Why the Russian Army T-72 Tank is Worse Than You Think 

Thanks for watching everyone. Compare news coverage from diverse sources around the world on a transparent platform driven by data. Try Ground News today: ground.news/task

To be fair to the T-72, it’s unlikely that nearly any modern tank without APS could survive a top attack ATGM like the NLAW or Javelin. The only big difference is that a Western tank crew has a better chance of surviving while T-72 operators are almost guaranteed to be cremated due to the ammo storage.

The T72, a tank that is designed to be used with several hundred at a time is currently being used in penny packets with 10 per battalion. The British gave up on that as an operating method by 1917.

I was a tank turret mechanic in 1991 during the Gulf War. I talked to some US tank crew members after the fighting was over who actually went inside an abandoned Iraqi T 72 tank. One glaring weakness they noticed was the poor fire control system compared to the M 1 tank.

Actually, T-64 was a more advanced vehicle equipped with the best technology of the time and therefore more expensive. The whole reliability issue was resolved to the best of their ability in the many different versions of the tank. Ukranians keep driving around in T-64 to this day and nobody complains. T-72 was supposed to be a cheaper, war-time version of T-64 designed to be produced during WW3. This is why the main production center for T-72 is in Ural Mountains region while the main plant for T-64 was in Kharkiv.

The T-72 wasn’t originally intended as a replacement for the T-64. The T-64 was supposed to be the main Soviet tank. The T-72 was built to be a cheaper alternative that could be built in bulk both for export and to bulk up the tank numbers. But because the T-64 was pretty much a barracks queen the T-72 became the default main Soviet tank so they had to keep upgrading it to try to keep it relevant. Then when the T-80 and T-90 also didn’t work out so well it wound up getting upgraded even more. Which didn’t help it all that much as it is a 1960s design trying to be run by unskilled conscripts.

Tank from year 1972 being destroyed by missiles from 2020 seems quite reasonable to me.

I've never been a Tank Company Commander, but having talked with a couple you realize that they won't go far without their supply line. And they're super focused on fuel. Overwhelming numbers with this tank might be a detriment. But I'm sure a concentrated attack would be devastating by this kind of a force. It's just as described in the doctrine, quick and decisive blow through the weak point.

The Leopard 2 was also designed to be used by a conscript army. Conscript armies can very well execute sophisticated tactics and manouvres, its just a matter of training.

if someone is interested in T72 - this is a simpler and cheaper version of T64. 64 has a better control system, suspension and survivability while t 72 is easier to maintain and manufacture. T64 stood together with T80 on the border with NATO and T72 went to the reserve. After the collapse of the union, Ukraine received 64 because the plant in Kharkiv and Russia 72 for the same reason but in Tagyl

The T-64 wasn't bad or anything like that. The problem was that it was too expensive to produce for all units. Thats why the T-72 was created.

I too was Infantry. A long time ago now. Even then, we knew that the T-72 wasn't as tough of a tank as it looked. This was back in the day of the DRAGON II and when the AT-4 was new. It's mobility was good and their doctrine of use in numbers made it a bigger threat... Individually they were vulnerable.

Brother! Your content continues to improve, great stuff. Ive gone from occasionally watching your channel, to now having you in my permanent rotation and impatiently waiting for new vids on top of that.

In the beginning of 2022 I had a talk with Russian veterans, they have served in the 70s and 80s and in different military districts: some were from ГСВГ- Группа Советских Войск в Германии (forces stationed in the East Germany), some were from Black sea fleet (Odessa city one of them said), one of them served in Afghanistan. They were from various branches: one tanker (mechanic-driver of T-62), several infantrymen, RPG team member, and so on I was mainly asking about their stories and so on. In the end, I asked what do they think about current army's state, and they all replied "shit". One of them said: "the army died with the state, what they have now is a fucking shadow of what it once was". Also it is very interesting to note that all what they mentioned as especially shitty turned out to be true. They mentioned: training, vehicles, food (supplies), medical teams, connection between groups, absence of sights, and so on. I wander what happened to them. It's a tragedy that brother countries are fighting.

To be fair, there are upgrades of the T-72 with a new turret design where ammo stowage is in an exterior bustle but I think they just grossly underestimated the opposition the Ukrainians could muster. I mean, Turkish Leopards got hit pretty hard in Syria, and one would expect Russia to have learned something about the price of poor training and tactics.

The USSR was afraid of USA invasion, they developed military hardware with this in mind. Road bridges were built to collapse under the weight of heavy American tanks. Soviet tanks were therefore required to be lightweight. This severely limited the capability of Soviet tanks, but gave a theoretical tactical advantage if faced with a US invasion. (Soviet tank can cross bridge, US tank cannot). Their military planners never seriously considered a Soviet attack on USA, so they developed a defensive asset.

#Task&Purpose @Task & Purpose Kudos for a no hype, no BS evaluation and short history of the T72. I really enjoyed your presentation style. Thank you very much! Oh... and I subscribed.

The T-72 like most soviet tanks, has the major flaw of not valuing the most important asset in the tank, its crew. Good tank crews are more important for armored combat than good tanks. by allowing the ammo to be exposed in the crew compartment, they accept the loss of the entire crew for any penetration. As Russia continues to lose tanks in Ukraine, even if they replace the tanks, they won't be able to replace the crews. NATO tanks like the M1 are designed to keep crews alive even when damaged, which means crews can learn from mistakes, and be confident in advancing in combat, knowing they won't all be killed if they are hit once in the side.

This video kind of explains it from a Western perspective, where there's a main battle tank, and when you get a better tank, you end up slowly replacing the previous one. This explanation doesn't work for the Russian tanks. The Russians did it differently, they had two "main" battle tanks. So, it's more like they had a primary and secondary battle tank, instead of a "main". One was expensive, while the other one was cheap. The T62 and T72 were the cheap tanks. They used them for infantry support, reserve units and export. Upgrades for these tanks came last. They basically used them to inflate the numbers for areas where you don't need the best. The T64 and T80 were the expensive tanks. They used them for dedicated tank units. They had better everything and received upgrades first. When these tanks came out, they were the most high tech tanks for their times. They were stationed at the Western "front line". These days, it's hard to figure out what the hell Russia's idea is for the "main" battle tank. They got T72s that are really old and T72s upgraded with some modern things. They got various old T80s models. They got various T90s models. They got the T14. So, it's a mess. Maybe they are still using the primary and secondary battle tank doctrine, but I'm not sure. This might simply be the result of lack of funds to replace old models.

Dear Task & Purpose, I really like your videos and articles you post on your website. Keep up the great work!

That price difference really explains why Russia has the largest quantity of tanks in the world by a wide margin. They went for numbers and every other consideration was secondary. One big advantage is that it's mobile though, if it had proper infantry support and was used carefully to minimise it's weaknesses it would do better, along with logistics issues that prevent the supply trucks from moving across country to keep up with the tanks, they're reduced to trundling slowly along road routes into ATGM ambushes, rather than their original intent to strike deep and quick and encircle.

As a TOW gunner in the 1970’s we believed in the ‘ten foot tall Russian’ syndrome. We thought the Russian T-72 and BMP were the most advanced and high tech war winners compared to our M-60’s and M-113’s. When information slowly came out, the auto loader was called an “arm eater”, we began to wonder. Still the T-72 had a lower profile, after and with a bigger gun than the Patton.

The T64 was ridiculously good for its time, and expensive, so good infact that whilst the Soviet Union was exporting thousands of tanks to every despot and third world dictator with roubles they NEVER exported the T64. The 72 was to make up the numbers (i.e. lots of numbers), cheaper and more easily available. One of the reasons I think the T72 has done so badly is a mixture of poor training/tactics and also the simple reason that those tactics are soviet - are known and also that it simply IS the T72 - it is what all the NLAWs and Javelins were specifically designed to take out. Simply time has moved on and the T72 is pretty much (albiet with some upgrades) stayed the same. You're absolutely correct that a lack of communciations, conscripts/lack of training and corruption will also have played into it all falling apart. To be fair too put an M60 up against a T64 or even a T72 and it's not looking so bad...

The T-72 was obsolete in 1991. Our Abrams rolled through them so fast the Iraqis thought it was aircraft.

@Task & Purpose Just want to point out that the price of T72 starts at $500k (which is the most basic of basic versions made back in 1974) - there are many versions of T72 - like T72A/B/B3/M/BU etc... The most modern version can cost even $4 mil.

From what I have learned the T72 stores the ammo in the turret with no regard if the ammo was ignited. So a survivable hit turns catastrophic when the ammo lights off. In the Abraham the ammo is stored is a separate compartment that has a blow out door so the ammo does very little damage to the tank.

The strength of the T-72 is that it fits into Soviet doctrine perfectly. The weakness of the T-72 is that it's so specialised for that doctrine that it does poorly if you're _not_ using that doctrine, and what wins modern wars is _flexibility._ The Abrams was built to defend against attacking Soviet forces in the North European Plain; nobody expected they'd be launching an offensive in the desert against an entrenched enemy, but the men and the gear were flexible enough to do it. Nobody in Britain thought they'd be fighting a naval, air, and ground war eight thousand miles from home in the Falklands, but the men and the gear were flexible enough to do it. (Incidentally, in case anyone thinks I'm just ragging on the Soviets - the Royal Navy fell right into the same trap; the RN in the 80s was designed ONLY to fight as part of NATO in the north Atlantic, and was optimised for anti-sub warfare. Same problem). The T-72 would've done fine in its designed role, but it was never used in its designed role, and it wasn't flexible enough to really excel in other roles.

With the current new designs of anti-tank smart missiles, drones, etc. I think the mass use of heavy tanks are going to become more obsolete in modern warfare. Not that they're going away, but with the technology of new modern smart smaller missiles and drones, they're changing modern ground warfare. Just my thought.

Well done, smooth & informative.

A major problem is their doctrine and the Battalion Tactical Group. A fire heavy group with 1000 soldier seems great for flexibility and mobility, but it only has 200 infantry. That's enough for guarding a base, but wholly insufficient for combined arms. Once the infantry is combat ineffective, the tanks are on their own, and then that's the ball game. It's obvious why Russia decided against urban combat, they would have ended up littering the city streets with tanks and BMPs.

From the radio chatter I've heard of intercepted Russian military traffic, it looks like all their brigades were understrength. We are talking about brigades that are supposedly having around 500 soldiers but instead having less than 100 in reality. So on paper, they were supposed to be full strength, but in reality only a small fraction was sent to do what needed full strength units.

from someone who is in Ukraine right now, I can tell you that it is a combination of things: human error, terrain, refueling logistics, anti-tank weapons ... and, of course, the Ukrainian soldier

You’re good people man I like how hard you work to find the actual truth not just the one sided bs we are bombarded with daily.

You spend 500k on a tank, you get 500k problems. Soviet-era equipment was considered to be disposable, as are their soldiers. You make a lot of tanks you don't really intend to have to do much maintainance on, 'cause their crews are likely to be dead even if they knew how to maintain them in the first place. Conscripts are cannon fodder, so they made a cannon fodder tank. Tank gets penetrated, the crew likely dies. Next cheap tank up, comrades!

Cappy some errors: 1) Primary issue with the T-72B3 (which is the most common variant) is the lack of good optics and good comms. 500.000 USD price tag means they ain't gonna have the best. 2) Soviet "Fulda Gap love session" Tactics involved tactical nukes. Full stop. This means the numbers game is meant to be like "you murdered half of us with a davy crocket but we're still 1.5x your number. Before you took the nuke to the face too.". The manual you cite is out of date, I think it even came out before the wall fell. 3) T-72 is based on the T-64. But made to actually work and be affordable. The T-62 was a stopgap measure made to hold over the USSR until the T-64 came out in sufficient, and reliable enough, numbers. Morozov was actually the man behind the T-64 and he considered the T-72 a cheap knockoff. The T-72 is the design that won, from UVZ, the competition that was held for something that actually worked rather than the T-64 which, mind you, until the T-64A still had the 115mm. 4) Fun fact: The T-72 was never given to Romania because we were too western friendly. The T-125 is a reverse engineered and improved T-72, if I remember right, Ural. Shame it never went into mass production... we wouldn't have the most notorious deathtraps in NATO rn if we made at least 200 of the 125s. 5) Svinets would go straight through the side of the hull on the M1A2 Sepv3 Cappy. The Abrams is a well armored tank but it's not got more than 100mm effective on the side of the hull. Heck even old Mango rounds could go through which is why in Desert Storm US armor never engaged in any action where they risked taking hits from the flanks. 6) A complete redesign of the T-72 was needed? Yeah, it's called the T-90. Which is basically a T-72, vastly improved in many ways, with a fair amount of tech from the T-80. You should check out the T-90AM for an idea what they're doing in terms of improving their tank force but... well the T-90AM was ordered, first, like a few years back and most of the units with those tanks are being held in reserve in case NATO goes Leeroy Jenkins.

Hey man, I love your videos. You should talk about the progress of the conflict more. You do a really good job and if you get stuff wrong then just correct yourself in the next video. But you should definitely keep talking about it.

Cappy, great video. Other flaws that I see with their tactics, is failure to embrace air/land battle doctrine. Think about it, the Battalion Tactical Group is like mini brigade. Yet their tactics are sluggish and at best uncoordinated. You have 10 tanks and 8 cannons, not mention Infantry and engineers. Yet their Field artillery sets up like it is in WWII still. Armor tactics are less than stellar as no one has the mentality to get out of a kill zone once the trap is sprung. The lack of a good NCO Corp to push their soldier further hampers their overall effectiveness IMHO.

Thanks for the video! Before watching, the Russian T-72's main problem is that they are utilized wrongly the second problem is that they have been poorly maintained for years, and thirdly that most have not been upgraded to an acceptable level.

The T-72, like its predecessors the T-54/55 and T-62, were designed around a Soviet Blitzkrieg, thundering out of the Fulda Gap and/or across the Northern German plain, to zerg rush NATO (mostly combined US Army and West Germans, with some armor with the British Army of the Rhine around Hamburg) and reach the Rhine, overrunning critical NATO bases before they could be reinforced from the UK, USA, and western nations of NATO (REFORGER). This actually reflected pre-WWII ideas called "Deep Operations Battle", and just as even with the primitive "BT" tanks of the 1930s, so the Soviet Army was built around a fast-moving offensive to overwhelm the enemy before he could regroup and counterattack. Therefore, quantity, rather than "quality", or at least, heavy tank hitting power and/or protection, was sacrificed, SOMEWHAT, for SPEED. Yes, advancing Soviet Tank "Guards" divisions would suffer terrible losses from US and West German tanks, but their numerical superiority would carry the day, much as they had against the Germans in the "Great Patriotic War", what they term World War Two. But it wasn't just tanks that would be involved; the Soviets were well aware of the "combined arms" concept, and planned to send infantry in the BMPs and, their new attack helicopters, especially the lethal Mi-24 "Hind" when it first came out. I'd say that the big problem for the Russians is that they never really got to fight the war that their T-64s, T-72s, T-80s, and T-90s were designed for. In particular, the T-72, being essentially a cheapened version of their much-more capable T-64, which was found to be a "clanking science fair" and utterly terrible, was intended for their second-rate tank units and the tank battalions that were part of their "motor-rifle" divisions. The really "third rate" stuff was meant for the older reservists and the non-Russian "ethnics" which the Soviet leadership, being mostly Russian anyway, never really trusted, so this is where you'd find the T-54/55 and T-62s. A great deal of the equipment was simply left to sit in various depots, as they couldn't afford to keep them all running! About half the Soviet Army's older tanks were effectively junk, being mainly a source of spares for what still ran. There were also the same problems, mainly with the T-72s, just not quite as bad. Still, it's hard to say if the reasons for the lack of success in the current war against Ukraine are due to defective or out-dated equipment, poor leadership, poor motivation, poor training, and, most likely, poor LOGISTICS. I'd say it's a combination, in varying degrees and mixtures, of ALL of them. Keep in mind that the Ukrainian Army has much the same equipment and problems themselves, save for the motivation! So is the T-72 really that bad a tank? No, I'd say it's suitable for what it was ORIGINALLY designed to do, but the mission has changed, and so has what would be considered acceptable losses. Tanks, and that goes for ANYTHING in the NATO inventory, our vaunted M1 Abrams series, the German Leopard 2, the UK Challenger II, name 'em, are effective when PROPERLY employed, but none of them are absolutely invulnerable. We got spoiled in two wars against Iraq by piss-poor use of a "monkey model" version of this same T-72, let alone Chinese-made knock-offs of the older T-55 (T-59). Of course the US Army's armored regiments absolutely massacred the Iraquis, included their vaunted "Republican Guard", especially at the Battle of 73 Easting. In retrospect, it was destined to be nothing other than a curb-stomp, but it doesn't mean that if we'd been going up against the best the then-Soviet Army had to offer that the outcome would have been the same. I suspect we'd have prevailed, but the cost in equipment and men would have been a LOT higher.

I was under the impression that the T-64 was not widely used due to it's engine performance in high altitude but the T-72 however was the tank that had issues with transmission and drive shafts which is why neither were used in Afghanistan

T-64 was developed in my native town, so I can't stand that this is a bad tank :-) It was designed from scratch, in order to be very small. All it issues were due to this task, it was very complex and very innovative. It is the first tank with a combined armor, the biggest gun so far, and pretty advanced electronics (for 1963). It isn't so bad, but T-72 is the next tank after T-64.- There are almost 10 years difference between both :-) I'd better shut up :-)

One of the things that is not talked about much is the weather. It was warmer than expected. This thawed the mud so the tanks could not drive cross country. This meant the Ukrainians could and did set up ambushes on the roads. This hurt the Russians a lot.

The amount of armored warfare scholars and experts showering us with their massive knowledge and sharing the many tank x vs. tank y encounters outcomes is just astonishing. How come folks still make bad decisions in design and application of tanks and other armored vehicles or self propelled guns? Nice video again Cappy, good production value and weighted in considerations. Keep up the good work!

Cappy, love this and the spare parts army generally. Related anti- tank question. Wht do u make of the Aerovinmont switchblade (in its various incarnations)? It seems like a great product, bt perhaps useful quantities r being held bk by components issues?

I am absolutely in love with the exterior design of this tank (ERA included), but the complete lack of a human loader simply turns it into a rolling turret launcher.

I've always wondered why the Soviets went the road of the auto-loader. It's not like they had a lack of soldiers.

Seems the T72 comes from the same design philosophy as the Slava class cruiser. Lotsa big badda boom if it's on the offensive. But if ya take a single hit, I believe the term is "kablooey".

Tanks are supposed to be infantry support vehicles. It is infantrys job to scout targets and cover the tank flanks. In the absence of infantry, like what we saw with Russia, the tanks don't stand a chance.

There's actually a T-72 that made it all the way into Central Israel - it's an exhibit at Yad La Shiryon , Israel's memorial to the (IDF) tank corps and one of the most diverse tank museums in the world

The "Jackov in the Box" wasnt designed for crew protection.

The T72 variants are known for having their entire 5ton turret pop off and fly 10 feet away when hit with a successful round. The ammo they carry isnt protected behind any kind of blast shield like our modern Abrams, Bradleys and so on.

Getting shot at with RPGs three or four times in rapid succession sounds like a really, really shitty time.

I'm surprised you didn't bring a major *design* of the T-72: it is operated by 3 crewmen only so if one crewman becomes disabled the tank can not perform its operative role while in a 4 crewmen tank, the commander can load the canon if needed and generally troops can switch roles.

I was part of a joint task force with a German infantry platoon back in '96. We had taken shelter after a four hour firefight and one of the German privates said "T'anks" and I was like "Oh hey, don't mention it". He said "No, t'anks!" and I said "I know, you're welcome" to which he said "No! T'anks!!" and I got upset at him and was like "You're fucking welcome!!". So then he grabs my helmet, turns my head and I see enemy tanks coming out of a farmer's field towards us and I was like "Ohhhh, tanks". I felt like such an asshole.

The T72 is on paper a very good tank. It has a number of flaws though. These flaws are actually similar to that of the flaws seen in the T34 the ability to see and engage the enemy fast. The T72 is fast has a good gun and adequate armour. just like The T34. However its cramped and provides the crew little room to move. It has no hunter killer capability (this is were the commander can individually identify and mark targets for the gunner) and it has no real way of sharing targeting information with other tanks. The fact they made it simple is actually a detriment to the tank as the crew need to be of a higher skill level to get the most from the tank. Crews need to actively and continously share data using out dated radios that have poor encryption. commanders need to be exceptionally skilled to identify targets and properly relay that information to the gunner and the gunner needs to be skilled enough to effectively place rounds on target while the driver works with outdated manual controls. compared with a NATO tank that has advanced communications and datasharing capabilities coupled with fast intuitive targeting systems with commander independent targeting(allowing the commander to que multiple targets for the turret to automatically swing to). All driven by a complex but intuitive automatic gearbox that uses digital control imputs from the driver to maintain a relatively smooth ride. Even against infantry the ability to identify and react to targets its the first and most effective defence for a tank.

"WHAT WENT WRONG?" reads the splashscreen... Oh, that the the easy one - just one thing, and that is "EVERYTHING". No need to thank me... ;-)

Makes sense, it's basically an elaboration of the cavalry tactics of world war 2 that they had a lot of success with. Punch through the enemy line with fast moving cavalry (literal horse cavalry in ww2, tanks/armoured vehicles replaced horses in most modern theatres), then move laterally to take advantage of being behind enemy lines and disrupt supply lines and otherwise sabotage their efforts. Looks like this might be the beginning of the end of heavy cavalry/heavy tanks for the forseeable future. Pretty impressive it was the dominant wartime land technology for almost 100 straight years despite all our innovations though.

T-72 was designed to be a disposable can with a cannon to overwhelm enemies with their numbers. "Quantity has its own quality". However, it is still a very capable tank as long as the enemies don't have anything to counter it. NLAW and Javelin were produced exactly to counter these tanks.

Tanks are great at stopping small arms fire, nearby explosions, and other extraordinarily dangerous ground conditions. They're okay at stopping other tank and direct fire large caliber rounds. And they're really bad at stopping air attacks, bombs, and missiles. Nothing will change that short of a magical metal that somehow is cheap and light enough to throw at a tank. Tanks need infantry support, and ideally air support, they're merely a (very useful) peice in a complex and fast moving environment. Trying to use them as an individual element is a good way to lose them fast. Pretending you're impervious inside a tank is the first step to becoming a two part space program

Impossible, I already thought it was crap. The story of the T-72 has almost always been "Well it would have done better BUT." If your piece of equipment is never good, but would surely be if things went differently, yea that is not a good piece of equipment. The best equipment is largely effective and friendly to training and constant use.

I’ve also seen a huge lack of infantry screens for tanks in urban combat, that’s like a basic aspect of modern armored warfare.

Tanks in general seem like they're being pigeonholed into more and more specific roles (and conflicts) due to the advent of cheap man-portable weapons and attritable aircraft. It's interesting to see the historical ebb and flow of utility of systems like these and I wonder if or when it will pivot in a big way. Maybe it's now?

Ah, welcome back to an episode of : "Cappy roasts military hardware"

The T-72 was designed for total war. It is still good enough for fulfilling the roles and tasks a tank has to fulfill but I think the crew survivability not being prioritised is a massive handicap

I have the same problems: a need to penetrate the enemy from the rear while exposing myself. Thanks, I'll show myself out.

Because NLAW and Javelin. To be fair, i think no modern tanks today cant survive a good javelin or nlaw hit.

Back in WWII, the Soviets deliberately made tanks that were cheap, easy to replace, and got the job done so they could mass produce them. Crew safety and ergonomics sucked and reliability was terrible, but the tanks weren't calculated to last that long, so they made them cheaply in order to drive costs through the floor and simply win through attrition. It was cold-blooded and heartless, like much of Soviet doctrine, but it also worked. Not saying it was right or that there weren't other ways of doing it, just that it worked. The philosophy still remains in some fashion.

Would love to hear you opinions on other tanks like the Challenger, Leopard or Type 90.

That roman candle(cook off) effect is called deflagration. Rapid burning 🔥 rather than explosion.

Great analysis and I leaned something new. I think the key point you brought up is that it’s not a Heavy tank like the M1. It’s a medium tank with the gun of a heavy tank. It’s cheap to make, it with it being a medium tank they couldn’t put tones of armor on it. And as you say, that matches up with Russian war doctrine, which is different from NATO. It’s kind of unfair to compare it to the M1, which is 20-30 tones heavier and costs 16x more. It’s like comparing a base model Hyundai with the top end German BMW. They are both cars and get you from point A to point B, but it’s not fair to compare their specs.

The T72 was meant to be a cheaper version of the T64 wich had problems with with reliability and being expensive. The T62 had nothing to do with the development of the T72. It was as a reaction to the british Chieftain and the american M60 wich had greatly improved armor so as an interim solution the soviets basically put the 115mm smoothbore gun into what is basicall an enlarged T55. T72 only used some parts of T55 to make it cheaper than T64. Also all current tanks have weak toparmor. T72 isnt unique in that way. And claiming that the T72 is not able to penetrate the side of M1 is absurd. The sides of MBTs are very thin compared to their frontal armor. Maybe within a 60 degree cone but not more than that. A more significant factor that contributes to more losses is the fact that it is russian doctrine to fight with closed hatches wich western tanks only do when there is a direct threat from above like in urban areas. This means that you have to rely on optics to get a picture of the situation. No optic will ever allow you to get the same feel for what is going on compared to your own eyes.

great history and history. love this page.

You forgot the USRR military doctrine: nuclear atrack first, then tanks blitz. Its the reason they put autoloader in T72 - the gun loader crew member in nuclear battlefield tests always die first... so they removed his role. And so the ammunition storage is inside turret, and almost every penetration ends with ammo crack. 😅

I think the main problem is the fact that russia needs a lot of tanks for every front possible and they can't field expensive tanks in such big numbers like the T 90M and T 14 armata. They can't use expensive tanks in such a big number because they just won't have enough. America has the possibility to field expensive tanks because they are separated by a giant sea and they can't really be invaded, while russia needs those basic tanks to protect their homeland with a lot of tanks.

I think its quite clear that they would have done better with more training. Or said differently - I'd rather have an American tank division with T72 than a Russian one with the M1. But at the same there really seems a lot that could be done with the tank. It seems to sit between the modern generation of western tanks and the M60 era, closer to the M60. I'm sure they could have designed a new tank based on the T72 and brought it to modern standards, much like the T80 vs T64 (in its day). But really the issue always comes back to expectations. People have long viewed Russia as a competitor to American military might, but I've long argued that just glancing at the money spent suggests they are below a lot of european nations let alone touching America. Beyond that, a lot of that money is spent trying to keep the huge outdated gear alive, so in reality they've always been below even that. I'm pretty happy this invasion has demonstrated exactly that point.

Cheers buddy!!! I just "auto loaded a shell into my smooth bore cannon" then was asked to put my clothes back on and leave the branch of Starbucks I was in...

In a couple of places in this video there is a mention of the need for larger bore cannons. If your using discarding sabot rounds anyways why would having a larger bore cannon be of any advantage?

4:20 - Chris youre wrong. T-72 is an offspring of T-64 project, which was back then very revolutional and has almost nothing to do with previous soviet tanks.

One might wonder if the widespread Russian corruption also effects the "paper values" of the T-72.; armor quality, armor thickness, ammo quality etc. Maybe even the old Leopard 1A5 is a good match for it?

hello Chris, can we get your thoughts on the M5 Ripsaw drone tank?

Great review!

The T72 is just an infantry support tank, never designed for frontal regiments, it's designed to operate with infantry. The M60 would perform equally as bad if up against newer MBTs or AT rocket firing infantry.

The auto loader ended up being an Achilles hill for Soviet tank design, and has limited their ability to upgrade their platforms and has held them back In very key areas.

Light weight? Yes. Very fast moving? Well.. Not really. Even much heavier tanks like Abrams or Leopard can go faster simply because of having higher power to weight ratio. Anyways, great video.

Cappy are you trying to tell me that the Abrams of that time could survive apfsds hits to its side? All I have as a "knowledge base" comes from some books and wt but that's still hard to believe. The side of the hull seems to weak to stop kinetic projectiles of a 125 mm calibre

I believe it was Stalin who said quantity has a quality of its own.

Hey there, just want to say I greatly appreciate and enjoy ya'lls commitment and execution when it comes to histoircal rigour/historiography/etc. You do it well, you make it engaging, and engage with the ongoing conversation/dialogue of the topic and add to it (meaningfully). On vids like this that are a homerun in the history department, you make me feel right at home - and thats as a degree holding historian with an appreciation for military history...but no military experience! XD In short, keep it up!

"... 'Human Error' was my nick-name growing up. ..." (very funny, really cracked me up)

Hey Task & Purposes, the manual you read also states information about how the doctrine takes into account from mistakes WW2 and how it “changed accordingly.” It gives examples about how destroying trees with HMGs so HEAT would be prematurely detonated and using smoke to flank, alongside “strike first” tactics. Meaning the cannon should be able to take out enemy armor without issue. There tanks are not supposed to be used in cities, let alone anywhere where there’s no support. Also, your forgetting about PAZ systems, snorkel systems, something very important too. None of these have been upgraded since the Cold War. The soviet MoD tried to introduce a new PAZ system and even oxygen supplies for there next gen MBT before the collapse, but as we all know, Putin happened. What disturbs me the most is the fact that the tanks going through Chernobyl, BRDMs, BTRs, BMPs, all equipped with “modern PAZ systems,” from the USSR, none of them I saw from footage had any signs of PAZ systems being activated or any protection from radiation from inside the tank. The sights were clear as day, and shell ejection seemed to work. So the likilihood those soldiers are going to survive is unlikely. Also, the commander HMGS became remote with the T-72A after the Ural model 1973 got upgraded. While the PAZ is not a 100% fix, and does limit vision, it does help the crew have a fighting chance from dying horrible deaths in very particular circumstances. However, I think the Russians took those systems out, in fear that that we would find a way to trigger them and to blind troops. Which as we saw happened either way. I guarantee, now, that the Russians are a shell of the USSR to every degree. As PAZ systems were vital in combat in places that troops normally wouldn’t fight. The soviets also put strategic emphasis into fighting in destroyed environments. Something the Russians hardly do. If there was even a piece of the Union left, if this has the same doctrine, they would use Chernobyl as even more of a strategic point for transport then it is now, alongside transporting NBC equipment, and setting up artillery there, as even there Artillery like the 2s3m had PAZ equipment onboard. The USSR would’ve gone into the war with steel toed boots. The Russians have gone barefoot. I don’t think it’s even comparable at this point. It’s not a matter of the higher-ups ruining a design back then, as Morozov’s design was later reused and was going to be the standard. Which I mentioned earlier with the oxygen supply alongside PAZ systems. They needed a cheaper option to the T-64 that performed a lot of the same tasks. Nothings going to be perfect on the battlefield at first. in this case, as more it’s a matter of how there working to overcome the design problems. The carousel auto loader doesn’t cook out separately, killing the crew sure. But that’s the after math of the mistakes the commanders of Russian tanks have made. These tanks aren’t supposed to be in a situation where they can be easily fired upon. The better option would be to fix the issue with depression, by a rudimentary overhaul of the turret, so they can shoot on uneven surfaces a lot more quickly and easier, something even the Sprut does to a degree ironically, fixing there PAZ equipment so it’s not as sensitive or just using that money for any APS at this point, all of which can’t be done due to there feudal system.

Russia coping hard by naming their tanks like terminators smh they weren't even sent back in time

The Reason The Tank has not worked are multiple in nature but the key issues are training, maintenance, and new tactics on a modern battlefield and logistics for its army as a whole

" Human error was my nickname when I was growing up " 😆🙋‍♂️🤪

Any military fighting vehicles, even if it's considered the best, without proper proper training or used incorrectly is going to be defeated on the battlefield. On the flip side when an armed force that does have outdated equipment or are few in number but know its tactics, capabilities and limitations can be effective on the battlefield against a much larger, better equipped opponent.

A good overview of the history of its initial development, but I'm sorry - too much Discovery channel-like nonsense in the video. 1. The original T-72 Ural didn't have composite armor. It was like a T-64 made with 1950's technology and focus on absolute simplicity (minus the autoloader). The first T-72 to adopt composite armor was the T-72B in 1985. 2. The T-72, and Russian tanks in general, aren't less armored because they're lighter. They're lighter because of having 3 man crews and much less interior volume which simply takes less mass of armor to protect to the same level as western tanks with 4 man crews and roomy interiors. Look at the performance of the T-90, an evolution of the T-72, but basically the same shape/design, whose frontal armor was eating TOW-2's for breakfast in Syria. Meanwhile, an M1A1 was frontally penetrated by a Chinese HJ-8 missile (a copy of the TOW system) in Iraq, 2017. 3. The T-72B3 obr. 2016 is a decently protect tank overall, owing to the Relikt ERA on the manlet and the turret, and the Relikt sideskirts that can even have another layer of ERA strapped to them. The rear side of the turret have much less protection than the Abrams and no composite armor, but the obr. 2016 variant also reinforced this area with ERA. The designers in the 70's and 80's didn't realize that tanks in combat would be getting hit by infantry all over the place, not just from the front. 4. The T-72s, just like every other armored vehicle in Ukraine, are not getting destroyed not because they lack armor overall, but because they lack turret top armor (just like every other tank ever) and Ukraine is being supplied by the west with many top-attack missiles like the NLAW or the Javelin. They're just getting hard-countered by these weapons, but that doesn't make them bad tanks. It only means that they'll absolutely need active protection systems in the future when dealing with top-attack ATGM' which btw. were offered in the obr. 2016 upgrade program, but weren't procured. Look at what happened to the Turkish Leopard 2A4's in Syria after encountering 2ng generation ATGMs. T-72Bs the that situation would probably end up with the same fate, except the economic damage would be less because of how cheap they are. The T-72B3 obr.2016 would probably fare better because of their advanced ERA. 5. The bit about the T-72 not being able to penetrate the M1A2's side armor is a joke, right? It has to be. The APFSDS projectiles compatible with the T-72's gun can penetrate 650-750mm at 2 km of RHA. The M1A2's turret side armor is first and foremost designed to protect against HEAT rounds. Its protection against KE projectiles is less than 300mm and that's only the turret, the lower hull only protects up to 150mm and the parts with fake thin sheet metal side skirts even less than that. Not to mention that all you need to penetrate the engine area or the ammo compartment is an autocannon. Nothing but thin steel plates there. 6. You forgot to mention the idea of having a smaller, low profile tank, is that it's harder to spot and harder to hit. While this becomes less important with the 3rd generation ATGMs, it's still a huge factor whenever the tank is getting shot at by unguided weapons, especially when moving.

Maybe the t72 is doing fine, maybe we just have a different definition of what fine is. 🤣

Ironically enough, your “cannons” are actually rifled

All things aside, tanks look flippin awesome, and I love building them in space engineer.

One thing that should noted about the T-72s current performance is that it is facing weapons that were effectively purpose designed to kill it. This combined with the fact of that they are facing tanks that are almost identical to them, poor planning , and coordination has resulted in high loss rates. Is the design dated compared to modern Western designs? Yes, but that's because it's based off a tank designed in the late 50's. It did see relatively substantial upgrades to base armor protection up until the early 1980's and was intended to be replaced by tanks such as the T-90 and the object 195 (which evolved into the T-14) but due to severe budgeting issues that started in the early 80's it has been continuously upgraded with explosive reactive armor. As for the firepower it is very likely capable of knocking out even the most modern western MBTs frontally so long as it's using the most modern version of the 125mm APFSDS albeit with more difficulty than a western MBT can knock them out. There is very little that can realistically be done to improve the performance of the T-72 on the Russian side aside from perhaps a complete and total change in how the Russian army fights. Active protection systems are expensive and would simply would've cost far too much to be retrofitted on a large scale.

i'm pretty sure the soviet where quite satisfied with the 115mm cannon of the T-62, it was basically a better 105 at the time, if i remember correctly the T-64 came from the desire to autoload the 115mm which first version of the t-64 were still equipped with. The 125 came not much later and was absolutely a monster for its time. Also i think the T-72 already had a round capable of penetrating the frontal armor of the abrams when it came out. (also, lateral and back armor of any mbt are pretty much paper thin for any other mbt, its the only way to keep relevant armor value on the front of the vehicle without weighting a maus)

This reminds me of the pep talk we received when we were chasing the Russians around the 1970s. The ship I was serving on was clearly out gunned by the Russian cruiser. We were told that in order to build ships quickly, the Russians didn't compartmentalize their ships the way we do. So if we could get inside their defenses (they also only had missiles), almost any hit would sink their ships. Looks like that information might be more true than I ever thought.