NATO vs USSR - Late Cold War tank comparison 

>>>Play War Thunder for FREE! Support my channel and get a premium aircraft, tank or ship and a three day account upgrade as a BONUS: gjn.link/RedEffectWarThunder Also available for free on PlayStation®4 and Xbox One.

Yeah you can play the T72 or Abrams in War thunder... * *After year of painfull grind or hundreds of euro spent :D :D

Ah yes WarThunder a beautiful *life spending game*

Its fair to say that in thr 80's most of the western and eastern tank fleets were still based on second generation MBTs like Leopard 1, M-60, Chieftain, AMX-30, T-55, T-62, early T-80, T-72 and T-64.

Also you seem to forget that Early Leopard 2 did not have thermal imaging gunner sight until Leopard2a1 which didnt start seeing fielding and implementing till late 1982 through 1983 it also used early Type A composite armor which is significantly less than what you stated the values you gave are on par with Leopard 2a4 with Type B composite armor.

Salty comments battle between self proclamed tank expert begin

What about the Chieftain and Challenger tanks?

Please make a video about tanks of Iran

These analysis need more soft factors as well. The independent commander’s sight is one such soft factor which makes a good difference. But having a good AC unit, sound protection and enough room to move for the crew can also be vital to keeping them at peak capabilities. Reloading a shell inside a cramped turret is simply going to be a lot more tiring and have a higher risk of it taking longer to properly load. You might be able to hold out for a few hours, but if this is your 12th day in a tank driving and maneuvering and you just spotted a target for the first time, you want your crew as unstressed and alert as possible. Maybe look for after-action reports, memoirs and the like to see how crew fared under conditions.

Yeah yeah yeah you can totally play those tanks in war thunder only if you grind a country for more than a year not worth the time

I am one of the few Americans that dipped my toes in US equipment and Soviet equipment. Hands down, US is much better if you have the logistics. I prefer Soviet weapons because they can be used for multiple purposes, rugged and can perform a task for minimal cost. Talk crap all you want about the T55, I do myself. It makes for a great siege gun. 23mm cannons can be fashioned into rifles or on to a Hilux. A PKM is a lighter and is more weildy than a 240 via box hugging techniques. All I am trying to state is if you are in a situation that requires rugged weapons, Soviet is the way to go.

Do us a favour and don't copy challenger armor values from Gaijin for crying out loud they are entirely wrong. Every document states it has superior CE protection to M1 and the Hull was upgraded to 500mm vs KE in the MK2 iteration onwards (about 1986). Loved the rest of the analysis though.

When I was on the M60A1, the T-72 worried me and the T-64 (or disinformation around it), scared me. When I was on the M60A3, the T-64 didn't worry me and I knew I could take the T-72 from dusk to dawn; dawn to dusk was less of a sure thing. When they rolled out the M1, the T-72 became an object of pity and the T-90 was mildly interesting. Oh, how times change.

Still , I think T-80UK was somewhat better . It was much lighter and the engine as you said was much more fuel efficient . Thus , it had more range . And also you didn't say anything about the gun range and the ATGMs accomodated to it and whether they can compete against M1A2 protection or not .

War thunder is not "historically accurate" anyone who says that is wrong the game is buggy the shell penetration values are so wrong even the armour on the tanks

Great video and good analyses, but in a war there are many other factors that contribute in achieving victory, like tactics and even pure luck. However like I said a great video, keep up the good work.

You skipped over an Abrams varrient IPM1 and different important parts of tanks such as crew efficiency track and other reliability avg rate of fire weight

1992 the new t-80 absolutely rocks

Congrats on the sponsorship! Keep up the good videos :D

How many t80u's were available? As well as the ammunition?

T55, T62 and T72 were the backbone of soviet divisions. Many european countries still relayed on Leo1, M60, M48 and AMX, en pair with latest T55 but inferior to T72.

RedEffect could you do a video on why Soviet Tanks performed poorly in against Abrahams in first Gulf War, was it that they were mostly obsolete models or poor training and tactics or no air power. How would Soviet Tanks of performed with Soviet crews and more modern tanks.

I personally think a standard design diesel engine has many advantages over a turbine, any thoughts?

What about the Israeli Merkava(sp)? Also, it seems the Chieftains and M60's were fairly effective against the soviet built tanks (probably cheaper quality) thrown at them during the Yom Kipur war.

M1 NEVER USED M735! This is a point of contention even on the Warthunder forums and with people who actually crewed the early Abrams. The M735 was trailed with the early XM1 prototypes as well as the final prototype produced by GDLS but the M1 when it entered service used M774 APFSDS. It's also worth noting that not but a few years later M833 was introduced. Also while Commander didnt have his own night sight he wasn't blind at night because the Field of View on the Thermal sight was large enough for the commander to look for targets even if he had to share it with the Gunner. Also its worth noting that Thermal provided far superior target acquisition compared to Soviet passive IR night vision which had poor edge clarity and poor field of view the commander as well had PVS-4 weapon scope and PVS-5 or PVS-7 gen 2night vision goggles for manuvering at night which was far superior to Russian tankers passive IR goggles which relied heavily on IR illumination from the gunners IR lamp to see this also made them a huge target because to anyone night vision the Soviet IR flood lamp would stick out like a sore thumb and compromise their location to the enemy.

Hm, I would have really liked to actually use one of those other tanks for once. During my time at the military I have been a gunner on Leopard 2A5 and left right before the upgrade to 2A6. During this time, we had literally tons of shooting challenges against US Army tank platoons using the M1A2. I have no idea whether the M1A2 is only a paper-tiger (great numbers on paper, but not performing accordingly) or whether US tank platoons just get the poorest training possible on them. As a matter of fact, during my first combat practice I had been a gunner on the Leopard for 2 months(!!) and we destroyed the US counterparts to a degree where they rejected to complete the challenge and called it a day earlier. I think they scored just a hand full of hits at all during movement throughout the entire day whereas our precision was almost the same, independent of us moving or standing still. So again, no idea if that was the tank, or individual quality (which I cannot believe since those guys had already been deployed in combat before and knew their tanks in and out), but the difference was huge. Also, we can debate a lot about how good DU-penetrator 105mm might have been, or rather not, but I guess there was a reason behind the US starting to implement a slightly adapted version of the Rheinmetal gun on the M1. One more thing that was mentioned here jokingly a few times, but that is hard for you to put into such videos: Crew comfort actually means a big deal. I have only been sitting in M1A2, T72 and Leopard 2A5 and none of the other more modern MBTs, but if you have to stay in there closed hatch for a few days, trust me, you would want a Leopard, maybe an M1, definitely not a T72! Balistically it absolutely makes sense to build the tanks more flat and with nice inwards angles, but that heavily cuts down space for the crew as well as proper seats and generally the ability to stretch yourself every once in a while or even boil and eat something small.

Also, what is the practical application intended of the anti tank missile used on the t64 and possibly later tanks? I believe you mention the t64, t72 and t80 all largely use the same main guns which you also note are/were superior. So with a superior main gun for use against armor. In what scenarios would the anti tank missile be used?

Hey what’s your favorite source for all this tank information. Would love to check it out

pls you can make a video on the italian c1 Ariete MBT?

The Abram had better armor than the t80 and t90.

Leopard2A4 turret cheeks have a 700mm apfsds protection

Were Russian tankers on these newer tanks usually professionals, or also conscripts? That might be a factor against all-professional US tank crews. I'm not trying to throw shade at the Russians. It's just that highly trained pros usually do better than the latter, no matter willingness or bravery. Again, I'm not going after Russian tank crews, I'm just curious if that would change your calculations. But I'm only asking because I have no clue as to what types of crews the Russians were fielding during each period. Great video, btw. Very informative. Thanks!

please do a video on weaknesses in Al Khalid tank

wasn’t the last year of the cold war 1991 and not 1992?

Would be good to include parameters like maintenence ease (for example how much time does it take to swap engines) or crew survivability (like comparing M1s ammo stores and Challenger ammo stores) Crew comfort and internal/external storage space, Range and mobility ( it is rather important most soviet tanks couldnt turn in place) etc .Those are rather important factors. In this video its rather important to mention the armour comparison in front turret armour coverage. Most allied tanks have rougky equal turret coverage (except the Leopard 2a4 weakspot and the weak armoured Leclerc Mantlet) but in Soviet tanks turrets got only the cheeks armoured and th turret center has gaps in both special armour and reactiva armour. And that is a large gap. In order to make a video like this it needs those considerations included

Yea no idk where u got those values for the leopard 2a4 but it was way less againts apfsds t 72 t80 by far best armor and best firepowerd just slow

1966 and the introduction of the T 64

такие компактные танки, а такая защита, лучше натовских. с недавних пор это для меня оказалось сюрпризом.

As an ex War Thunder player I'd recommend World of Tanks. I never gave it a chance cause everyone always shit on it but I actually really like it. War Thunder's realism is unmatched, but once you get to higher tiers (like where the T-72 is at) the game isn't fun for tanks anymore, you will constantly be destroyed by and defenseless to drones/helis. Unlike WT's lie called "Ground Mode" WoT is actually tanks only.

No Chieftains?

War thunder has the Type 16 japanese wich was made around 2016

Red, you make some good comments but you just don't know what you're talking about regarding Abrams. There was no extension of the turret as a former Abrams tank commander and tank expert in the real Abrams had no extension on the turret frontal armor. please note and observe that Abrams armor is modular from the onset and needs no extension. The Army simply had to cut open the armor and add new advanced modules within. Please observe that t72 has no modularity it is a welded turret in Hull. Any upgrades to t72 , t80 etc were simply appliques that were bolted on the outside not added internally to a modular turret. please do not act as though you're an authority when you don't know what you're talking about as you make yourself look a fool and destroy your own credibility. The fact of the matter is during the Gulf war pathetic Soviet main gun shots from t72's bounced off Abrams turret whilst Abrams tank gunfire from 105 and 120 mm cannon shots blew the turrets off of t72s at 3700 m and more. Please don't try to stand up for pathetic tanks in the t72/t80 Series. Soviet tanks were absolutely horrible compared to nato tanks. Soviet tanks cannot be defended in any measure compared to nato tanks.

What about DM23 and DM33

M1 had M774 introduced at the same time.

Use his link as a "bonus" and you're getting him kickbacks from the game he's hawking

The ammunition in a T-72 was stored around the hull which is dangerous.

I think we can say hands down say nato tanks were the best of the Cold War, in the battle of Norfolk 800 soviet tanks were destroyed for 5 NATO tanks and in the the battle of 73 easting 160 soviet tanks destroyed for 1 Bradley.

Wot no British tanks?

Israeli 105's took out Syrian T72 in the Bekaa valley in 1982, your analyses is in correct.

Lack thermal but ok

Im wondering, why there never was a HEATDSFS

What about Arjun, i havent seen it in comparison?

This is very old model of t-72

This guy compares the 1 out of 1 best soviet tank against serial production western tanks.😂😂😂😂😂

Abrams havent got a reactive armor i think.

Nato had m60 Soviet had t72 Nato had leopard1 Soviets had t72 Nato had M1A2 Soviets had t72 Nato had leopard 2A6 Russia had t72

All your doing is comparing statistics. Not real world. Training, and ergonomics mean alot. Soviet ergonomics were terrible. What is the accuracy a fist round hit chance at 2000 meters?

Again tell us how the Abrams and Bradley's rolled over the Iragi Republican Guards in Desert Storm without a single M1a1 loss

no british tanks??????????????????????????

He doesn't go past the 90s because he knows but will never admit the newest version of that Abrams is one the best tanks if not the best tank out there. Better training and professional not russian conscripts.

There is no such thing as best tank

Did u know the amx 56 lerlerc is the most expensive tank in the world? Kinda interesting for such a mediocre tank..

Be me, an American, watching tank videos: "Uh, can I get that in inches?"

correct numbers for 1979 Leo2 hull front up to 550 vs KE 500 vs HEAT turret front 550mm vs KE 810mm vs HEAT 1985 Leo2 A4 hull front up to 600mm vs KE 710mm vs HEAT turret front 690mm vs KE 810-1290mm vs HEAT round in service DM23 (480mm penetration) replaced by DM 33 (540mm penetration) mid 1980´s Leo2 A4 clearly best... higest mobilty best night figthing capability best fire control most accurate gun and good armor protection your armor claims for late 1980´s Leo2 are the one from Leo2 A4 which was introduced in 1985 not late 1980´s...the A4 production ended with the cold war in 1991 The T-90 entered service in 1993 .... 2 years after the cold war ended so it NEVER was a cold war tank in that case you could also throw in the Leo2 A5 as a cold war tank... No matter how much number games you play... in the 1980´s and 1990´s the soviet and later Russian completely lost the tank race.... Fire control, first hit probaility and night fighting capability are the magic words... in that time the NATO had a clear advantage over the soviet tank development... a point often overlooked by russian tank fanboys... crew ergonomy....there the M1 and Leo2 beat the T-models by lightyears... anyone who ever spend weeks in a tank will understand how important this factor is... only stats sheet comparer dont understand that... and so many other important factors...fire one the move capability... mobility ...there the NATO tanks were lightyears ahead of the soviet tanks... much better suspension making the tanks a much more stable shooting platform which dramaticly increase first hit on the move posibility.. a other little thing often overlooked but extrem important in combat... reverse speed... example a Leo2 can go 30km/h reverse... perfect for delay tactic to lure enemy attacking forces into traps... this allowed the Leo2 to face with the front to enemy and keep on fighting while backing up at high speed from one position to the next... to compare T series had a reverse speed of 4 to 5 km/h ... if they get under pressure and need to retreat out of a danger zone they are slow..or they turn around and show the weak rear to the enemy to be quicker out of danger....

Cool 😎 tanks.

abrams is tank for war ! really ?!

T80ud!

Oh fuck get ready for the shit show which is Freeaboos and Cyka Blyataboos

War Thunder!!!!!!!!! you again!!!!!! but I love War Thunder.

I don’t think that the 1-80u was resistant to all rounds from other tanks at the time.

T72 far superior, still is.

remember when sturmpanzers kept killing M1 Abrams when they first came out?

Thanks to everyone that pointed out that M1 didnt use M735, I had info that the projectile was in service, but guess it was wrong. The situation still doesnt change, Leopard 2 had superior protection and commander's independent sight, so it still holds the title as the best tank of 1980. But it is important to point out the mistake.

Yeah as a Bradley guy I think I see the Abrams in my battalion fueling up more than actually maneuvering

Clearly you didn't add crew comfort because it would be an automatic win for the brits with their tea making facilities lmao. Jokes aside this is a pretty entertaining video. keep up the good work!

When i saw the notification, i read NATO vs UBER

gajuble: historically accurate vehicles also gayjingles: ostwind 2

Steven Zaloga had a relevant observation on this at the point where the T80u was king in penetration and armor. Since the use of smokescreens at the time was a given, and the stabilization quality made firing on the move realistic, the lack of thermal sights to see through smoke and auto-lead may have made the T-80u's firepower nearly irrelevant and left it as a potentially superior platform only needing some relatively small modifications to be the dominant force, but modifications that remained a step behind the needs of battle.

1:50 never underestimate a good pair of Zeiss binoculars

So no mention of the improved armour on the chally 1 mk. 3, or the DU rounds we put in them?

Now I know where Red Effect gets all those Sekrit Dokuments.

"The engine wasn't very powerful, so the tank was kind of slow.." LOL

I knew this video was coming! Great one Red.

Btw. Chally Protektion from Front Tower ist 650mm againt Apfsds ans Hull is 470mm againt apfsds

Do a review of the leman Russ MBT of the imperium of man 😁

You look like that spongebob worm when you unlock the abrams

Red can you please give Gaijin your source for the T-80UD’s armor array. They have made it a copy and paste of the T-80U’s array.

Thermal sight is quite a game changer. Western tank could just fire smoke grenades when engaged and return fire unopposed.

I hate the term “best” anything. Each State designs and fields pieces of kit and platforms that meet-and all States have specific doctrines practiced. Whatever piece of kit they have is most likely the “best” piece of kit...to have at that time and for whatever doctrine a state/military adheres too at that time. Like the M4 Sherman for the US and allies-it was the best tank in the world...for the US at that time.

Turns out that in the Ukraine, Russian tanks became allergic to their turrets and would sneeze them several feet in the air. The Russians also thought regular maintenance and training was for soft western nations. Finally, Russian troops are danger-adverse when facing Ukrainian troops armed with Javelins and NLAWS.

crew comfort would also be worth a word they often are in the tanks for a day or more and speaking about autoloader would also he great (do they work good or do they struggle) and the problem with autoloader you cant seperate crew from ammo (no blow out penal) but otherwise its a fair compare

i read that germany got their hands on a T-80 after the cold war, and they test fired 5 rounds with a L44 on it and only one projectile manged to penetrate(hull). which lead to the devlopment of the L55. apperently the americans didnt had that problem with their DU-ammuntion. PS: u should mention, that the low profile of russian tanks is bought with bad gun-depression, which hinder their tactical use in some circumstances. but its probably not that easy to rate :D

Don’t know if you’ve done one but would be awesome if you done one when basically the french and German tanks got big upgrades and new British challenger 2 came out. Also American and Russian upgrades to theirs

The Abrams was kinda cringe irl until the A2

Kobra ATGM 5:01.

Don't waste time playing that cancer that is war thunder, spend your money on something else that is more worth it, like burning them. Oh and yes, war thunder is a free to play game, but if you don't wanna get a fucking stroke playing that shit you're gonna be forced to spend real money.

I dont know if it carried through - but at least some generations of western tank crews was trained to measure distance not on target, but to solid terrain features near the target. Not as much to avoid the warning systems of soviet tanks, but to get a better measurement. Quite a significant doctrine there which might have had an impact on the battlefield we luckily never had.

The one thing you didnt mention is numbers. The M1A1 vastly outnumbered the T-80 of the time which only had a few hundred produced.

here is issue. Looking at performance, not price. So one ultra modern tank vs 100 modern tanks for same price. is it fair to compare them 1v1 or 1v100? German tigers never were knocked out with penetration to front armor, but there were seas of garbage t34 which were unreliable as hell etc, yet they won. Quantity over quality sometimes matters and quality costs.

This war thunder advertisement aged well