The Chieftain vs. the T-72 - Legends of the Cold War 

T-72 armor was crap & chieftain was much better.

​@@paullakowski2509do you even know anything about the t-72 armor?

@@paullakowski2509 So how come Chieftain is gone with obsolescence while the T72 is knocking out Leopard 2 today?

@@rightiswrongrightiswrong806 Chieftain is an obsolescent tank that was replaced tank that was replaced by a better one. T-72 is an obsolescent tank forced to continue work despite its obsolescence. Can it knock out a Leopard II sure that doesn't make it a one-to-one equal or even on par. A Leopard I can kill a T-72 if it gets the drop on it.

@@elvanallen8832 t-72b uses NERA just like leopard 2, and this is the reason chieftain is gone, I had simple steel base Armor.

well then it is only important to talk about the latest versions of Russian tanks, as earlier ones lack thermals for commander and were noticeably lower quality. But The latest iteration T-72B and T-90 can truly hold their own with sights for both that are made within Russia

His representation of the "poor training, poor morale and poor leadership" of the russian army is reeking with bias and misinformation, which sadly is the norm in Europe and the US. But luckily for those of us who want the unvarnished truth, such claims never hold up to scrutiny. Those claims are just part of a propaganda effort by our media, burying the uncomfortable truth, and pushing a narrative that suits our NATO leader´s agenda. If anyone follows the conflict closely, and seeks information from both camps, you would immediately notice that those claims fall by the way side. If the russians were doing so poorly as the media suggests, and taking such "horrific" casualties, why haven´t they conducted full mobilizations? Meanwhile, Ukraine has conducted 15 rounds of mobilization!! Countless videos of people being snatched off the streets and sent to fight at gunpoint are all over the internet! And when you start to account for just how many pieces of heavy weapons were sent by NATO to Ukraine, reaching well into +10k, including tanks, APCs, IFVs, SPGs, MRAPs, M777, and the numerous aircraft, what happened to it all?? It turns out, we are being lied to, and the russians are doing much better than our leaders dare to admit. The training NATO gave has been close to useless, and the russians haven´t lost nearly as many T-72 as we were led to believe. Their crews aren´t "poorly trained and have poor morale". As Wally, the so called "super sniper" from Canada has admitted, they were being sniped by the T-72 from 8 to 10km away. That is not the work of poorly trained crews, is it?

This. ☝

This.

I personally prefer if there were no more Chieftains/BZ 176 added to the game. Even if that means, that i won't be able to play one.

@@Quickshares BZ was buyable so it doesn't count, the chief is needed to be at maximum competitiveness for clan wars as well so i have used my time and skill to unlock 260 and 279 but i'm still gimped because WG is gatekeeping the chief from me. It used to be available often before but now they do artificial scarcity once they realized it's a requirement for CW.

@@Brujah-zl5ym I can't really speak about CW, because I am somewhat of a new player. But I would REALLY not want to see more chieftains in random battles. In an ideal world.. both the Chief and BZ176 would get nerfed, so it wouldn't really matter that you don't have the Chief for CW. For me personally,having a tank to be that much better than anything else is a major design flaw of the competitive scene of this game.

Yes and Chieftain was a failure in Iran Iraq war

​@@livingroomtheatre174crews ran away leaving the engines running,not the tanks fault.Kuwaitis used Cheiftains well,only losing the fight when they ran out of ammo

@@stevenbreach2561 Chieftain was a failure that is why Britain realised this quickly and switched onto Challenger series. Chieftain was pathetic in terms of power to weight ratio and hence it was slow. It saw frequent breakdowns. It was just like Jagdtiger in ww2

Fun fact also Chieftain also actually been destroyed T62 in that war

@@stevenbreach2561 It was a particularly bloody 10 year war and the iranians were suffering greatly from a lack of spare parts due to the arms embargo against them by western powers. Iraq on the other hand was given lots of equipment primarily by the USA (through third parties), so it wasn't an even situation. Had the iranians just run away, the war wouldn't have lasted for as long as it did, nor would it have ended in a stalemate.

America lost the gulf War. Failed basrah uprising too.

I was hoping for that too. The Iranians lost huge amounts of chieftains destroyed and captured by the Iraqis. The engines didn’t like the desert heat and t62s had no problem penning the chieftain

​@@tristenthomas7352both sides said the T72 was the best tank of the war

it works , that's all that mattered.

T72 hull has more armor that the cheiftans

Those Cold War documents are highly classified. 🤠-Ser_Remseldorf

likely only played wot and only know physical thickness and not rha 😂

The T-72’s carousel is actually not that high up - it doesn’t go far above the turret ring, and there’s plenty of stuff in the low-profile hull to stop enemy shots from hitting the ready rounds there. The bigger problem is the extra 20-ish rounds stowed all over the turret and hull in much more vulnerable positions. Ukrainian T-72 crews tend to carry only the 21 rounds in the autoloader and they noticed that it made the tank much less susceptible to ammunition fires. Of course the problem is that the tank runs out of ammo much faster but it’s not such a big deal with the way the war is being fought over there (i.e. tanks making short sorties to support infantry attacks before returning to rearm and refuel).

Тоже в ахуе

The British sold a modified version called the Shiran 1 ( I think ) to Iran, which had a better engine. Technically not a Cheftain but basically is

Иди докажи это в Украине, где их сотнями щелкают по кд)))) Чет ваш хлам там не смог. Чем же там был бы Чифтэн хуже?))) Особенно если бы его обновляли по стандартам))) Он бы вскрывал ваши банки по кд из 120+СУО новые и прицелы.

yep Tier 11-12 the Chieftain no place in wot where tier10 max. Can make easy Tier10+ lot of vehicle can choose

​@@user-vd3tx2pm5rChieftain Mk. 6 (has big cupola and very thin side armor) is a tier X heavy tank on WoT console and its not OP like T95/FV4201 Chieftain on PC, just a good tier X heavy tank. I believe its also added on chinese PC server

Original t62 116mm gun

@@taniotanev7942 never heard of 116mm. I know that T-62 has 115mm smoothborecanon

Man this always been my question since i started playing this game 10 years ago. I mean nowhere in the world except for museums you could see a T-62 with that 100mm gun while they have this very limited series tank in the game instead of normal T-62 with the 115mm smoothbore gun. I no longer play this but i still wonder why don't they add a proper T-62.

started in 83 🙂

I was Junior leader from 82 to 83.. Bovington

@@dragoondf1 What Regiment did you go to ? 🙂

QDG..

So can it defeat a Challanger 2?

They wouldn't, most nato planning revolved around the front line being slaughtered then using nukes before the soviets.

@@torlekjpec5708 Fact free nonsense. The front line was expected to slow the Russofascist advance long enough for reinforcements to be deployed & at all times, NATO air power was significantly superior to the Russofascists.

@@GARDENER42 "Russofascist" You're aware they sacrificed 25M people to fight against that very fascism a few decades prior ? Kids these days throwing buzzwords here and there not having a clue about what they mean. NATO airpower is superior yes, this is precisely why Soviet/Russian air-defence is vastly superior. And we saw how efficient that can be in Ukraine. Ukraine had very few air defence systems, and yet the entire Russian airforce was pinned to the ground until Ukraine ran out of missiles.

@@Niitroxyde You're aware they were ALLIED to the Nazis for almost two years & prior to that, aided Germany in the secret training of the Luftwaffe & Wehrmacht between 1922 & 1933? Are you denying Putin is a dictator & his regime an oppressive, nationalist, authoritarian, militarist one? Kids? Stupid thing to say, as I'm in my 60s & spent a third of my life serving in the RAF. Ukraine hasn't run out of missiles, as demonstrated by RussoFASCIST aircraft staying away from unoccupied Ukraine.

"Hull down turret down" would have been a force multiplier with Still Brew armor and the CHieftains high rate of fire with APFSDS rounds.

what T34? amerika or mean russia T-34

@@user-vd3tx2pm5r do the two prototypes still exist?

@@teamidris 100% not working but it was put in some museum

Don't forget that the chieftain also stacked t-62 and t-72 urals during the war as well

@@terrynewsome6698 No they didn't show me in the literature, the Chieftain was a failure, also the Kuwaitis lied none of their claims could be confirmed because they were literally made up.

Cheiftains used APFSDS in the late 70s like most countries. T-62 had hardly more armor than the T-55 so it would definetly not "bounce off"

​@@saltzkruber732apfsds for chieftain rifled guns was developed only in the 80s. So chieftain mk 1-5 would not have penetrated t62. apfsds began to be used on chieftains only during the Gulf War

Because for political reasons the United Kingdom government banned Cheiftain sales to Israel...allegedly the Israeli miltary was quite keen on the Cheftain and withheld the recommendations that they garnered from the 2 test tanks they received in revenge

The british never sold the chieftain to he Israelis, instead they sold it to iraq or Palestine I forgot

@@socialistpastries.stooby No, to neither.

@@socialistpastries.stooby the British supplied 2 Cheftain tanks to Israel for trails and a purchase was on the horizon unfortunately the incumbent UK government at the time vetoed the deal for political reasons an improved varient of the Cheftain known as the Khalid was later supplied to Iran and used during the Iran/Iraq war

Согласен, красивый, хоть и не очень удачный

That is because the Cheftain was not designed to fight in the middle East but instead Mainland Europe.

@@CenturionMkXIII It is underpowered and everyone knows it. By the way, other tanks do well in the Middle East.

125mm BM 12/15 steel APFSDS can cut through 12"@ 2km range Chieftains Glacis was 5"@ 75o = ~ 16" armor. Turret armor was listed at 395mm = 15.5" armor.

They sent Challengers and Abrams, none of them have made it past the first day of combat.

😂 how is second year of your 3 day war going... ​@@rightiswrongrightiswrong806

На уж показали себя на поле боя Т72. уже в ход пошли Т55........ скоро и Т34 поедут

@@DCVibeEntertainment для танка 70-х годов он вполне эффективен. т72 есть на вооружение как российской, так и украинской армии.

Чиф просто быстро устарел с появлением Т-64 и 72, у которых уже была комбинированная броня и автомат заряжания. Двигателя были одинаковой мощности, но для советских танков и таких хватало, а Чиф со своей массой просто ползал. А к тому моменту пока они научились делать мощные двигателя оказалось что проще сделать новый танк, а не пихать его в старый Чифтен

Wouldn’t that make the T-72 heavier and therefore slower?

Bruh you’re talking shite.

​@@user-fi8uc9gb2tunfortunately for u, nope. Interior space is sacrificed for armor

@@kienngo4601 The Chieftains weighed around 55 tons and the early T-72s around 41 tons. I know increasing armour thickness isn’t the only thing you can do to improve the armour but a 14 ton difference is quite a big difference wouldn’t you say?

@@user-fi8uc9gb2t well. Go wiki and search T72 frontal protection and chieftain frontal protection. T72 is far more superior. Thats no doubt. Even the noncomposite UFP Iraq T72 did better than chieftain Infact, all soviet tank before 80-90 r some what better than their counter part.

No it can’t, the T-72 would absolutely wreck a chieftain with its eyes closed

With an NVA Crew in the T72 opposite, the Crew of the Chieftain would have the same Experiences that their Grandfathers had in Dunkirk.

late versions carry armour protection around the carousel in T72-B and T-90M, ignition is a lot less likely even from mines

@@z_actual Doesn't seem to be working for Ruzzia in Ukraine...

@@GARDENER42 ukrainian tanks suffer from the same problem, in fact its even worse for them, then also, both leopard 2 and challenger 2 have popped a turret, its not just a russian problem, its a problem for nearly every tank on earth

@@Xilley1 Only one Challenger has been lost & it didn't pop its turret. Nor has any Leo2, as both use wet stowage for their ammunition, unlike the open stowage, carousel system in Russian tanks.

@@GARDENER42 and yet, a leopard 2 has been destroyed in syria, its turret laying well infront of the tank, with the entire thing being burned out, lots of pictures of it online look it up, the challenger two that got destroyed had its turret displaced, indicating an ammo cook off.

Not an issue with "modern" (70s) FCSs

The AMX 30 uses an autoloader and keeps the ammo in a blowout panel

Nah, russians lost 40000000000 tank…😂🙈 Wake up…

How is that a disadvantage? The fire control system brings the gun back down after loading. And if you haven't happened to notice, the Leopard 2 does the exact same thing to ease loading.

Lol the only reason the t72 is still in service is because the nations where it is still in service with can't afford to upgrade to a more modern tank. 😂 that is the only answer.

@@noke258 What you say is partly true, but, even when new, a Chieftain was a ridiculously resource-hungry tank to keep it operational. The T-72 (by tank standards) was designed to be low-maintenance and incredibly reliable... The Chieftain was neither of these things. That's another reason why Chieftains are no longer in service anywhere. As seen in current events in Ukraine (if you look at the reports from the few independent reporters who are trying to cover events on the frontline) Russian stuff just works, and continues to keep working - it's designed to do a job. Russian defence technology isn't always the most sophisticated but it works very well. Some Russian hardware is vastly more technologically advanced than NATO has.... If you look at the HiMars and artillery pieces that NATO has sent the Ukraine (the few bits that didn't go straight on the black market) even Ukrainian commanders have said that the NATO equipment needs so much downtime after heavy use and needs constant maintenance, but the Russian equivalents don't - they just keep on working even under heavy use/battlefield conditions.

Because Russia is poor

@@grantchallinor5263 Putin just went to North Korea with a begging bowl.

Lol didnt you watch the video? What a funny thing to say😂

@@noke258 compare the frontal armor of tanks and the power of guns. a professional Russian crew will smash your trough into splinters! 120 mm Chieftain vs 500mm combined armor T-72? Are you a clown?

The T72s are proving to be junk pieces of metal. Everything in its brother is blowing them up without much of an issue and the tops pop so easily that I wouldn't even call it a tank.

​@@mrg09211976t 72 was a nasty tank for its time. It's old compared to the tech it's fighting. Also remember that in war there is cloudy info.

@@mrg09211976 Since about 3 months after the start of the Ukraine conflict, you almost never see video of T-72's losing their turrets. The Russians made some modifications to lower the ammo carousel somehow and there was another modification to the loadout configuration that has mostly eliminated the ammo cookoff. The fact that the UK has now insisted that their Challenger not be used in the frontlines andd the fact that the Americans are dragging their feet about sending Abrams to the battle shows how potent the T-72 tank still is.

@@shawncollver8686 There are corpses of it all over the world blown up by people on horse back and camels. It never really met anything with armor until recently and it couldn't even handle a little mud.

@@ramrod9556 funny, they have Challengers are on the front line right now, and it takes time to approve sending Abrams anywhere since they are not approved for export. The Abrams has been eating up Russian equipment with ZERO issues for the last 20+ years with ZERO losses. You see the turrets popping even today, less often of course as they are running out of tanks to get blown up and are starting to field the older t54s.

Maybe but the kill with the Challanger is likely alot better Recorded so it accepted by most people.

IFV isn't a tank, its an infantry fighting vehicle, armoured yes, tank armoured, no where near.

@@tonyb1223 I think the relevant point here is the hit, not necessarily the kill. The kill is a matter of ammunition/enemy protection. And to kill you must first hit anyway. Besides, a Bradley is a smaller vehicle making it even more impressive of a hit. (if it's true)

@@Niitroxyde The T90M probably fired a wire guided missile, not quite the same as a APFSDS round fired at a dug in, hull down T-55 though 😉 and that makes for a more impressive kill due to the gunner doing all the work as a fire and forget rather than a fire and guide 😁

@@tonyb1223 If the range he provided is correct then there's no way it's an gun-launched missile, the T-90M fires the Svir or Refleks and none have this kind of range.

@@Niitroxyde Sokol-1? Indirect fire upto 12km. Should be from a T-80 rather than a T-90M as reported by some Russian news agency.

Судя по твоей аве, ты из мосонодиванных войск пригожней бото-пивной бригады.

See Iran Iraq war which showed how horrible was the chieftain. Engine failure was major problem.

​@livingroomtheatre174 apart from the engine the gun.and armour was superior to the t72

@@davidbridge5652 Not really. It observed frequent breakdowns. It has pathetic power to weight ratio. Britain realised this quickly and switched to Challenger series. Speed (and engine) is one of the most important aspects. You missed this crucial part. Germany lost in WW2 just because of this problem (unreliable and maintenance hungry). Even Germans had awesome Armour and awesome guns on their tanks.

@livingroomtheatre174 yes I understand the engine part however as I said the gun and armour where better. That's the same as saying the likes of the panther and tiger weren't good tanks as they were unreliable.

@@davidbridge5652 Yes. But Panther did improve after the Ausf-G. Final drive problem got resolved in Panther (Reference - Henry Doyle). Panther was indeed a fantastic tank. Tiger-I, Tiger-II were pathetic