Sorry if there are some audio artefacts. Also, I am well aware of a T-90M being captured by Ukrainians, I will do a video on it, I will just wait a bit in hopes some more information comes out.
Military History Visualized did a video about the German Army evaluating the T-72s it got from the Unification with East Germany. The issue with the three mile per hour reverse speed came up. To compensate for the abysmal speed, DDR tankers would instead turn in the direction the wanted to go and drive forward rather than backing out thereby exposing the thinner parts of the armor.
@Dave That was because the reverse gear was often already broken. Lots of german armour had very troublesom gearboxes/drivetrains. They did not have enough materials/equipment to harden/ toughen up the components sufficient. Also sabotage by enslaved labourers from occupied countries was also a factor.
@@obelic71 And in the case of the King Tigers they were using components rated for a lighter design, they didn't have the resources to re-engineer the drive train when they thickened the armor.
@@digitalnomad9985 Luckily the lessons learned from the German panzers was incorporated in several NATO tanks. f.e. the reliable (for a tank) German build Leopard was the first who was sold with a wide warenty program for NATO members. Modern Nato tanks now have equipment from several NATO members. The UK's new upcomming Challenger Mark III will be a joint venture between the UK and German weapons manufacturers.
The main problem was that late in the war they lacked the alloy components the Transmission was planned with. They would have needed to construct an oversize one using standard steel.
@@fantikawerner8029 Nazi Germany had several shortages of important resources/metals. f.e. look at the jetengines of the ME 262 who burned up after +/-40 hours . Armour was also in short suply
It was a hard decision. The Russians could have produced a good T82 upgrade but then there wouldn’t be enough money for Russia’s world class fleet of tactical super yachts. It’s all about priorities.
@@worfoz Indeed, if the money had not been spent on yacts and candy, perhaps their military force would be a far more legit danger to us all. Perhaps. But whatever the speculaitons may be, facts are that they did not do this and spent all the money on candy.
@@emilsohn1671 spent all the money on candy. And when the bear felt poked, and attacked in a barbaric rage, it turned out to be completely teethless. Candy. Aks your dentist about the dangers.
It's incredible how Russia did not modify a new turret for the T-72/T-80, to incorporate their excellent auto loading system to draw its ammunition from a secure vented chamber at the rear, instead of the crew sitting on a bomb basically, in the event of a hull or top breach. The cost of designing and fabricating new turret would be very reasonable, and would triple survivability rates.
@@meisterproper8304 i read some time ago most of those modernization were basically corruption pure and simple. T-10 modernization orogram was wasted money in billions of dollars. Could have made a 1000 new tanks for the price of modernizations.
They probably did, but the money that paid for that design was taken by some god awful henchman of Putin's, safe in the knowledge they can perpetually blame the west for anything.
@@Tonixxy the same reason they use barely upgraded tanks from the early 70s as their main tank? They have about the same size economy as Italy but in their heads it is bigger than china.
When installing a panoramic sight on a T-72B3 tank, its cost increases by 1.5 times, unfortunately, the Russian military leadership believes that it is better to buy more tanks. In fact, there are modifications of the T-72 with such a sight, these are T-72B1 M S tanks that were delivered to Serbia and Laos.
On the visibility from commanders position on a t-72 without the special upgrades in t-72b3m: It is indeed basically nonexistent. I always found it necessary to be in unbuttoned head up position to have any situational awareness. You cannot really function inside when moving and even while stationary normal binoculars were better than the commanders sight.
@@patrikcath1025 The commander on the T-72B3 and T-80BVM has a simple device that allows you to detect the enemy during the day at a distance of a couple of km. The night vision range is small. However, the commander can intercept the firing control from the gunner and has a monitor with an image output from the gunner's sight. The commander's panoramic device allows you to find targets faster and give target designation to the gunner. But the absence of a panoramic device from the commander of the T-72B3 and T-80BVM is compensated by their low cost. When installing a panoramic device, the cost of these tanks will increase by 50%. It is better to buy more tanks than to put the commander's panoramic instruments on a smaller number of tanks. 3 tanks are more difficult to knock out than 2. And according to the enemy detection capabilities, 3 T-72B3 will be approximately equal to 2 tanks with panoramic devices
I always preferred to be up top as well (Abrams), it's hard to beat the SA it gives you. People do tend to underestimate just how FAR you can detect things with the naked eye. Our pericopes were effective, but much bigger than the T72s (and the periscopes on the SEPs are absolutely MASSIVE). On the Abrams though, there is a third option for "open protected" that allows you to look out of the hatch, but still be protected by it. Russian tank hatches don't look like they could really even be modified to do something similar.
@@ФедотовДмитрий-щ3г Having more tanks won't help if those tanks can't see their targets fast enough to matter. Not to mention that well trained crews are almost more important than the tank.
These tanks need to be used with infantry and air cover to be effective. They don't do well sitting on a highway all bunch together. Great video sir can't wait for the T-90.
RedEffect's comment sections be like: A video about problems with Russian tanks: "NATO Israel Zionist puppet! Zelenskyy's neo-nazi bootlicker!" A video about problems with Western tanks: "Russian bot! Kremlin bootlicker! Communist!"
@@gaiofattos2 funny that you mention running away [sends video of ukrainian bmp rolling over it's own infantry, ramming other bmp with it's rear and going back so hard it flips]
I am always for autoloaders. It's just the carrousel types are dangerous, especially those in the T80 that are very tall. The autoloaders on the Leclerc is much better. If the ammo is hit, the blast door will save you so long as it isn't penetrated as well. Although you have a bigger turret on the Leclerc and the ammo placed on the turret-bustle would be more shootable than on hull floor of T72. They might make a blast door behind the driver and ''Blast deck'' just over the carrousel so that, in worst case, only the driver will be killed. Should not be very expensive.
Well since the auto loader is on the floor, why not make the blast door on the side that way you wont lose any crew members inside the vehicle, but yeah better say goodbye to your tracks and stuff
@@shoshots A sideway blownout panel is calling for ammoracking from RPGs. Russian did try to modify T-90MS turret bustle to carry 8 "dangerous" HE-FRAG rounds separated from the crew (while leaving the same old autoloader intact, slapping some armor on it and call it a day) but they decided it's just too costly and returned to hull ammo storage on T-14. Armata would at least not fry its crew if ammo got ignited but the whole tank would be toasted beyond recovery while Ukrainian T-84 Oplot got a Leclerc-style autoloader.
What kills those tanks is the HE-FRAG ammo and them being hit directly. It doesn't matter where you place a stack of HE-FRAG rounds, on the floor or into a bustle: hit THAT type of ammo directly and it'll tear the tank to shreds.
@@shoshots What if the APFSDS dart comes from the front? To hit the carrousel on the floor, you have to hit the lower glacis that is free of any composite armor. Certainly you can make the blast door to blow to the sides, but there would be an entry hole on the front that spews fire on the driver's compartment. In that case, there must be a separation between driver's room and commander-gunner compartment so the fire doesn't spread. With this areangement, the driver can still survive only if thevcarrousel gets hit from the sides or not too hard from the rear. If it's a strong top attack missile, the commander and gunner will be killed, the driver survives. I don't see any other ways but a 2 way blast door.
T-72 was very good design when it was introduced, probably better than all Western MBTs of the 70s. When it entered service it's composite rendered it immune to most anti tank weapons and as a result of that the hubris and short term thinking of Soviet engineers modularity and compartmentability were thrown out of the window. By the late 80s design was already obsolete and we can't point fingers at Russia for making these upgrades, they are doing what they can to keep their fleet of T-72s somewhat relevant and useful on the battlefield.
@@Palach624 yeah people act like its a today design but its a 70s design, like the reason why it lacks ammo outside of the turret with armored doors, is because nobody thought about that at that point. T72B is a good tank, and you can upgrade it to levels that make it competitive today, the problem is, do you have the money to do that? And if you have why not get something newer? Which is what Poland did, tho I would not want Abrams Tanks on their fat state today.
Just remember that according to the Russians their hardware is the absolute best in the world and their poor performance in combat is due to poor leadership, poor tactics, poor training, poor maintenance, etc. So the poor results of Russian hardware in the hands of Iraq, Syria, Egypt, and Libya are because they aren't a high-quality military like Russia. Because if the Soviet Union had fought NATO they would have easily defeated NATO. Therefore the Russian armed forces are invincible and the only reason for Russia's setbacks in Ukraine is because Russia is actually fighting NATO and not Ukraine. So look out NATO because when Russia fully mobilizes all of their failures, incompetence, and disadvantages are erased and they will overrun Europe. Does any of this reasoning sound familiar?
I don't think I've seen any destroyed 72 having been penetrated in its frontal arc, so I'm inclined to say it's well protected there. I think it's Achilles heel is the reverse speed as in most of the footage given the type of combat they're doing, they're trying to shoot and scoot and forced to do a 180 to retreat and get hit. Majority seem to fall victim to artillery and mines more than anything else. So really, although an adequate tank overall it certainly suffers alot more in this kind of fighting as the tactics and forced used are not those for full scale war. The almost non existent reverse speed does boggle the mind though. I'm sure if there is takeaway for a further upgrade, that and the rubbish bags on the sides will be it
Honestly the biggest killer is poor tactics. The issues with reverse speed could be negated if the tanks were properly supported by infantry and light armored vehicles. The tank wouldn’t have to worry about escaping quickly if it had units along side it to respond to threats. But you don’t really see the Russians doing that. Instead most of these tanks getting destroyed are alone, and exposed.
my only question is, is the spacing between ERA blocks really that important? especially around the side era, the gaps seem so small and normal engagement ranges are pretty high i have a hard time seeing anyone getting a round on such a small target
When the enemy is sporting shitloads of cheap infantry anti-tank weapons it can be quite major flaw. Loads of tanks will be blown up on the first or second hit to the side when hitting the vulnerable area between the blocks.
Honestly I would say its easier to hit the area where the ERA was blow up from an earlier hit, than the Gaps, but its a statistic thing, how much less cover you have the easier it is to hit
Fire at a tank 1km away, and the wind makes your shot drift off by a few centimeters.... now 99 out of 100 shots will hit the ERA, but 1 of those will hit the gap, and punch through the measly 60mm of steel behind it, setting off the magazine.
I really enjoy redeffect because he doesn’t just go down the “Russian stuff stinks” and actually looks at it objectively which is refreshing, especially nowadays. Also this video was very informative. Learnt a lot about one of my favourite tanks. T72/T80/T90 are very interesting to me and it’s good to see someone covering them in a less biased way.
Well In comparison to western equipment the Russian stuff does kinda stink. This video sort of proves it by pointing out some of the issues that aren’t real issues on British or American tanks.
@@NicholasOrlick nah don't get too cocky now, the Western tanks are also vulnerable to modern Kamikaze drones and top-attack ATGM, unless they have some APS. Indeed, some of the Wetsern tanks like Abrams, Leopard and Challenger 3 are getting upgraded with Trophy APS at least, which will increase their survivability on the battlefield a lot more comapred to Russian tanks. But in most other aspects, you are actually correct. The Russian equipment is inferior in most part. The USA has superior air force, drone fleet, better artillery and intelligence... it's no big surprise tho, having a 10 times higher military spending afterall...
@@xAlexTobiasxB well, context is everything because none of that matters if corruption, piss poor maintenance and logistics run rampant in the ranks. And those three things are the achilles heel of the Russian military.
The so-called "B4" T-72s from Tank Biathlon were put into service. You can see one of them still has the Uralvagonzavod logo painted on the side skirt. However, judging by the burnt out hulk of one with the easily identifiable turret thermal, it did about as well as the rest of its B3 and B3M brethren.
As said, it is mostly good enough as it is. Most Russian tanks are lost to rear/top/ side shots because of ammo detonation. I’ve seen many videos with 72B3s vs modernised Ukrainian tanks and 72s are more than capable. Yeah reverse speed is kinda "family" problem.
Tank vs tank warfare is almost irrelevant in 2022 (arguably always was) and I doubt anyone besides Russia considers that use for their tanks, let alone tank destroyers even anti-tank vehicles aren't really a priority. In assaults ATGM and artillery will still by far the biggest threat to tanks on offense or defense.
BMP has also slow reverse speed. I sometimes envisioned, that it could have had two speed reverse like it had forward gears (1st is for very bad terrain and towing, 2nd is for normal starts). So, one slow reverse for normal usage and the second reverse for combat.
i never understood why t-72 have such a bad reverse speed. If I was a Russian tanker I would want to be in the T-80 although I would say the best T-series tank is the T-84 BM Oplot series with bustle autoloader like NATO tanks
The problem with T84 is that at that point you could say the best tank is T14, because it really makes no difference number wise. Tho I know that is more of a economical problem
@@gerfand T-14 is a paper tiger, there are so few it’s like basically a tiger 2. Dangerous, yeah but it’s so rare it’s like very well armed and armored unicorn
Finally some proper emphasis on the reverse speed issue. I've been frustrated about all the russian tank videos not even mentioning the whole issue. It is absolutely mind boggling that they have not done anything about it during all these upgrade cycles. I guess russian army generals just wants to look cool with their new thermals and era, upgraded reverse speed would not look too media sexy =D
@@foedspaghetti3290 The 125mm gun is more than enough to match the range of western tanks, especially equipped with the Refleks missiles that hit out to 5km. It's the optics and skill of crews that hold it back at range.
@@yoloman3607 that reminds me of the videos from a Syrian army tank with thermals. Just one tank with modern optics gave them a huge advantage against HTS
So basically the Russians don't care if the occupants live or die, as long as they have a lot of them. That's a sick philosophy. Lives mean nothing to Russia.
Quick basic error. The abrams, even the early ones, could do the target lock thing. This was something tanks could do in the 90s, allthough I’m not sure how many NATO tank designs had them. All I know is the Abrams did have this on mass throughout its existence sense they were first used.
Along with what you've pointed out, the biggest weakness of all Russian tanks in Ukraine is that they don't have an active protection system. You put an Arena-M and Nakidka on them and losses will go down significantly.
Arena-M barely works, it was only tested against direct attack ammunition and judging from the way both Arena-M's and Afghanit's explosive cartridges are placed just next to turret ring they have 0 chance to hit a Javelin diving on the tank from 2500m above. That's why Iron Fist APS has a small turret placed on top of tank turret holding just 2 reloadable cartridges that can hit top attack ammunition.
Today very few tanks have an APS. Only M1A2C and Merkava-4. Turkish Altay sports an APS, but it's not in service thanks to lack of engine. Russians had an APS for a long time but being slow as fuck it's taking them ages to get them going. WHich is shit, but it is what it is.
@@TonymanCS Javelins have a low hit probability in top attack mode. More dangerous are the direct attack or overflight weapons like NLAW. Arena-M can deal with those.
The mounting for ERA tiles could have standardized mouting points among whole tank fleet. The mounting system could have even ERA mounting points for the whole tank fleet and as a bonus improve looks.
would be interesting to hear the Ukrainian's thoughts on them - though at the end of the day is the quality of the men and the systems supporting the tank really define its true combat capability ( thinking Iraq and their M1s) the Ukrainian T-64 seems to be punching above its weight for this reason? (would love a video on that!)
Put a M1A3 alone in the middle of nowhere and it won't fare much better. Russian tactics have ruined any show off ability of their more modern equipment.
Depends if the Soldier in tgat T72 is a conscript or volunteer, usually is about 50/50. Typically more trained volunteers get the cooler tanks bc they'd do more w em. I imagine is the same reason why T64 is doing good, bc those guys are more than motivated to do something w it
Tanks built in the Ukraine have insider knowledge of their weak points, exploited by Ukraine army. I saw a video of a small combat vehicle repeatedly hitting the side of a ruZZian tank, the kinetic energy creates heat on its own, let alone the molten metal core, until the heat reaches inside. A similar thing was breastplate armour impacted by an arrow from a longbow, showing a plasma bolt from the inside!
7:30 Funny trivia. When Poland was about to receive a big batch of Leopard 2 tanks from Germany half of our "experts" hired to diss the tanks by our press ridiculed the very high reverse speed of Leopard 2 :)
There is also problems if you shoot the side around the wheels just below the skirt. The armor there is thin and even the 30mm off the BMP can blow right through that armor. Also even a simple fragmentation grenade on top of the engine compartment can take out a T-72.
This is a problem that pretty much all current MBT's face though, if you're close and sideways vs. Autocannon you'll get shredded. The western MBT's don't have more than 100mm vs. APFSDS to the side either.
the reverse speed is deadly flaw imo. just like the soldier needs to peak out from cover at different locations so does an armored vehicle. we did it all the time in our CV90 , you take a peek , reverse then go forward again and peek but either to the left or right so you dont pop up at the same place again. t72 can't do this it seems making them a stationary target.
Hey Red Effect, you’ve mentioned in various videos that thermal sights are expensive, to the point where soviets refused to use them. Could you please elaborate on the definition of expensive, and how much it would cost to refit a tank with 2nd gen (or newer) thermal sights.
@@sivik_777 Net. Teplovizori chto segodnya stavyat na tanki RF ispolzuyut Rossiyskuyu matritsu tretyego pokoleniya. V SSSR teplovizori mogli, no imenno chto poshitali dorogim dla massovogo proizvodstva. Tipichno dla teh vremyon: nedalnovidnost rukovodstva, kostnost mishleniya i boyazn risknut.
The same ukrainian guy that posted captured T-90M said in his video that "turn-on" time for thermal sight on B3 is like 7 minutes, because the sensor is actively cooled. In comparison for T-64 BV obr. 2017 this time is 10s, because sensor is not cooled. Of course image is not so sharp and contrast on T-64, but in battlefield situation 7 minutes is way too much, especially if it is , lets say, a night "hit and run" ambush by the infantry.
The big lesson from this unfortunate war is that tanks without infantry support, without active protection systems that can defeat top attack munitions too, and without proper sights and targeting system are as good as dead. Yes they can still do a lot, but not all countries have thousands of tanks laying around to replace the destroyed ones. From now on, even the Russians must choose acceptable quality + good enough quantity over just pure quantity. This war will push Russia to really consider mass producing the Armata platform (don't BS about the money. They have money, technology and industry for military stuff, not being on par with the US doesn't mean being weak. Any other country except Russia, China and US would have lost the Ukraine war until now and would be totally thrown out of Ukraine)
The issue is poor training and morale, any of the big NATO countries would have performed SEAD and have air superiority in the first week. Russia's inability to do this has forced them to rely on unmaintained tanks and to accept horrific losses. Also Russia doesn't have the money or knowhow to mass produce Armata's on mass given how corrupt they are.
@@georgethompson1460 corruption of Russia is overstated for sure. When a nation is on the brink of collapse, no corruption and no treason is tolerated. The corruption that the West is talking about comes from 1990s and their political loves in Russia, Yeltsin and Oligarchs. They are falling out of window now, because they don't cough up the dough when it's needed
The big lesson from the first large scale modern (industrial) war between two almost peer nations, as opposed to seal-clubbing in the desert, is that massive casualties are inevitable, in manpower and/or material. Given this, even the most super-advanced tank is going to eventually burn the same as the least upgraded old clunker, thus building and operating only a small number of "supertanks" is detrimental to operational capability, especially on a front over 1000 km long.
At the 7:26 mark was anyone else waiting for the opportunity to judge and score the acrobatics of the commander after the tank was hit? It was disappointing that the video segment was cut short. I always give him a 10 for both height and comedic value.
Since they first started development the main focus has always been production cost. And every upgrade since then kept the T72 as cheap as possible. So Id say job well done.
How about a video on a hypothetical tank using all modern tech? I think this war is going to launch a whole new generation of modern tanks that are not just upgrades of old tanks like the Abrams, T72/T90, Leopard2 etc. They are all based on 40+ year old tanks that have been given the Japanese Ricer treatment. I would love to see some modern digital sights and curved panoramic displays to cut on hull penetrations and increase situational awareness. Even just the compute power that we have developed compared to the early 2000s and now would give major advantages. Modern multichannel sights using AI for target acquisition and tracking could aim for weak spots of any target and quickly switch to the next vehicle based on damage and risk assessment. Hybrid electric drive systems could give tanks lots of power while using the motor to charge battery/capacitor banks. This would increase range tremendously because regenerative braking can recapture 60% of energy. Lighter weight ceramic metal matrix composite hulls for decreased weight and modular constructions, allowing multiple systems built on one chassis. The economy of scales on part reuse would allow spending more on new technologies by saving on production. Ferrofluid hydraulic suspensions for a smooth ride with adjustable height for aim assistance and increased mine clearance. So many possibilities, not to mention all the modern weapons improvements
I've been thinking about that during a video. Couple caveats: - I unironically think that T-14 general layout has greatest potential for next gen which new tech enables. Crew located in such isolated compartment would not only increase survivability, but allow them to have much more quiet, much more protected and less cluttered space to focus in. - Of course carouselle auto-loader is still just that, so I guess bigger turret with ammo compartment on the back would be a better option, but then ammo is more exposed to being hit. - hybrid-electric drive probably wouldn't be ever used to significantly decrease fuel consumtion, regenerative braking is pretty insignificant in tracked vehicles... BUT with comparably small battery bank should enable big 'boost' in emergencies. extremely large torque from 0RPM which electric drive allows would really decrease time needed for relocation after let's say enabling smokescreen. - electric drive and batteries would also enable tank to travel short distance without generating heat, which might be crucial with thermal sights everywhere - also electric drive can be used exclusively for reverse giving nice speed without really complex gearbox/transmission. - I'd LOVE to see similar concept to F-35's helmet with argumented 360 degrees vision around the tank blended and projected onto said helmet. It opens whole new dimension to crew's situational awareness (which historically has been bad for tanks). Not even comparable to periscopes and probably could make better use of existing sights. - A big-ass screen capable of showing map with all units connected to the system marked and datalink enabling unified target-identification system. - I'm certain some hard-kill APSes with top arc capability are developed right now. Drones and top attack munitions are no joke. - Also said tank would make a pretty nice drone command station, so integrated recon and/or suicide drone launcher with dedicated crew member might be present.
to everyone saying that the tank is "bad" as redeffect said in the video, its a cheap modernization made when russia needed a gap filler. the tank is good in certain situations, like every other tank and weapon in the world, so to an extent you're right but also wrong. pretty much every tank can be destroyed except for the tanks that haven't seen combat. not sure how right i am but this is my take on everything.
This is an excellent tank if manned by a well-trained and motivated crew. I really enjoy using it in Steel Beasts Pro PE. It’s a bit fragile, but then again pretty much any tank can be killed by another tank. It’s all about who fires first.
Ukraine tells that every tank need APS and that artillery is worst enemy of tanks. Artillery in Ukraine from both sides destroyed/damaged 50-75% of all tanks. Other 25-50% airstrikes, anti-tank systems and drones.
If that’s true then that’s just all the more hilarious because in the great majority of the footage I’ve seen where Russian tanks fight Ukrainian tanks the Ukrainians usually get ROFLstomped.
The current T-72, updated and modified, can knock out an Abrams tank from 4,000 meters (2.5 miles) where the maximum range of an Abrams gun is about 2,500 meters (1.5 miles).
hello, one small error. T-72B3 obr. 2016 and T-72B3M are separate, T-72B3M is slightly more capable. it possesses modifications for it to compete in the tank biathlon, that is its purpose but they’re very similar to T-72B3 so they can be used as combat tanks as well. as i continue to watch the video, you have shown the T-72B3M under the nickname T-72B4.
5:10 Russians considering this t72 modernization as "upgrade", so they install whatever equipment is available at that moment for the facility. T72b3 early 2011 and t72b3 2018 are quite different. Also, there may be difference in protection because of base tank (t72a, t72b, t72ba, t72b1...) Same will t80 lineup and t80bvm
The best feature is the ejecting turret. Crew protection has never been a focus design for russian tanks. Well, why built tanks at all then? They could mount large guns on cars and rather use these than havving a tank kill all personell 100% of the time it gets hit....
@@trustmeimcool And yet out of all the tanks that are known to have their ammunition carousel detonating after most hits resulting in turret ejection, Russian tanks seem to be by far the most prevalent. Sure other tanks have it happen but when you have got literally thousands of pictures of Russian built tanks who have had their entire crew killed in a single blast and their turret thrown far from the tank due to awfully stored ammo then I think its a sign that Russia isn't exactly the best nation at designing tanks for a 21st century combat environment. Also, considering that the T-90M, the least common tank in the Russian arsenal, is the only tank Russia has which uses ammunition blowout panels compared to just letting their entire crew die whilst most western tanks have had such technologies in use for decades then I feel it shows just how backwards Russian tank doctrine is. Ivantard destroyed with facts and logic.
@@mrmacias4217 And that is somehow fine considering how much more content of Russians losing there turrets is out there? A single montage excuses hundreds of videos and thousands of pictures of Russian tanks missing more than a few bits. Okay Ivan, cope harder with you shitbox on wheels lmao, especially considering that most of the videos of Abrams ammunition detonation are blow out panels working as intended. I don't think all those thousands of Russian vehicles complete detonation is a design choice but rather a lack of design choices. Its kinda sad to see how inbred Russian propaganda sources have gotten considering they can't even look at full colour HD images let alone read basic numbers on a statistics sheet to make an argument. Anyone with a reading age about 7 and access to something called the internet can tell you that there are maybe just a tad bit more examples of Russian tanks having their ammunition detonated than all NATO tanks combined, just a guess though because who really has that much intelligence to use that thing they call google after all.
From a statistics standpoint I don't think the gaps would be too big of an issue(especially with combat ranges of 300 meters or further)but the lack of front ERA,Non stabilized Commander sight,and low back up speed are all serious. I think all these issues(with the exception of the blow out panels) could be worked through though. If RU Command was able to ensure Consistency of Logistics/Supply/Training and Morale at the end of the day all these Machines require human operation).
It is what it is, a modernization to make a 70's cheap mass numbers tank still somewhat relevant. I wouldn't like to sit in one and have to fight enemy MBT or anti-tank team, but for casual shooting into buildings, bunkers, cars or medium armor it should work just fine.
I know this has nothing to do with the T-72B3M irl but can some one please tell me that game used to show the FCS and commander stations of the the T-72 Edit: steal beasts pro i think
if i recall correctly, you did a video on PT91 some time ago. would you be so kind to compare those two modernizations? not against each other in combat situation, but rather which modernization got it better with upgrading T-72. i guess it can be quite difficult since both modernizations are like 20+ years apart, but i Hope you could give it a try, since i've heard some voices puting those tanks on par, of which i don't fully agree, but i'm not completely sure either. thanks in advance
Base version of tanks is also different, PT-91 is a modernization of T-72M, not the T-72B. T-72B3 is much better - better gun, better stabilization, better armor, more powerful engine.
@@peceed yes, i know that, but from base version only turret and gun left. Even hull was redesigned. Engine and stabilization was changed. Laser rangefinder got replaced with Drawa fcs, also erawa armor package can substantialy lower penetration ability even for apfsds. That's why i was not sure how to look at those bold statements, if it's true or not
@@jakubw.2779 Only newly produced tanks had better armor in the hull and new stabilization, PT-91 in the polish army are just modernized T-72. New base armor is marginally better than in T-72B. The only clear advantage of PT-91 is degree of coverage by ERA armor without gaps (95% of covered area is protected).
@@jakubw.2779 Only newly produced tanks had better armor in the hull and new stabilization, PT-91 in the polish army are just modernized T-72. New base armor is marginally better than in T-72B. The only clear advantage of PT-91 is degree of coverage by ERA armor without gaps (95% of covered area is protected).
@@peceed i mean that's fair, but as i said in the begining my intention wasn't direct comparision, but rather which program upgraded the base vehicle better, disregarding the time gap and differences in base tank
Honestly, after Syria and Ukraine, it's clear that tank armor is simply not good enough to protect this type of weapon from modern threats. You need advanced electronics and coordination with your infantry. So, that's not even a big deal. I think the worst attribute is it's reverse speed. We've seen so many situations in modern combat when tanks are forced to retreat and having 4 miles per hour speed just makes it into a death trap. BUT, it's still good - it's a super-cheap tank that third world militaries can buy in quantities and easily operate as a deterrent force i guess, since modern combat has been very unkind to all types of tanks.
Tanks get lost, that's been a thing since they first started rolling in ww1. You can't have a weapon thats supposed to be used as a breakthrough weapon and expect it not to get lost a lot. It's better to have tanks and lose them, than not having a tank and losing a bunch of infantry instead
The real problem is ISR and the sights. Infantry shouldn't be seeing a vehicle first and being given an opportunity to launch, but this is happening because visibility is poor. The reverse speed is also terrible. The ERA works, but coverage is incomplete.
I believe the signs were there a bit earlier imo. Merkavas being brewed up in Lebanon in 2006 despite being specifically designed for urban warfare, I dont think the Israelis have ever gotten over that (may be an outlier though since Hezbollah was well armed, extremely motivated and had been planning for that specific confrontation for years). Iraqi armoured units lost so many Abrams against ISIS they were forced to order several hundred more. Turkey recently losing a bunch of Leo 2's against the Kurds, and most famously, Saudi Arabia having Abrams destroyed by tent dwelling Houthis rebels in Yemen with missle armed drones.
It is highly improbable that any WWII rocket launcher would be able to penetrate T-72 or T-90 armor, even without ERA. I mean, multiple RPG hits are required just to immobilize a T-72, as evidenced in the Russian invasion of Georgia.
@@petrsukenik9266 No, actually from all sides, it takes at least 4 RPG hits, maybe 3 just to immobilize the tank if it's the firer's lucky day and the tank crew's bad day. Watch from 10:50 to 11:05: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Z0xUt9A1AXw.html
@@col.waltervonschonkopf69 The side armor of Russian tanks is only 70-80mm thick. The first bazooka, dead on and without side skirts would be able to go through the sides. Larger rocket launchers like the super bazooka or the panzerfaust / panzershreak would have little issue, even with the side skirts
@@ImBigFloppa Watch the relevant part of the video I have linked in the previous comment. I am not talking theory, I am just saying what actually happened. Plus, armor strength is always measured using Rolled Homogenous Armor equivalency (RHAe), not by the actual thickness of the armor.
@@ImBigFloppa Plus RPGs can only immobilize tanks, not even disable them, much less destroy them or kill the crew inside. Tanks are not called beasts of war for nothing.
You can see the bad fire control system when you watch the tank biathlon. Many teams can't hit targets at 1600, 1700 and 1800 meters. Their thermal imaging can see at around 3 Km. Western systems can see beyond 5 Km. We're not in the same league.
Stop with your lame excuses already. The problem is the tank. To be more exact, the lack of equipment on this tank. All crews have at least basic training, or they wouldn't even be in the tank in the first place. That's what the army does, it trains the soldiers to do what they are supposed to do. Incredible, I know right?... 🙄 Reliability is part of the tank's mechanics, so if you criticize the reliability then you are literally criticizing the tank itself. By the way, the reliability is not even the problem with this tank. The biggest flaws are the lack of an independent commander's thermal sight and of course Active Protection System (APS). If this tank had at least those features, then it would actually be a very good modern tank. But it doesn't...
I personally think the t72 is a great tank. Low profile, thick frontal armor, autoloader, and good speed. Let's not forget this tank is 40 years old. Aside from not having a storage compartment for the ammo, it is a well-rounded tank. 99% of the tanks have weak top turret/cupola armor. So ATGMs can destroy any new tank.
Anyone knowing anything about armor have never ever called the T-62 - T-72 a good tank. Its about numbers not quality. Its shit tanks better labled deathtraps.
Having watched and read a lot of accounts of tank warfare in Ukraine and elsewhere what I am going to say is that the exploding autoloader problem is massively exaggerated. Nobody would use a tank that could be defeated by kicking it angrily in relative terms. And there is more than enough footage out there of T6x, T7x, T8x, T9x tanks being hit hard repeatedly and either remaining in action or not detonating catastrophically. In combat footage it’s not at all uncommon to see a tank hit by three or more rockets or multiple shells and still keep on fighting effectively. The exploding Russian tank is a funny meme but it’s far from the rule in reality.
great content, sir. Just to help you a tiny bit: The correct pronunciation of "source" is roughly "sors". It rhymes with "force". It does NOT rhyme with the word "burns"
I think a lot of the issues with Russian tanks is the Soviets designed everything to be cheap before anything else. Trying to match NATO spending on an economy a fraction of the size does that So the core design is already cheap. 3 man tank with a giant autoloader carousel to make up the loader that merrily cooks off when hit and an old engine. OG T-72 relied on a lot of what was then brand new stuff for the USSR but it was behind the curve then and continued to be as the Soviets modernised it Now with modern Russia, this old hull gets given modernisation on the whims of rampant corruption and the fluctuations in oil price
Imagine the irony of spending so much effort to try to match your army equipment to the NATO opponents only to throw it all away in an invasion against a supposedly inferior opponent.
@@mrmacias4217 And losing to what is not even a NATO army, simply just one supplied with the bare minimum surplus of outdated NATO tech lmao. I cannot actually image what Russia vs NATO would even be like considering how badly they failed against a nation comprised still by 90% of older generation Russian equipment. Literally fighting a worse version of themselves with a few instances of old NATO equipment and suffering from higher losses on all fronts asides from civilian casualties XD
@4den Awww, Ruskie sad about how they lost 6x more troops in Afghanistan🥺plus 50,000+ dead in Ukraine??? US won in Iraq twice against a proper military and suffered less losses in Afghanistan over 20 years than Russia did in Chechnya to some angry extremists 🥺. Sounds like someone is just a bit sad about how they can't fight a single war without losing half their military and impoverishing their already poor country even more boohoo. Shed a tear Ivan, your military is a joke that only has a little bit of respect because 30 years ago your flag was all red. Let me offer you a McDonalds in these trying times as you drive to your leaky apartment in your 40 year old Lada whilst earning a pay of 500,000 monopoly rubles per hour yet not being able to afford stale bread the next day. Its telling that the US has a "retirement package" for vets because they actually live long enough to leave combat unlike the thousands of convict Z bois on the frontline with a noticeable lack of pulse 🥺. I would rather fly back home on a plane than be left on the side of the road by my "comrades" who have less medical training than a school nurse and are too busy running away from inferior numbers to worry about saving me. It certainly beats having your divine holy super ultra "democratically elected" supreme general admiral president Putin deny the fact that you even where sent to the front let alone had your entire squad slain just to keep the very few wealthy people in Russia satisfied that they never have to put down their vodka and pick up a gun. The US is by no means perfect but compared to Russia its heaven on earth for any person with an IQ above the average numbers of days each Ivan survives on the front, 5. Huff a bit more copium down for me will you, it will do you wonderfully 🥺.
@4den Lmao imagine if it was xD. You held it for less time and had more losses + only 3,744 planes where lost. Imagine trying to argue that you did better when you literally had 6x the deaths for less territory held over Afghanistan
Real problems for Russian tanks is not concealed in nitpicking the gen of their sights or millimeter wide gaps in their reactive armor, but rather a lack of infantry to provide good flank defense for advancing tanks and modern reconnaissance. All of these videos you’re pumping out are near irrelevant considering the lack of the aforementioned elements. Fun discussion for warthunder fans where it’s a vacuum with armor against armor, but in real warfare a t55am would outperform a leo7 if the former was used with proper recon and supporting infantry vs the latter if it was sent off to charge deep into enemy territory and lacking adequate support.
"proper recon and supporting infantry" All those are easy artillery targets that will get turned into mince meat the moment they leave their trenches. Infantry that follows armor tends to die very quickly.
@@Frenchfrys17 except the Leo 2 in the example is doing what we call a Russian. Going in with little to no support. Artillery is not in this scenario. The point was that even older tanks can outperform newer tanks if supported well.
One of the biggest selling points for the CV90 when it came was the advanced gearbox. Things like that do sell armored vehicles in the west, the CV90 would not be a sales success of the initial older style gearbox had made it past the prototype stage.
T-72B3 is a good enough solution, when you have thousands of leftover from Soviet times. Sure, it's not up to nato standards, but it's decent enough to give them a fighting chance.
Clearly it doesnt give them fighting chance... These junks cant even handle the heat of Ukraine. Against nato tanks they would be nothing but target practice.
i think the biggest failure is the russian have not used these tanks designed the way they were meant to be used, mass tank frontal charges across a widefront .
@@robertkalinic335 true, its soo dumb at this point cuse no one else is treating it like some incursion, everyone sees it as all out war, idk wth is up with russian leadership but this is probably the most incompetence ever seen today.
After pulverising every airfield, barracks, port, HQ, supply hub, etc with several hundred tactical nukes in a big pulse then driving said tanks through the radioactive hell is how they were designed to fit in. Those days are long gone.
I mean really, Russia should have invested far more into air and truck logistics capability rather than big flashy stuff like 5th gen stealth fighters and T14 armata tanks. They would be in a far better position if they had just focused on supply and logistics. then the T72 B3 would probably have been just fine if they actually had the capability to keep them fueled and keep the bullets flowing.
@Работаем, брат! russia has good logistics near the border due to its extensive train systems. But they are sorely lacking in military trucks and utility vehicles. The US alone invests heavily in maintaining a huge fleet of trucks and humvees.
@Работаем, брат! my brother in Christ the US managed to launch a larger air and land operation in Iraq during desert storm. That's halfway across the globe. They managed to ship a mobile Burger King to Afghanistan while Russian soldiers had to make do with expired MREs. If there's one thing the US really loves to do is logistics. Why do you think they like palletized cargo so much?
@Работаем, брат! lmao No. The Burger king mobile truck was as recent as fucking Afghanistan. There's at least 100K of the new Oshkosh trucks alone. Not to mention the various specialized logistics vehicles. Fuck they can build foward operating bases with complete facilities anywhere from the desert to the fucking mountains. You could even say they got even better with logistics now that they have divested of obsolete equipment and are fielding standardized vehicles
Obviously T72B3 is just a cheap upgrade package, compared to T90M. T72B3 is not bad, its just old and it needs a new tank to replace it. T90M is the near to ultimate evolution of the T72 series and so it has come to the end of its potential. Hopefully Russia can finally sort that 100% domestic production for their T14 armata and can start to push them out.
Very good video. I agree that the T-72 is definitely an outdated tank, no matter how many cheap upgrades the Russians slapped onto it. However, I think it's also worth noting that Russia's myriad of other problems probably make the T-72 look worse than it actually is. Also, reverse speed is very important for 'berm drills'. This is where a tank parks behind a berm (or other form of concealment/cover such as a corner). The tank moves forward, exposing itself briefly to fire, then quickly reverses to protect itself from return fire. This is trained endlessly in US units and is the central feature to annual gunnery exercises for NATO armored forces and is practiced by all motorized units, including Humvee crews. It's basically the art of shooting the enemy without getting shot yourself, which is obviously a pretty valuable skill for war since getting shot has a way of ruining your day (all the more so when you're in a lightly armored, bomb-on-tracks). Back to my point on Russia's other issues though. Russia has issues with outdated doctrine, poor coordination between arms, poor training and poor morale, not to mention their obvious issues with logistics. The top-down nature of the Russian command structure, where units have to wait for orders for damn near everything means that Russian armor has been caught sitting still on many occasions. Simply put, Russian formations often stall because of either lack of supply, lack of orders or lack of navigation systems and these stationary formations have been preyed upon by Ukrainian drones and artillery. Interestingly, this is basically the antithesis of how the T-72 (and T-80/T-90 for that matter) should be used. These are lighter weight, mobile tanks that should be used for rapid, free-wheeling armored attacks. They aren't like the Abrams which can absorb plenty of damage. They were meant to overwhelm enemies in rapid armored maneuvers using mobility and numbers, so taking away their mobility essentially negates one of their advantages.
If Russia was that bad, why won't NATO do a full frontal attack? As if NATO that lost all wars against goat herders was the gold standard in military matters ))) Having had NATO as a customer I can tell you, besides a few smart people there, they are a paper tiger full of woke crap.
@Работаем, брат! I find it ironic that Russians are calling Ukrainians "Nazis" when it's Russia acting like "Nazis".... unprovoked invasion of a neighbor country, torture, murder and suppression of civilians, destruction of civilian property and infrastructure.....and claiming it's for the good.....sounds exactly like 1942 to me.....just this time around it's Russia that are the "Nazis"
I slightly disagree with the conclusion. I think the T-72B3 is an excellent tank... For the platform and for the money. That they were able to extract as much performance out of a 50 year old platform is phenomenal. Even the armour behind the Era is not that bad. I think the platform as a whole could be better. Like covering the gaps in ERA, redesigning the mantlet to remove the massive vulnerability and the B4 suit of upgrades. And I thibk corruption had a role to play in the downsides of the platform. But heck, it is better than a T-90A. The thermal imager alone is a capability shift that older models of tanks (Like the T80Bs) don't have.
@@Ukraineaissance2014 yes. And for the price of 1 M1A2 SEP 3, you can get 10 T-72B3Ms. Not saying the T72 is a better tank. Not even the Russians claim that. What I said was that the increased performance over the original design is impressive. Especially for this cheap. It is one of my favourite tanks despite all its flaws.
>The thermal imager alone is a capability shift that older models of tanks (Like the T80Bs) don't have. what are you trying to prove here, the T-80B is a tank from the 80s, at which point significant amount of NATO tanks were equipped with thermal sights, but the only Soviet tanks with thermals were tanks such as the T-80UK which were very rare indeed
Not all tanks that got hit in the Ukrainian invasion got blown up. Just saw a T-80 get hit in the turret side killing the commander or the gunner but sparing the driver and the other crew that survived in the turret.
I dont think Russian tanks are shitty, Ukranian tanks are even shitier but they seem to use them better. Lets look at Japanese ww2 tanks, on paper they are 0, but in practice they perform blitzkrieg. Beign only outperformed when facing M4 Sherman
Okay, interesting! I like your remarks, they are very on point. I also believe that the ammunition carrusel, while seeming a good idea, seems to really be a big flaw of thoses russians tanks... A separation of the ammunition in special compartiment (as in the M1 Abraham) would seems to avoid so many explosion/one shot of the tanks, and would increase survivability by a lot... just my 2 cents... Also I wonder how the M1 abraham would fair in thoses kind of situations? Or a damage analysis of the M1 Abraham? a comparison of the survivability?
No modern tank would survive in the conditions that Russians are taking them into. They all lack sufficient side & rear armor to be able to sustain repeated fire from portable anti-tank weapons. Russian tactics seemed to have forgotten the screening infantry and just cruise ahead into danger. While the M1A2 or Leopard 2A5+ would be a better tank to use, it wouldn't have made a huge difference in seemingly most cases in this war. They're just "doing it wrong".
Not gonna lie, the tank that the Russians are using rn doesn't actually matter. Even if they had SEPV3 Abrams, or leopard 2a7s, they'd still be losing armor hand over fist. Unsupported armor never works
@@PAcifisti 2 point on that: 1: i agree with you. Also a war on that scale with no loss? No way. But does the damage HAD to be THAT high? I think the carusel was a BIG weak point, with those "flying turrets"... 2: Does russia have a manpad javelin-like?? Never heard of it. I think it would be more tank on tank combat?
@@danteinouye6098 while that is true to a certain extent, at the very least American and NATO tank crews wouldn't be dying anywhere near as much as Russian tank crews are considering that crew survivability is prioritized above all else. Tanks are ultimately expendable assets that can eventually be replaced whereas trained and experienced tank crews, by contrast, are nigh irreplaceable. No way in Hell is a Russian tank crew gonna survive in a T-72B3 MBT, T-80BVM MBT or even a T-90M MBT should a catastrophic explosion occur.
The fact that the ERA doesnt reach up to the top of the upper front hull plate, which is literally the exact center mass of the tank, where enemy tankers are trained to fire, center mass, is really quite funny
I don't know everything about tanks, but I think the biggest flaw was their strategy, lack of experience and training, and logistics. Experience: From what I understand, the closest to combat they've had in the past few years was Tank Triathlons and the time they tried to invade Iraq or Iran (don't remember.) Training: Judging by the fact that they are going straight into urban areas without clearing and checking them with troops, they lack proper training for tankery. Logistics: Fuel was one of the biggest downfalls of the war. Now this is just a interpretation of a child who likes tanks. I don't know how everything works, but just wanted my opinion out there.
What is kinda interessting after the Ukraine Invasion is that you can see the significance of a autoloader and how BAD it is actually in terms of protection. It was always more of a side concern back thanwhen the Russian tanks were in comparison with the NATO once. From all that Images and and videos you can see more than 50% of the tanks with a blown off turret which means complete desaster for the crew and the general task of a armored vehicle which was build to protect its tankers and not vaporize them. Even back in WW2 that chance of surviveing inside of a tank is higher than it is in one of this russian shitboxes. Which is ki nda wired honestly. Safety should get better and not worse. Looking at the next gen tanks, i think many countrys are going to reconsider an autoloader or gonna figure out how to make it somewhat excaptable.
Not necessarily, piece of shit turret sometimes takes a few minutes to blow. I have seen crew escape/or partial crew before piece of crap goes ballistic.
Dude, this has nothing to do with autoloader, Leopards and Challengers also store ammo right next to the crew, and the only Leopards that were destroyed in Syria had ripped off turrets and ripped apart hulls. The only NATO tank that has ammo separated from the crew is Abrams, the rest have at least half of ammo stored right next to the driver, which is no better that storage of T-72. And of course modern tanks blow up better than WW2 ones, have you seen the ammo size of them?
Catastrophic ammunition explosions have *nothing to do with the autoloader*. The Leopard 2A4's that were lost to Konkurs in Syria had their turrets blown off and hulls ripped apart in exactly the same manner as the Russian tanks in Ukraine. The Challenger 2 would suffer the same fate. The Leclerc and the K2 Black Panther have autoloaders with separate ammo compartments and blow out panels just like the M1 Abrams. Autoloader is NOT A FACTOR.
The most important thing is you body won't ask if it got hit by an relic T62 or a T14, you LL just die the same. So it's obvious that Russia wouldn't scrap all those old tanks. And beeing an autocracy (nothing against it) is certainly easier to handle military loses, Demoncracy in other hand have far higer operation costs and a loss of a 1k soldiers already causes population protests.
Automatic targeting has bin in most tanks since the 80,s Abrams tank and leopard tanks can target 10 or more tanks at once and send targets to other tanks in NATO 🇺🇲🇺🇦🇨🇦👍🏼🤠
When installing a panoramic sight on a T-72B3 tank, its cost increases by 1.5 times, unfortunately, the Russian military leadership believes that it is better to buy more tanks. In fact, there are modifications of the T-72 with such a sight, these are T-72B1 M S tanks that were delivered to Serbia and Laos.
Regarding the reverse speed, shouldnt they be able to just change the gearbox? It doesnt seem like such a challenge to change the gear ratio of the gearbox when reversing
So given the poor performance of all the Russian vehicles, in another 80 years, when people look back on this war, will they view the Russian gear the same as we view things like the Tiger and German tanks now? Cuz the T-72 was on the losing side, it had to be a piece of shit? I mean, not that I dont think it isnt a piece of shit now....but still..
@@bluephoenixplays9824 Honestly, I cant tell whose winning that war. Some times its, Ukraine made great head way!! and its all< Russia is retreating and Ukraine is on their border!! Others its Russia stuffed teh Ukrainians and they took severe casualties. Soooo, yeah. Granted, im not keeping a super close eye on it either......
@@tackytrooper thats only on one front (Kharkov where Russians were outnumbered 5 to 1) but other fronts like the Kherson or Donetsk, Russian artillery are destroying Ukros
@@bluephoenixplays9824 Well the problem is Ukraine just has a lot more men to lose, hence why the Russians are literally forced to resort to overwhelming fires. Foreign legion fighters frequently mention that Russian troops tend to give ground if pressed, because they are heavily outnumbered.
There might be a slight difference between effectively entirely rebuilt tank (New armor, new sights, new larger gun and countless other things) and one that has gotten a new sight bolted on to it with some ERA blocks with a bit better ammo available for it.
