant ofcorse)

@Klovaneer

3 ай бұрын

Au contraire. It was _deliberately_ kept simpler and cheaper in the union as the "infantry support tank" so they could pump out more of them. Technically though they could always install latest FCS and ERA at will as the chassis has more space and weight reserve for upgrades than both 64 and 80, which is exactly what T-90 is.

Against modern AT-weapons it's just a coffin for three brothers.

@russkatherealoriginal6904

Жыл бұрын

Pretty much any tank is a coffin if it goes unsupported by infantry.

Please consider making a video on type 10 and 90 tanks

Well interesting and I didn't know the T54 road wheels can be put on a T72 tank. That's logistically very good.

@user-mt8rr3jk6q

3 жыл бұрын

In fact, this should not be the case. The life of the undercarriage will drop dramatically. Just the chassis of the T-72 shows the real wonders of unification, not provided by the developers. This version of the T-72 was offered by Ukraine to one of the African countries, where the local military wanted such an option.

don't forget to check out warthunder tho

I will never NOT click on a T-72 Video.

Could you make a video about Burlak turret for T-72/80/90? This thing basically solves known problem of APFSDS penetrator length by adding additional bustle autoloader, the carousel stays. About the armor - base is welded turret design similar to T-90 and featured experimental ERA. Sadly scrapped

@HanSolo__

3 жыл бұрын

Too expesive. Not consistent effects on testing. Too complicated to provide as a modernization program.

Does the T-72B1MS have automatic lead? I mean it already comes equipped with commander independent panoramic sight with 3rd gen thermal imager and a slew of other improvements to optics/sights, so I thought it would make sense for it to have automatic lead. But, does it come with automatic lead?

A little weird to talk about it in the past tense when variants are still the most common type of tank in use by the Russian army...

As we can see in ukraine, t80s and t90 are not really much better, poping like popcorn

@Leo-yr5jb

2 жыл бұрын

There are a lot of captured T-80s relative to their total number due to the turbocharged engine, there is terrible fuel consumption, the Russians call it a "flying tank" in propaganda, but somehow it does not fly and eats fuel like an airplane. In general, the T-80 is the best tank of the previous generation in theory, but in practice it is non-reactive nonsense with a voracious and unreliable engine. And here we are in the real world. It’s also funny that Russian propaganda and the K-52 helicopter calls the “flying tank” also LOL, but for some reason it doesn’t tanking. T-72 has always been called the tower thrower " башнемет" T-90 is an attempt to fix the problems of the T-72 turned out worse than the latest modifications of the T-80 and no better than the T-72 is just more expensive, it seems to me that the T-90 is just a money laundering project. Like Orlan drones using water bottles. The T-64 is also an outdated machine, but the likelihood that it will blow you up by itself is even less. Do not be surprised if later we find out that the Russian soldiers who disguised themselves as local residents for these 8 years and used T-64s from Russian warehouses against Ukrainian T-64s are more successful. Although I hope that they are also not successful. It is also interesting where the T-84 seems to have somewhat participated in the defense of Mariupol, but the Russians did not announce the capture. So they were destroyed, or it was just rumors, or maybe they were buried somewhere under the rubble after the ammunition had been fired.

@savageshrimp4568

Жыл бұрын

@@Leo-yr5jb the t90m is the best tank in their arsenal

M-84 really removed that fire countrol downside of T-72.Not to mention that its armor was on pare with T-72B so no wonder Kuvait bought it.......we would sold many more if Yugoslavia not colapsed because USSR didnt want to sell T-64/T-80 then.

@MonMalthias

3 жыл бұрын

The fall of Yugoslavia is the most tragic historical development. From a proud nation forged from the sacrifice of thousands of partisans, into the most advanced and cosmopolitan country in Europe. All dissolving into endless war with not even the soldiers fully understanding which side they were fighting or fighting for.

Really like your progress in pronunciation.

Will you please make video about T-72M4CZ? Its the best non-Russian T-72 upgrade

@wonkagaming8750

3 жыл бұрын

An M model t 72?, not even an M1?

@TADAMAT-CZ

3 жыл бұрын

@@wonkagaming8750 Its heavily upgraded T-72M1

@wonkagaming8750

3 жыл бұрын

@@TADAMAT-CZ yes but its still an M1 the base armor is still the same with new polish ERA on the turret front only, and Thermal for the commander and gunner, a better upgrade is the T 72B1MS of serbia

@Justme-eq8gy

3 жыл бұрын

@@TADAMAT-CZ it was the best upgrade, but in 2003 when it entered service.

@TADAMAT-CZ

3 жыл бұрын

@@wonkagaming8750 isnt b1ms only upgraded T-72M? Also M4CZ has much better fire control system, better engine, better transmission (Its only T-72 that can go 15km in reverse), better ammo, better sights, also DYNA-72 Is 3rd gen ERA and kontakt-1 Is only 1rd gen (DYNA affects APFSDS, kontakt-1 not). The DYNA-72 blocks aren't only on the turret, but also on the front of the hull. In terms of reverse speed, fire control system and sights Its even better than T-72B3. Only disadvantage over B1MS Is that it does not have remotely controlled NSV machinegun.

Were iraqi troops the worst soldiers operating T-72M?

@ifv2089

2 жыл бұрын

They were not bad, had a lot of experience from the Iran Iraq wars just never came up against an enemy that took its armour n combined arms across the desert instead of the msr and faught highly effectively with this by night 🌙

@rogue__agent5884

2 жыл бұрын

Yes they were They didn’t use it well and didn’t maintain it well

@ifv2089

2 жыл бұрын

Lion of Babylon tank or Asad Babil (Arabic: اسد بابل) was an Iraqi-built version of the Soviet T-72, with up to 200 T-72m equivalent being assembled in a factory established in the 1980s near Taji, north of Baghdad. Only Republican Guard divisions were equipped with Iraqi-modified T-72s. It was The Chinese Built T62 was the most comman Iraqi mbt the poor marksmanship of the Iraqi gunners in 2003 was assessed to be in part due to the shortage of modern night-vision and range-finder assets. As we attacked at night from the desert and not down the motorway

@rogue__agent5884

2 жыл бұрын

@@ifv2089 barely any were build my guy

@ifv2089

2 жыл бұрын

@@rogue__agent5884 I seen lots my guy

Does the shell case ejection system affect the tanks NBC system?

Very good and thoughtfull breakdown.

I strongly dislike click bait titles so i downvote this one your content is great btw

@AllMightyKingBowser

3 жыл бұрын

How is it clickbait? He gave several reasons to state T-72 is the worst soviet tank, and currently it is, T-80 and T-90 are vastly superior tanks.

@pepperedash4424

3 жыл бұрын

The title to this video isn't click bait.

@filipbrecelj669

3 жыл бұрын

the title structure simply resonates do you not see the difference between: ''T72 capabilities and compraison'' or ''T72 technical evaluation'' or simething simmilar and t72 worst tank? might as well write: ''Milfs in your area don't like riding t72s''

@pepperedash4424

3 жыл бұрын

@@filipbrecelj669The title is short and made to catch the viewers attention. If it was click bait, the title would be completely irrelevant to the topic of the video. When in fact it's the opposite regarding this very video.

Meanwhile War Thunder Players : We would like to have a bad with you Meanwhile Alpha Defense: Nooooooo.............. After Arjun, T72 is the best Tank in the world Beacuse it served in the Indian Army, you don't know anything you noob.

@Anuj-2

3 жыл бұрын

Bruh

recently a T-72B3 managed to destroy an Abrams M1 with a single shot! It's the crew that is most important factor.

The video mentioned the Lebanon War and changes made due to results there and exploitation of capture Israeli equipment, but no mention made of how the T-72 fared against American armored vehicles (Abrams and Bradleys) during 1991 Gulf War, especially the battle of 73 Easting. To some degree, those results can be attributed to inherent weaknesses or lack of capabilities for T-72.

Nope T- 72 was one of the best Russian tanks Over 20 countries use it

@GrosseSose

3 жыл бұрын

Maybe they use it because it's cheap?

@starestairs5090

3 жыл бұрын

@@GrosseSose yup

@James-dq7oi

3 жыл бұрын

@@starestairs5090 cheap doesnt mean good

@absolutelynotacommie

3 жыл бұрын

A tank that you can afford is better than no tank at all

@James-dq7oi

3 жыл бұрын

@@absolutelynotacommie still doesnt make it good let alone one of the 'best' soviet tanks

nah dude IS3 WORST tank possibly ever

@Tutel9528

Жыл бұрын

Nah that would be Bob Semple

Hey Red, could you make a video about T-72M1 vs the soviet army variants of the time, maybe as a part of a series how the same tank's capabilities are changed in export variants?

Without a true test, where there was the high intensity war it was designed for, it is pretty much impossible to determine if the tradeoffs worked. Since there was not such war, probably the tradeoff was worth it since I doubt that in most conflicts it was involved in it would not have been pretty much as good a tank for the mission as a T-64 or T-80, and those tanks would have to have a great advantage to make them a better choice.

THE 72 WASNT BAD WHEN IT CAME OUT. THE INCIDENT IN LEBANON PROVED IT WHEN THE 72s FOUGHT A SHORT BATTLE AGAINST ISRAELI MERKAVA. IN THAT BATTLE THE T72 KNOCKED OUT THE MERKAVA TANKS. THE SAME CAN BE SAID ABOUT SWEDEISH S TANKS. THE T72S AMMO WENT STRAIT TROUGH THE SWEDISH TANKS.

@lechendary

2 жыл бұрын

last time i checked sweden didnt fight any country in the last decade

@megabrout

2 жыл бұрын

Those T72s likely never met any Merkava

@lechendary

2 жыл бұрын

@@megabrout t72s have faced merkavas and probably with some succes but the t72 still sucks

@ivansyzchkyez7148

Жыл бұрын

@@lechendary T72 was way better than NATO tanks in the 1970s. Can't really compare a 2000's tank to a 1970's tank.

@lechendary

Жыл бұрын

@@ivansyzchkyez7148 the t72 ural did not even have a laser rangefinder, meteorologic sensors and automatic lead most of those were not added till the t72b3 mod 2014

I’d love if you did a video on T 72-AV TURMS-T

Hey man what happened to the tank arena series???

Hello how you received all this data. Can you provide prove of this data. Saludos nice video 📹