@@agoodpfplayer232its… It’s almost… It’s almost like… That’s how weapons technology works Thing is built Counter-thing is built to counter thing, assuming both things follow similar design principles, the counter-thing is the better design
wikipedia sources say centurion mk3 in 1952 cost $1,734,336.80 USD today (production cost) https :// api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1952/mar/10/centurion-tank-cost can't find a satisfying source for the t72 the centurion may have been more expensive than t72 to produce and buy because labour was probably cheaper is USSR, far more t72s got produced and Centurion mk3 just weighs 10 tons more i will also say i don't think this video is completely accurate but it was still fun to watch
Well, 30 years of rapid technological development. It’s like being confused at how a Mercedes S class from the 90’s is more expensive than a modern day Corolla.
@@johnclay2716 Could be the mod in Skyrim, it's like war thunder and Skyrim mixed together😂 I laughed the first time I saw that mod it's a weird but perfect combination because their was a race of dwemer in Skyrim that disappeared long a go and had the best technology at the time and if they were still around during Skyrim timeline then tanks, guns, jets naval ships would be a normal thing if the dwemer didn't disappear.
It'd be awesome to see similar videos on the leopard, t62, t64, m60, etc. I love hearing about tank development during the cold war, one of the only times and areas where the soviets were competitive with the west
Eh it rumor similar to the rumor we acquire t-72 from Poland 😂if you think about it logical , the deal made no sense as Vietnam already own 1000+ t54-55- type 59 why acquire 50 more t54/55 for ?
If anything, the order would be, Leopard 2, then T-72, then M60, then T-55 and then Centurion. Depending on the Leopard 2, the T-72 might be even better
@@TheOneAndOnlyRec The British army retained the Centurion in wide service up until the 1980s. While it stayed in production until 1960. The T-72 was introduced in the early 70s, so I think the Centurion is cheaper.
@GermansRuinedWT The M60 had little to no armour yes, in firing range it was very simmilar to the T-55AMD and T-72, in fact they had better range when using ATGMs If you mean fire control system, the T-72 had automatic lead for its ballistic computer, the M60 did not, which is normal since the M60 is older
Sorry for this yapping but i just... 3:55 So umm the fuel tank protects the crew when the fuel explodes. also t44-122 had a 122mm not a 125mm from the is2 it had a 122mm. The name of the t55's engine beeing a v55 is nothing unusual. Tank's can have same numbers/names on different stuff. Like the M1 syndrome with american's (m1 abrams,m1 grand,m1 tompson,m1 howitzer,m1 everything. Wood laminate nera would be effective against old RPG-5's but not rpg-7's and newer ones. About the romanian t-55 the tr85m would be cool to see a video on. If you would be looking for some help with research on other tanks ive got some people in my wt squadron who know a lot of irl stuff aswell. Ive got a lot of books and i can cook some stuff up if needed :).
@@user-gu8qi4me8x I was a bit confused that no one else fixed it, I searched for 2 minutes and couldn't find it, it was semi noticble so it was a bit confusing
Bro You forget about Indian ,Pakistani , Bangladeshi and Tanzanian T-55 derived tanks . India upgraded their T-55 "Gulmogar" by adding a licensed 105mm L7 Gun from Vijayanta MBT , which itself was a licensed Vickers MK 1 Tank . Later they repurposed that tank for Mine plowing. There were also plans to integrate an Arjun MBT hull on T-55 chassis . But that never happened. Pakistan on the Other hand modified their Type-59s with Chinese Help , gave it a more robust suspension to be able to bear the weight of 125mm Smoothbore cannon , and then made a new welded Turret for their Type-59 modified versions with 125mm smoothbore cannon altogether and called it as Al Zarrar MBT. Bangladesh and Tanzania also followed the same suit with their Type-59s by converting them to Type-59 BD Durjoy and Type-59G standards , all armed with 125mm Smoothbore cannon , new suspensions and New Laser Rangefinders.
INTERESTING NOTE! At 4:08 the tank is in Syria and it’s ammo box exploded, NOTICE someone was shot up and out of the commander’s hatch and lands just to the left side of the tank, you can see him start to get up before the video cuts, his clothes are hanging off of him and he is likely badly burned.
They arent using them as MBTs, they are using them more as mobile artillery (they prob found some old soviet cache of 100mm HE rounds and decided to fire them at the ukrainians becouse why not). They even put tons of explosives in one of them, put a brick on the gas pedal and just sent it to the ukrainian trenches.
@@quan-uo5ws They literally used them as MBTs a week ago. Direct assault. Not even as a VBIED. Just frontal assault T-54/55 that then got abandoned and destroyed. Russian military correspondents like milinfo literally complained about how they have to use T-55s as MBTs. Look up the Russian attack near Robotyne on the 17th of February (footage got published largely on the day afterwards).
@@bruhwhat5485i doubt russians are complaining about the T55s considering they have like 15 of them.... compared to thousands of T-72s. besides, how do you know exactly how a certain tank was used based on a video that just shows a drone blowing up an abandoned tank? (legit question btw, its very hard to make conclusions when 90% of footage from the front is just heavily edited propaganda footage from both sides that doesnt tell us anything)
* (8:29) The 115mm was not worse than the 100mm and it had similar performance to the early versions of the German 120mm. It was also easier to load due to the casing design of the ammo and breech design of the gun.
When the T-62 was being designed the D-54T 100mm gun on the Object 430 could pen around 350mm with the 3BM8 APDS with WC penetrator while the new 115mm could only pen 250mm with the steel penetrator. All improvements that made the 115 eventually better than the D-54T came after the fact.
@@TheDoctorMD I can't find any data on the 3bm8 on the D-54T. What penetrator are you talking about on the 115mm? Because the early ones (3BM3) had 270mm at 2km. Also, raw penetration was not the only thing considered when both guns were tested, trajectory arch, fire sustainability and performance against future threats were also taken into account.
@@TheDoctorMD the U-5TS is simply a D-54TS with the rifling removed, everything else is identical. The idea that the U-5TS was adopted because Its bigger than the 105mm is also wrong. The U-5TS was chosen because they wanted a higher performance smoothbore gun. After the T-12 was declared not fit for mounting on a tanks because of the size of the casings, the U-5TS was created from the D-54TS. Any tank mounting the D-54TS could mount the U-5TS, such as the object 165 to object 166 since only the gun barrel is different. The U-5TS was issued with adapted T-12 ammunition which was better in performance to what the D-54 could use at the time. You also mention 3BM8 which has a penetration of 300mm at 0° at 2km while 3bm3 has 270mm at 0° at 2km. So the difference is performance is minimal. What must also be remembered is that the 3BM8 entered service in 1967 altrough a very similair round was being developed for the D-54. Aswell as all the other advantages the U-5TS brought with Its APFSDS such as higher power and muzzle velocity.
Bro diesel is combustible it has a higher flash point than gasoline but it can combust and yes that was the joke that when the engine goes boom from a heat round it sets off the rounds
The British did testing with fuel tanks as armor in a thin armored compartment and found that when full there was no risk of explosion and had massive effect on the performance of shaped charges. When nearly empty, below the UEL and an explosion did occur, the force wasn't enough to to detonate the tank let alone the vehicle as it instantly used up all of its available air. Tbf the walls of those british fuel tanks were significantly thicker, about 1.5" of steel. The only other argument I've seen against this is the effect of hydrostatic shock.
Okay we gonna have to fact check of the T-72Ms were cheaper than the Centurions because that sounds goofy asf. 1:38 You mean 122mm, there was no 125mm gun until APFSDS was a common shell in service… There are too many mistakes lol. 4:58 3BM8 subcaliber was a good bit larger than the APCR. So that was incorrect. 12:02 T-55. T-55 Enigmas armor was effective against HEAT charges… It was effective enough to somewhat stop the Milan, and RPGs. It was effective for its purpose. To say otherwise is to ignore the reality. It didn’t stop APFSDS which it wasn’t meant to.
want to hear more about the m60 and its shit ton of variants, aaand the Kingtiger... heard it was or still in service as a heavy recovery tracked vehicle
For an startup African Warlord T-55 is a best real option. It is much better than nothing, and easy to learn how to handle. West's overpriced garbage looks better on parades, but the price of mandatory ass-licking are too much for any self respecting dictator. Also, admiral-general, why need to pay up to 100 times more for every vehicle just to have features your soldiers don't even know how to use. T-55 can be found by as much as 30k$ at some places in your beautiful continent.
