What Russia should do with their T-72 tanks. T-72B2 Rogatka 

Ok cool dude

I'm curious is there a type of round made so it's easier to capture the enemy vehicle insteadof outright destroy it ? I might sound stupid but wouldn't it make sense to make something like that

@@rancor6858 nah there isnt such thing if u are talking irl. Also there isnt in war thunder since it only has irl rounds in it. And its kinda dumb idea. They ll find a way to baypass the effects and u are done if u bring mostly rounds like that

You should maybe upgrade your ad since we're well in the 2010s in that game

Hey do you have a discord server?

For kill innocent people on a rampage

@Yingdong BU paintball, with tanks. People pay to drive tanks and shoot at the other teams tanks for the day.

@@cleanerben9636 I'd use it to conquer Africa

@PotatoPlayer Made in China. you can enforce the law with the tanks right ?And the russians would give em to ya for free.Good deal by me

@PotatoPlayer Made in China. I can use the people there as cheap labor, make a shit ton of money, then move back to the US with my riches.

No moon base. Yuri might take control of it

As the second biggest supplier of arms on Earth, yes profit. No ? The moon base is just for fun

3. Mass produce Armata

4) collapse

It seems like Syria (Russian made) T-72s I believe that did poorly in the urban environment and rubble and trashed buildings because the main gun is so damn long they here getting jacked up by RPGs because they couldn’t maneuver good enough to not get all bunched up and unable to return fire and escape. I watched high quality GoPro footage that were mounted on top of the turret looking down the main gun. I forget the name of the video but watched it within the last month. Not sure what conflict it was but it was in Syria and the cameras were on the Syrian tanks and it was intense and high quality. My heart was pounding everytime they were in a bad position to be in while in a tank and you see quays popping up on destroyed apartment buildings and behind piles of rubble or little nooks. You feel like you are looking out the commanders hatch as if you were there.

That's a better machine for not that much more money. I think a lot of armies just don't see much of a future for tanks against sophisticated foes.

@@tnix80 Tanks are still needed, despite tons of weapons that can defeat them, these weapons can be mitigated somewhat, and the enemy has to actually deploy and use these weapons, meaning they have to spend those resources. If you give up on tanks in your forces entirely, the enemy can save significantly on logistics deploying those weapon systems, and can instead focus on others. Tanks also still posess a somewhat commanding presence on the Battlefield, and if used correctly, can hold and defend, as well as attack ground in a vast area around them. Many point to the gulf war as the example that the tank age is over, but those were very old, very badly used tanks from a military that had absolutely no hope, even if everything went their way, so I still find it to be a very bad example. A new generation of tanks is probably coming in the next 10 years, maybe Armata style, maybe even more different. Automation, maximum crew protection, Active and Passive protection systems, sophisticated sensors, battlefield integration technologies, new weapon systems and all sorts of stuff, that will keep the tank relevant, if somewhat more costly, in the coming decades. Trust me, tanks aren't going away any time soon.

@@Chrinik your point about the psychological impact of a tank is one I hadn't considered. I did say "sophisticated" enemies I admire the armata but for it's cost Russia is weighing it's options. Apparently Britain is phasing tanks out. I don't see much development in the US. But other countries are pressing forward. IDK who's right

@@tnix80 If Britain phasing out their tank corp they will be flat footed if another flare up look what happen to the Falklands War . The MoD in the 70's phasing out their Aircraft carriers and their doctrine of force projections into Anti Sub Doctrine using helicopter carrier. Lucky for the brits they have the harrier for force projections. The tank is a force multiplier it can do Anti tank, direct fire support, Command and lastly moral for the troops.

@@aker1993 if there was no armour when the Falklands happened it would have had negligible effect, there were a few cv90's pounding an entrenched argie but they wouldn't have been missed much. The only time they've been useful since is as intended in desert storm and as a very heavy patrol vehicle on the streets of Basra a decade later, you'd need a pretty good reason not to be doing the same jobs with uav's today. Can you think of any potential engagements today where an mbt would actually be the best tool for the job?

Got them all

Gotta chatch em all

@@Stormworks_maker_of_things Slow box

T-80UE is the tank to look at! Hull from T-80BV + Turret from T-80UD.. They have a lot "UD" tanks in service / reserved / or just somewhere in scrap conditions but still can take the turret from then! Ralik ERA and u have the best T80 ever made!

look for the T-80 bvm ;)

@@nicolasrouvreau8365 BVM have turret directly from BV which has weak composite in comparison to U/UD turret, so it can hold only shots which go through relikt

nicolas rouvreau c est un “mauvais char”

Ew, turbine engine.

And, now thats never going to happen.

@@Seth9809 ?

Well I guess keeping as many T72 in service as you could was a good thing relikt would prp not have changed that mutch (just look at T-80bvm losses)

@@unkownPanzertruppe It seems to me that the loss of tanks is mainly from the impact on vulnerable places. Hits with the top of the land mine or in the sides. This is not a War Thunder, it seems to me any hit, the tank will not tolerate. After hitting the tank, all the optics will break and the crew will leave the car.

@@Seth9809 what do you mean, the number of T-72 they have is going down

Battle cruisers still exist, how great is that?

@@tnix80 pretty great lol

KIROV REPORTING

This guy is going places

New aircraft carrier for Russian Navy!!!!!

Best to convert T72 to terminator, a usefull concept.

@@francisparker4941 BMPT-72 is tank support vehicle, they don't need a lot of them. Mostly for company of 10-11 tanks they just need 1-3 of them

They already did that.

T-90M expensive

T90 also Auto disintegrate.... no win....

@Daniel Wong javelin has a disapointing penetration of 800mm only 50 mm better then the rpg 29 and the panzerfaust 3 is probably one of the best atgl's in the world but still the germans didnt sucseed in deafiting t80U and t72B tanks with tandem heat warheads.The panzerfaust 3 has 900mm after era but the preesucsercor charge only has 50-100mm pen. Wich would only take away 14% of the claimed 90% of kontakt 5 against ATGL's.

@Daniel Wong but that doesn't matter sience one way of another you dont qim at a tanks front .And plus the russian army has proposed to upgrade t72 tanks with relikt and a few more gadgets.Sience now the Russian army actally has money lol

Dude they definitely don’t have money if they did they wouldn’t have canceled the 2200 t14s by 2020

The BVM upgraded with standard APU to safe fuel on idle and station as result of experience on Chechnya, new ballistics computer and 3rd generation thermal optic for both gunner and commander. New fuel injection system and night vision for driver

@@boocomban The BVM is an upgrade of the T-80BV, which is worse than the T-80U

Yea makes sense

To kids in Africa, yes

Not really anything special just a slightly more beefy Ifv with a little more punch.

@@savageatar4883 Fast, Mobile, Modular and Lethal. The CV90 is good, no doubt about it. Is it the best? Probably not, but good ntl.

The only correct answer. T34-100 best tank

That's Genius but Obviously, replace them with bob semple tank is better

@@user-xu5sx6bh9u you have outsmarted me

jokes aside, Which ''T34'' are you talking about? the ''T34'' or the ''T-34''?

@@Kalashnikov413 T-34 comrade

Too large, bulky and the driver cant get out

@Jugoslovenski Nacionalista yes

Im sure if they sell like 3 to 4 they can build up enough money to make a t14..

And what reason to scrap tank which is already on 50% is T-90M? There was intentions to build unified turret for T-72,T-80,T90 series but ended up as turrets only for T-90A(Proryv-2) and T-90M(Proryv-3)

Relikt and CITV would be the most important upgrade and hard kill APS would be a nice addition.

@@roberthavran2522 Well, APS may be happening.

The Relikt is only on the sideskirts, frontal ERA is still Kontakt-5 albeit with 4S23 explosive panels in the hull ERA instead of old 4S22.

@Zayed Haroon well it is true arjun is better than t72

Believe dat

Rpg 29 have bigger,longer warhead...

He's from Croatia

Erik ty

Serbian actually

@@thejoke69 I've spoken to him many times, he's actually from Croatia

@@erik8346 I heard many times he's Serbian. Meh, whatever

The most delicious thing I've ever tasted!:)

@Jack Renders have you ever tasted a T-72, T-80 or T-90?

Kinda crunchy

Tanks usually do not engage other tanks. They engage soft targets like infantry and light vehicles. T-72B3 has been suffering from that since Infantry AT is very prolific

If anybody wants old soviet equipment, they pretty much can buy that from the Ukraine at the price of scrap. Customers with some money want modern weapons

That's russian propaganda my friend

The side of the turet covered with 4S24, the side of the hull covered with Relikt. It would be so much better if the front was also covered with Relikt.

@@roberthavran2522 Yes, IRL the sides of the hull have relikt with optional 4S24 bags. However, in War Thunder as far as I know, only the 4S24 bags are modeled and are called Relikt, just like the boxes of 4S24 on the sides of the turret

Even in war thunder the lack of reverse gears and commander’s panoramic thermal sight, greatly reduce the tank’s performance. Also, imagine if they covered the area around gun mantlet in Relikt ERA? Then the number one weak spot would be eliminated and the tank would be truly OP AF.