Receive an Amazing New Player Pack, only available for the next 30 days! Play Conflict of Nations for FREE on PC or Mobile 💥 con.onelink.me/kZW6/RedEffect
hello red Effect, I live in Italy and I make videos on TH-cam about armored vehicles, in large part it was you who inspired me and for this I thank you, I was wondering if there was the possibility of meeting you and exchanging ideas with you about tanks maybe on ds, I would also like (if you need) to provide you with information for your future videos, making your work easier
I think some of the rumors actually pre-date the T-72 itself. Short crew member requirements were an artifact of from either IS-3 or T-62 tanks where you had 122mm/115mm shells in small spaces. Arm-eating auto-loaders may have originated with the initial operating problems of the T-64, which would have been presumably rectified when the T-72 got fielded. "A great tank for robotic dwarves, but a poor tank for humans" was a rather memorable description of the T-62 from an old book I read.
It kind of depends on how big you are, I'm 6'4 or 194cm and I've been inside a merkava mk4 and it was very cramped and uncomfortable inside the turret bussel. And the merkava is a relatively spacious tank.
Makes me wonder, to what extent is it a viable & practical candidate for modern unmanned ground combat vehicle conversion. 🤔 Autoloader already helps. With VR cockpit, will it be economically feasible & practical?
@@eustache_dauger A few problems pop up with that. There is a reason my most modern AFVs have three crew. One person to totally focus on maneuver/navigation and forward, one to aim and maintain the weapon, and a final one to collect data, search for targets while the gunner has tunnel vision. Tanks with smaller crews were tried in WWII, but were out-performed by those with better crew job definition. Modern systems have only added more for the crew to be doing. Tanks are designed as hollow shells to contain the crew. If you wanted to make a remote operated vehicle, you would save a lot of size/weight/height by not including space for humans. Telemetry is the big killer for remote operated vehicles - and tanks are going to operate in spaces with more obstructions than aircraft.
A nation's AFVs reflect its armored doctrine. T72 suited Soviet doctrine at the time, just as M60 suited the USA. As a US veteran with a good friend who served in the M60A3 in Germany I can assert that the NATO tankers facing Soviet tanks in Europe did not think the T72 was a toothless tiger. My impression is that the opposition felt much the same way.
Because no one on either side actually wanted to ever go to war again. Especially at that level. And for German tankers especially I bet they felt even if they had a superior tank in some respects or a new one on the way, they knew they would be facing HORDES of t-72s at one time if war broke out. Thank god it didn’t. Have a close family friend who served as a tanker in the red army in the 70s in believe, he too had no desire for war and feared it just as much.
The Gulf War was an anomaly unlikely to be repeated and was a surprise even to the US. I doubt anyone on any battlefield ever while being shot at thinks the enemy’s weapons are ineffective or “toothless”. I know a few guys who served in Germany during the Cold War. They all believed they had hours to live even without nukes if it went hot. Unfortunately propaganda works for every side and is often how myths are created. It’s easy to trash other guys troops and equipment on the internet when they aren’t shooting at you. Gulf War vets that I know don’t talk about the equipment so much as the lack of motivation and leadership of the enemy as the main reason for victory. They are just happy their own training, equipment, etc got them home. I for one would not want to face anything in war built by Russia or anybody else for that matter. It’s all designed for the same purpose and all of it works pretty well for that purpose.
@@fartnutssupreme4930 I do not remember the name of the TV presenter from the United States, he said: earlier, under the influence of propaganda, I considered Russian (Soviet) people aggressive and angry, dreaming of worldwide enslavement. But one day I saw Soviet TV shows for children, one of them is analogous to Sesame Street, then I realized that people who love their children so much cannot wish death on other children.
About the chopping of of arms, the Chieftain has told a story about how the Ambrams automatic ammunition blast door almost chopped his hand off. It's meant to be opened and closed by the loader between every reload but crews would rig it to achieve higher fire rates, but of course this lead to dangerous situations.
So the blast door is automatic. You use your knee to hit the door open button. The door automatically closes after a set time. However you cam turn of the door hydraulics which means the door has no power to close. The real danger arises is that if you get hit in the ammo you have no blast door to protect the crew. Edit: I forgot to mention the blast door has a safety feature that if it hits something it will automatically open again. However this feature does not work when the door is almost closed. I.e. the worst time to have you hand in the door is when the safety feature is disabled. However this is very rare because you can open the door again at anytime so idk why you would have you hands in front of a closing blast door.
Also when loading rounds into the ready rack , flip locking tabs on door track preventing movement and turn off CB 12 in turret networks box. When powered, door has sensor on it that feels resistance to within few inches of closing
The Chieftan is right the First series M-1 Abrams doors could take a finger or hand off if not quick or careful. I know because I asked an M-1 loader and said yes it can. That has sense been fixed and if your hand or shell is in the way when the door closes; it will retract and then close agian 5-15 seconds later. I was in from August 1988 to July 1992 US ARMY Infantry.
@@Fenncer24 all series m1 doors has the possibility of biting ya, but they are plenty safe if ya adhere to the standards. Gotta keep an eye on officers. They have a tendency to break the tank of hurt themselves. I crewed m1 series for 10 years. In my experience, the turret monster and dealings with the track gotten guys hurt.
The myth that crewmen for russian tanks must be short comes from the T-55, which really did require the gunner and commander to be 170cm (which was average at the time when it was designed) or below, since the legroom was very limited. But in T-64 and all later tanks the turret is much more spacious. I know in person one man who is 190cm+ who served as a commander in an M84, and he said that only the driver needs to be short
Also partially from WWII, when several Soviet tanks required certain crew members to be relatively short to fit into a cramped work space (mostly drivers, I think, but some gunners too. Low profile can come at an ergonomic cost)
@@Eskeletor_210 maybe on the loader's or driver's seat. But still, i heard in Romania (they still use t-55 in active service) that they set a height limit to 168cm and 45cm shoulder width, saying that it's uncomfortable for anyone bigger than that.
@@Eskeletor_210 dude I am 1.86m and felt short but when I heard this I actually kinda felt tall the bench mark is 1.83 cm after that your above average height
Ah yes the glorification of russian massed garbage continues... Anyone who sat in any modern western tank does not want to return to this garbage lmao.
I like how people with one brain cell comment about the Russian tanks in the war of Ukraine, the thing that they are being destroyed by infantry AT weapons like many people know those weapons against tanks are excellent and since the ww2 they have been proven effective. We could say the same about the M1 in Yemen has been destroyed many times by these weapons or the Leopard 2 in Siria. Is the same story once again, but for these people is so difficult to understand
also, casualties are highly exagerated. even destructions by tanks or aircraft may be attributed to the javelin to reinforce the Idea of the little brave ukranian man going up agains the mighty big and scary russian tanks and defeating it in a david vs goliath manner
On a perception view … *What many people don’t acknowledge are the KEY differences between domestic & export, base series & modernized* *Another issue for the uninformed is recognizing how well the T72(export) performed against other 2nd generation tanks during the IRAN/IRAQ conflict, where MBT’s like the British Chieftain were outmatched. This is one of the main reasons why the U.S/U.K celebrated with such conviction after the 72’s defeat during the Gulf wars. The T72 was a feared tank up to that point.* *Understanding that even a base model export 72 was an overmatch for the Chieftain gives a better idea of how good it was against what was considered at the time one of the best MBT’s in the Western Forces*
Apparently I want to clear something out also about the gulf war 1-the T72 didn’t lose because Iraqi’s training or anything but the place Iraq fought in is where Iraq’s soldiers would be their worse whcih is the desert making up around 30% percent of the country and is flat 2-the shock Iraqi army was very shocked because it cannot retreat for any reason because there is an urban civil war happening behind them and the fact the US used more cruise missiles than aircrafts and any weapon at the time that’s not even counting how Iraq was extremely outnumbered 3-till this day no one knows how many abrams tanks or Iraqi T72 tanks were destroyed because obviously the casualties in Wikipedia or fake That’s mostly because the US fears what people would think about the abrams tank in the future or rather wouldn’t want it’s people seeing the US lose so many casualties for nothing and will soon be against the government (and we saw that in the Vietnam war) so that’s why
@@husseinoskovjino9398 I always had this subject in mind, why does the west never release information about their ground losses in the gulf war, like we know that hundreds of T-55's were blown up but no one mentions how many western armored vehicles were downed during the conflict nor do they talk about the aircrafts they lost, they always cover it up as 'friendly fire' even in the Iraq war.
All of that is open source and is out there if you look for it. The winning side in any war is naturally going to downplay their own losses vs the enemy and the winning side Always does. I have actually read a lot more material on Coalition losses vs Iraqi. This is partly because they were so small in comparison and the Iraqi army was also in a poor position to keep good records once the ground campaign started as they were overwhelmed too quickly. Also, translated documents are very sparse from the Iraqi side and that makes detailed comparisons more difficult. All we did is count destroyed vehicles etc on the ground and compare to our intelligence documents about what was believed to have been possessed on the other side. There are few records available from the Iraqis.
@@bryangrote8781 i doubt that the number of Iraqi destroyed tanks got counted Because though someone can say yeah the got counted but they can easily increase the number of enemy casualties Shwarzkoff when one time was interviewed when he was asked about casualties he preferred to not answer many times Till this day no one know the truth about each country’s casualties
@@husseinoskovjino9398 This is the problem with wars between countries that censor any information regarding their casualties which in this case almost all the countries involved in any conflict throughout the middle east, no one will talk about how much they lost so they don't get criticized, also Iraq pretty much burned most of their documents after the invasion, and no one will go through the effort of searching and translating documents just for the sake of a debate in a very debatable war.
My uncle was a Soviet army officer and he also served a t 72 commander. He is about 1,80 meters tall rather well built.He told me that he was comfortable inside the tan.As for the performance of the t 72 in iraq , i noticed that in most photgraphs the hits the tanks received were from the side , so it probably would not make a huge difference if the Iraqi army had better tanks .
Iraqi army was Outnumbered Fighting a big war and a civil war with all of its allies having civil war like Yugoslavia or fallen like the USSR or cannot able to help like china Fighting in the only region at the time where the abrams would definitely be superior to the T72 and a place making up 30% of Iraq’s geographic areas and the Iraqi army wasn’t familiar with The flat desert The large amount of newly made cruise missiles at the time should also be mentioned
I think it would make a difference. For example if they had IR capability the outcome would be little different, but i think that Iraq would still lose
@@husseinoskovjino9398 lol, the M1A1 Abrams would have been superior to T-72 Ural, T-72M and T-72M1 in any region. Although this specific terrain enabled it to use its superiority even better.
@@viktorD4 would have fared better. T-72B was a major upgrade regarding protection although it might have taken to T-72B obr.1989 to really challenge M1A1s M829A1. Furthermore T-72B introduced V-84 engine but was still not on par with M1A1 mobility wise. But the most important issue remained, T-72B lacked a thermal imager and a really capable FCS.
I wouldn't be surprised if the "arm eater" myth was spread during training, just as an old wives tail to scare recruits into being careful, staying on task, in their stations, "no passing around cigarettes or beer in the middle of firing drills! The auto loader will eat your arm young man!"
The main problem, as the video did point out, with the "poor" performance" of the Iraqi T-72 tanks was the obsolete Steel Penetrator rounds. I've read reports a long time ago, (dont ask me for sources i've lost them, its over a decade ago) that American and allied tanks were hit multiple times by T-72s. This prove the Iraqi tank crews knew what they were doing, they just dont have the proper rounds to do real damage at all. There was one incident where a lone Iraqi T-72 were duelling with an APACHE in a built up environment, scuttling from cover to cover to fire shots. Thats obviously almost impossible to do, the tank lost eventually but just show the Iraqi tank crews were undderated.
Well I've read about 20 years ago that the Army had denied any M-1's Abrams being damaged or even destroyed was false. Said at least 22 M-1's were damaged in one way or another needing repair in the back lines. And at least 2 maybe 3 were totally loss and write offs. They hid these do Americans would believe that the M-1 was indestructible, but we have seen the M-1 is not by Iraq 2003 to 2005. We always gotta make the other guys weapons systems look crapy then find out their not that bad and sometimes better than expected. Even Israel said the T-72 while in their opion not ergonomic it is a formidable tank to not be taken lightly. This is my favorite tank along with the Chieftain.
@@Fenncer24 Israel also did the same the first time they met them in the Yom Kippor war originally claiming they had knocked out more T-72's that Syria even had, while the Syrian general for the area was praising the tank for being the best tank in the world due to how well it performed and how non were knocked out (which we know now to be the truth). It's very much a game with Israel and the US military relating too losses, lie to the public again and again and those myths can prevail today. Read any wiki for a war Israel was involved in and every other line is contradictory as you are having to deal with fantasy results, that are still laughably considered credible, the Iron domes actual effectiveness, as a more recent example. And for the US just the recently released evidence of the hundreds of civilians k illed in Syria by the US for example
A word on the height thing: I have a family member who was a T-72 and later T-80 commander, and he was about 190cm tall. Soviet Union and later Russian Federation.
Not really, more like "autoloader eats your hand". The caliber of 2A28 gun on BMP1 is only 73 mm, so human arm simply will not fit into the breach. That being said all BMPs in my battalion came with about 15cm wooden baton as a rammer (this ultra sophisticated device beeing connected with loaders hand via clinched fingers) to aid loading, as autoloaders were always disabled for some reason.
@@grzegorzbrzeczyszczykiewic5895 Yeah, but you know how rumors spread around, especially pre-internet and with the information blockage of the Cold War. "The BMP autoloader might jam your hand if you're not careful" very quickly turns into "Soviet tank autoloaders can rip the arms off their crews".
About the hight of Leopard 2 Crew, i am 1,87m and a gunner/loader and fit "well". You are allowed to be 1,90m for all positions in the tank. An optimal hight however would be anything below 1,80m.
If I remember correctly, the myth about Soviet Autoloaders taking off body parts like arms came from an incident inside a BMP-1 when a crew member was injured by the autoloading mechanism. Although im not sure of the extent of the injury.
About the Iraqi T-72s, I wonder if maybe there might have been an element of "Everything's A Tiger" in play? Iraq had plenty T-55s around, plus Chinese made 59s and 69s. Surely a few of them got accidental upgrades in reports as being a more modern tank.
also the fact the t-72Ms used where bought from Poland, which were made extrmely poorly and it's armor was underperforming (not like it would've stood a chance against the silver round, but you get the point).
The coalition had complete dominance in the air, complete control over the flow of information and complete intelligence coverage of the battlefield, the whole war for coalition generals was nothing more than training. On the other hand, it does not matter at all which tanks the Iraqis would enter the fight, the outcome would be the same, because they were familiar with the situation on the battlefield no more than how much the blindfolded person standing in front of the firing squad is aware of the situation.
I had the opportunity to get inside the M84A4 during a tactical-technical exhibition. I am 1.83m tall and that was no problem for me. The bigger issue was that I am fairly well built, so my shoulders are a little over 60cm wide, which made getting in through the hatch a bit of a tricky maneuver, and that was without any gear. on the inside, it was a little tight, but not that really that bad. Yeah, I was pressed up against the gun breach shield on my right, but I had room on the left.
It's not just climbing in, nor standing inside an AFV. Try conducting Crew Drills, while in the specified uniform, AND with ALL of the equipment and ammo aboard the vehicle. Almost never are vehicles on display equipped with the "Basic Load" of equipment, tools, food, ammo, etc. AFVs get very cramped when fully loaded. Exacerbating the lack of space, and ergonomics inside an AFV.
As for all vehicules, there is a size profile for each crew member. If you fit the profile, you will be OK, but that doesnt mean comfortable Many things are not adjustable in a war machine, because it is impossible to make them adjustable. In some cases, it could be better to be close to the max size allowed to the combat station, in some cases it is better to be close to the min size. If you dont fit the required size profile, you are just not allowed to serve on the type of vehicle, and you are assigned to another position. As time passes because of richer food, average size of people is increasing , especially for Americans, Japanese and Europeans. So vehicules has to be adapted to that fact. If you look at WWII pictures, you will get an impression of the vehicules being bigger than they are, because the average size of people was smaller than nowadays. In any case, I would say it is better to be short and slim in order to offer the minimum target to any projectile or schrapnell... XD
Regarding Iraq - they did not have a lot of T-72 tanks and T-72M / M1 are export variants that are downgrades. M stands for Monkey as a joke. T-72M1 is very similar to T-72A, that is true but Iraq did not have too many of these. Also a lot of tanks, such as Saddam were only "partial" T-72s - i.e. they had Polish made chassis but turret was local. There were up to 200 such tanks made. Note that Taji factory was the one that supplied steel. The partial kits were to go around sanctions. We will never know how many tanks Iraq actually had in the first and 2nd gulf wars.
If you conduct some research there are numerous sources of reliable information. The collapse of the Soviet Union resulted in availability of documentation to confirm reports from Janes, The Military Balance (based in Stockholm), among the most reliable publications available at the time. Tanks may be knocked out, but the hull (and usually the turret too) remains. The US Army was able to study those hulks, as well as intact AFVs. I was able to personally investigate dozens, ultimately over 100 Iraqi AFVs of Russian, other Warsaw Pact, and Chinese manufacturers. The PRC made vehicles had the worst workmanship!
The M thingie and it means it’s monkey is wrong because there is nothing in the history of T72 is like that The fault isn’t on the Iraqi army or the T72 but rather the circumstances
No offense but these are older rumors that are not true. As the video said, the T-72M and M1 were made for export but were not downgrades. They were identical to the Soviet T-72A, each corresponding to a different year (M1 was T-72A model 1983). Also from the video it is highly doubtful Iraq built/assembled so much as a single tank. And it is known they had a few hundred of each variant. They had enough in fact that several of each model survive to this day.
@@paladinsix9285 Do you happen to know of any sources that talk about the examination by the US/NATO of Iraqi or Soviet tanks and tank ammo? From your comment it sounds like you do and I would be very interested.
The rumor for the height requirements probably comes from the fact the T-72 is so squat and the US has a six foot limit with waivers. I'm just shy of 6-3 and I have to get a waiver to be a 19K.
I guess it could also be mentioned that those T-72M produced in Czechoslovakia and Poland although lacking all the bells and whistles of the newer versions produced in the USSR were considered to be of better baseline quality than the Soviet produced T-72s.
Вы верно сказали, что основная проблема танкистов Ирака заключалась в использовании бронебойно-подкалиберного снаряда ЗБМ9, снятого с вооружения в Советской Армии в 1973 г. Однако Вы не правы, утверждая, что Т72М не уступал другим танкам Т72. У вас не верная информация. В Ираке использовались несколько типов танков Т55, Т62 и Т72М. Первые два танка преобладали. Последний поставлялся в Ирак в небольших количествах, с упрощенной несекретной бронёй (самая главная проблема), древним оптическим дальномером, механическим баллистическим вычислителем, аналоговой радиостанцией Р-123 и двигателем В-46. Зачастую, Т62 принимались за Т72... Мы иной раз, в России, сами путаем модификации Т72. их было очень много
I just discovered your channel and I love it. I'm from America but I find all the anti-Russian propaganda in armor and weapon discussions to be extremely annoying. Your Channel cuts through so much bullshit and it's awesome. Thank you.
Part of the myths, came from the "Otherside" in attempt to boost the morale of their own forces. Ie why Russian using Auto-loader and the "Other" using Manual. Auto-loader chewing limbs. Operational and maintenance mode. In theory will never occur. Having served, you be surprised how soldiers (especially conscripts) get themselves into usual situations. Not often, but does happens in a rare while, especially pre guard rails.
@@vojtechpribyl7386 yes you are correct. The T-64's auto loader was known to take a least 2 arms off two different people. Shields installed and proper training reduces this to maybe 1 a year. Very rare now.
The T-72 "Z" variation comes with a self-incinerating ammo carousel, flip-top turret, 3 charred corpses as assorted parts, super-glued 'inwisible to Jawelin' twigs on the hatch, and the ability to drive in reverse up to 200 times faster than forward. Russt.
I agree with all your points bar the size issues. Chieftain on TH-cam Abrams talk states he is 6"5 and says he stayed comfortable for weeks. A T72 is designed to be smaller and inside you can see the extra huge amount of room in Abrams. He said he could drive the Abrams but was a Little heavy on the pedals. Abrams is a lot more roomy even with a loader. Apart from that I agree.
With the short people, the army preferes smaller soldier for the tanks if it is possible, and that only becouse they have more space inside, but what was more important they have easier way to get inside and out in comparison to tall man. Everybody whohas experienced T72 and is tall more then 180cm knows what Iam talking about.
I am 29 years old and i used to be a T-72 driver and i am 178 cm. And it is true that taller you are, the more you should be driver. I have been a gunner for 6 months and once i was driver, i was expected the seat position to be more small but i was glad that i was wrong. Plus, i engaged myself to be driver so 👌🏻
for iraki's T-72s poor performances against western MBTs, it is also important to take into account the fact that thoose T-72 where just dug up in sand, and wheren't up-armored (so, the only protection they had beside basic armor was some sand. wich, against HEAT ammunition could have been usefull, but since the west was using APFSDS, the protection given by sand could be considered almost negligible. if thoose T-72 where uparmored, with either modern ERA or an improvised kit similar to the T-62M's BDD, or to the T-55enigma's kit, *maybe* some could have survived one or more shots of the M829 APFSDS
Maybe but I think the more important thing was A) poorly trained crews in comparison to the Abrams crews B) the surprise "right hook" the Iraqi's had no idea GPS would allow Abrams crews to navigate the flat featureless Iraqi desert. The Americans came from a direction the Iraqis were not expecting and thought was impossible to come from. Lastly C) poor quality ammo even if a t72 got lucky and survived an M829A1 round they wouldn't be able to kill an M1 from the front and would have been splatted with the 2nd round from the M1.
@@shabah2644 Iraqi armor units were with poor training and combined with years of sanctions, which crippled it with no upgrades and parts. Moreover, their armor units faced the combined arm of NATO. They stood no chance of facing NATO air superiority.
This comment didn’t age well. Latest versions of the T72 have been taken out by infantry units with ease while being crewed by Russian forces in Ukraine.
@@steelgear3876 it is worth noting that the ERA kits used by the russians where...well, not the best ever. on top of that thoose T-72 wheren't properly maintained and where poorly used. as a comparison, by observing the syrian civil war, simple T-72A and T-72M1 that had some improvised stuff slaped on it (making things like "T-72 mahmia" ) performed in an acceptable maner. the fact that russian T-72B (so, a superior version compared to T-72A and T-72M1) are getting wrecked like crap that easily, and how much it is a contrast compared to syrians T-72A is just a proof that whatever protection kits and modernisation you fit on your tank + the level of maintenance + the training of the crews are as important as the basic tank itself. tanks are like modern rifles and modern helmet and modern pieces of body armor: they are modular, you can slap extra things there and there. if you don't put proper upgrades (or no upgrade at all) you will underperform.
Umm about the arm chopping thing- it may not take your arm off but the bars coming down from the auto loader definitely look like they could break your arm relatively easily if you had your arm extended with a hand on the breach…. I definitely wouldn’t want my arm next to that machinery all day and with the bumps from rough terrain or explosions, I can see accidents happening with this relatively easily.
I was a mechanic in the Army. I sometimes had to test drive the M1. I am 6'2 and it was very hard for me to get into the hatch. Once I was in I had plenty of leg room.
The T72 has been around forever. For awhile it might well have been the best tank going. Once the Abrahm’s and Challenger tanks came into the picture it was eclipsed and is well behind them . But it is still a reasonably capable tank that can hold it’s own with a good crew. Thats part of the problem, most of the countries that buy these things don’t have very good training for the crews. Thats not a reflection on the tank!!! If I were going to war in a Russian tank I’d sure rather be in a T90, but the T72 would probably beat walking.If they aren’t fighting the US or the British you probably have a pretty good chance in a T72. Like I say, it would beat walking.
Challenger have a paper-like hull protection, weak engine for his mass and obsolete rifled cannon, and M1 at the beginning had paper-like armor and 105mm rifled cannon... so I wouldn't say that M1 and chally "eclopsed" anything when they were put into production.
@@unholyknight786 Challenger only had weak sides for it's time. The hull front was reasonable well protected for around 450mm KE protection, which was considered adequate considering the average penetration of KE projectiles at that time. The average KE penetration of Sabot's of the late 1970s was around 400mm RHAe penetration. The Chobhom armor gave it better CE protection and protection against HESH nearly double of KE as these were still extremely common in the late 70s and into the early 80s. The M1 Abrams had around the same KE protection frontally on the hull and around 500mm KE RHAe on the turret. By the mid 80s, testing with the newer 120mm guns and the newer 105mm penetrators, they opted to place DU Plates in with the Ceramic plates to better increase protection against KE. This was because the Soviet Union was running 125mm guns and based of the new 120mm gun, they knew the penetration of their newer 125mm KE would be higher than the M833 105mm's, so they calculated based off this and did a rough estimation on what would be required. The Challenger 1 had issues with such uparmoring which is why the Chally 2 came out quickly after the Chally 1 for the turret adjustments.
I wouldn't say the t72 was ecslisped by the m1. According to us tests the 1985 modle t72b had better raw firepower and armour compaired to the m1a1 as late as 2008. The only thing the abrams did noticeably better was with optics and firecontrols , but that advantage started with the m60a3 not the abrams.
@@matthiuskoenig3378 Not sure what tests you're talking about, but per Aberdeen reports, the T-72B which we got reports of how it operated thanks to Israel as the Soviets gave the Syrians their better models we found that per our own theory, the 125mm guns did have better penetration capability as we expected. Armor wise, the M1A1HA, which is just known as M1A1 was superior protection wise than the T-72B in the frontal arc, the M1A1 had better side protection due to the stand off composite panels running the front section. The T-72B with ERA had superior HEAT protection. The main difference we saw was the far better arrangement of their composite armor system in the turret vs the older T-72A, as well as the ability to fire ATGM's from the tank which caused us alarm. We were unsure how effective the missiles were as none were captured, but knowing their maximum range was beyond the return fire of our own guns was considered a major concern.
@@grimmerjxcts2206 I dont know, Ive had it as a file from years ago when I was making a mod for a game and had that in the files of the mod, I dont remember where and when I exactly got it, but it has been probably 10 years now. The song has just some random numbers and letters as the name on my computer, so I cant really help you :(((
About the height limit. I'm 1.8 m tall and fit into driver and comander positions, however it is veeery cramped for me, however gunner's position was so cramped for me, that i couldn't operate. But keep in mind that this was PT-91 Twardy, polish modernization fo T-72.
I am a career 19k for the U.S. Army, and I've been in every position but TC seat. I'm very nearly 5'8" tall, and I have to crouch to load when the hatch is closed. I'm quite comfortable in the gunner station, although I like small spaces. And obviously very comfy in the driver seat. It's not exactly 1st class on the Emirates, but all things considered... My buddy from OSUT was 6'1" and he has to really work in there. My friend from Serbia was on an M84 for a minute and he is 6'2". So this idea of Eastern tanks not being comfortable is silly. No tank is "comfortable" to be in for more than a couple hours. Even that is pushing it. You just push through it, like everything else in military service.
I would also add that the ammo rack wasn't really easier to blow up than Leopard1 etc. which had huge ammo block next to the driver and no effective armor. Similiar case with Leo2 etc.
Anyone who's got a clue about diesel engines will know that even a regular car diesel engine will be able to work with a multitude of substances as fuel with minimal modifications. It baffles me how armchair tank gurus somehow miss this information.
A diesel engine typically has a 23:1 compression ratio and running on gasoline would cause detonation, meaning a diesel engine can't effectively run on gasoline. Kerosene, jet fuel (which is high grade kerosene, fuel oil would also work, but not gasoline.
I did some research for my first science fiction novel I discovered much to my absolute delight that diesel engines are inherently multi fuel and can run on an insane array of combustible materials because they were actually purpose designed and invented to be able to work in primitive conditions on basically any sort of combustible fluid as fuel. Perfect for an alien planet where the nearest resupply is a six year flight away.
The myth of the autoloader loading limbs might have originated in David Isby's 1981 book, "Weapons and Tactics of the Soviet Army" a Jane's publication. It says within the book that Soviet forces had to manually load the gun because the autoloader was removing legs and arms. The same book also says that the USSR imposed very short hight restrictions because of the cramped interior of the T64 / T72
Does it say the autoloader of T-64 or T-72 did that or could it be some prototype or some other vehicle where some bootleg autoloader was attempted but got removed later? Since there are dozens of videos of crew just sitting and letting autoloader do the job, and almost no videos of manual loading of those tanks.
One error here: T-72M had a coincidence rangefinder unlike any tank still in service with the USSR at the time of the Gulf War (T-72A had a laser rangefinder). I think the T-72M1 got a laser rangerfinder but I cannot verify if it was equal or better than the A's.
To be fair it's mearly darwinism, after holdomor Ukraine farmers where like doomsday from the super man comics, or viltrmitres from invincible. As a rural midwestern American I won't lie I'm excited for the new shipment of Ukraine farmers plus so we can reverse engineer them to add to our domestic farmer production.
The explanation on the autoloader is not very convincing . Of course he is right that it will only happen if you put your arms in the wrong place, but that is true about all accidents, and it is clearly visible from the video itself that you could easily put your arm in a place where it would be severely injured. And arguing that there is no injuries because Russia has not reported any is laughable. The Ruusian military never reports bad news.
Even with manual loader you could lose your finger if not careful or doing it on purpose to lose your finger Autoloader you have to be doing it on purpose to lose your arms and not just on purpose but also perfectly
@@rogue__agent5884 Yes accidents do happen for Western manual systems as well. I have seen it several times myself. But the accidents tend to be minor.
@@vmanrn2906 ye but my point is the auto loader can take you arm if your being reckless and doing it on purpose You have to put your arm in perfectly without any mistakes for it to be cut off
being a tank crew especially T72 is just like being a submarine but on land. if you got hit, the chance of you getting out is slim to none and your body will be shared into small pieces. so the moment you buttondown the hatches and enter combat, it is probably the last time you see the daylight without looking at the periscope.
Поверь лучше ехать с закрытыми люками, чем с открытии и контузией после первого попадания ПТУР. Открою секрет топовые ПТУР, если не уничтожил ваш танк с 1 попадания вам просто повезло.
I'm 1,86m and I have been inside the gunner station of a Russian T-64, which I believe it is even smaller. My experience is: not only I was able to fit, but I was able to seat quite comfortably. In terms of personal space it felt a bit like the front seats of your every day car. I could even stretch my arms sideways (not to the right - canon) and up. I know a guy that is almost 1,90m who also enter and fit inside the same tank.
@@rogue__agent5884 Apparently the attempts at attaching wood to the front of trucks have likewise been unsuccessful... But I feel better driving the truck before we all die.
The deadliness of Russian tanks is being exposed in Ukraine right now as pure myth. Turns out they are becoming famous for turrets popping off. However, their biggest problem appears to be poor tactics and incompetent leadership. It doesn't matter how good a tank is if it is being used in places that negate its advantages, and instead favor your enemy. The Russians have been highlighting how good their tanks are, but not spending the money on maintenance, logistics, and training that they need to make them effective in combat. This is very fortunate for Ukraine.
As well as it’s seen that Ukrainian T-64s are performing quite admirably. It truly goes to show that if you have good crews who know their tank and what to do then you can use the tank very effectively.
@@davidquak4398 I'm also wondering if things like the TB2 will see a resurgence of AAA gun platforms as protection against smaller, lower flying drones.
I have 186cm t72 gunner and commander positions are comfortable for me drive position not so much but not for hight. Autoloader mit is from bmp1 is one of the reasons because soviet from 1973 don't mouth them.
Well my friend as an Iranian viewer of you're channel, I have to disagree with you on Iraq's T72 ammunition was horrible and that's the Iraq's T72 kill ratio against Iran's Chieftains and M60s. Which was completely in favor of Iraq's tank battalions. This kill ratio was so high that my country decided to import North Korean version of T54 or T55 (Chong ma) to stand a chance against Iraq's tank regiments. Later in the war we also imported T72 S variant from east Europe. Plus our soldiers stolen alot of Iraq's T72 M variant through the war which also a small number of them are still in operation but most of them upgraded to M1 variant. Have a nice day
@@husseinoskovjino9398 2003?? Alot of Iraq's T72 M variant was captured during the war. Most of Iran's T72 are from Slovakia and acquired in late 90s and after the Soviet collapse. Also they are designated as T72S model and Iraq's captured T72M models upgraded to M1 standard with the help of Russians. After 2003 the left over Iraq's T72 's were in bad shape and needed a heavy overhaul also they were early models and they were obsolete by that time, so Iran didn't need to take them.
Thank you for a very informative video. I didn't know the Iraqis were using inferior ammunition during the Gulf wars. It's good to hear good things about the T72.
Actually they did have the best in 1989 at that time But i guess the government didn’t know at all invading a small nation would result in like 35 nations against you and the logistics were poor because everything happened too fast
Same thing with ammuniton to Abrams, Leopard 2 and similar tanks. In Poland we've got leo's, but with outdated apfsds, which maybe could do something in 1980's, not now. Heard The same story about ammuniton to polish 72's.
@@becauseiwasinverted5222 its the top performing shells atm im guessing they want to keep their best for themselves like other nations do. Classified shit too i guess
The detail that made Warsaw pact tanks totally outclassed compared to western tanks during 1980's was targeting systems. Western tanks had thermal cameras, while easten block tanks still had infrared light systems. Thermal camera can see through smoke. So, in order to destroy a bunch of eastern block tanks, western tanks would only need to shoot some smoke in front of them and the eastern block tanks would be blind, while western tanks could take them out at leisure.
First gen 1 thermals were overly expensive and realy badbin terms of resolution, they would only be used at night. Also thermals cant see through smoke grenades they can only see through ESS
What would happen if the T72 uses ESS when fueled by petrol? I don't really know how ESS works other than the heat from the engine itself is needed for the ESS
@@danielsteger8456 i was thinking the same but dint know how to explain what happens. Like idk hoe the system works at all but i presume it would catch fire
When diesel fuel gets hot it creates a big puffy white cloud so ESS on pretty much every tank works by spraying diesel fuel onto the outside of the exhaust manifold to heat it up. If petrol is used that would be sprayed onto the exhaust instead. Petrol, when it gets hot, doesn't make a big puffy white cloud, it makes a big angry red cloud that, to put politely, might be detrimental to the welfare of the crew. ESS is only supposed to be used for a few seconds to prevent a dangerous build up of fuel. There was actually an incident a few years ago when a Challenger 2 driver forgot to turn the ESS off and so much diesel fuel was sprayed onto the exhaust manifold it actually caught fire! Fun trivia: this is exactly the same as how smoke generators in stunt aircraft work, though they often include dye mixed into the fuel to change the colour of smoke.
Yes it is. Most have been crappy to be in a confined space when that happened. Also crappy the Mdics just stood by and watched these bailbout but didn't see if they were ok. While I was in West Germany 1988-1991. An M-1 Abrams crew had a similar training accident happen. This though was far more serous as all 3 turret crew were burnt with 1st and second degree burns. What happened was the loader was loading too fast and scratched the fabric casing on the Breach just as it was fuming. With the casing ripped the powder caused a flash fire in the turret. All survived but most have been scary ad Hell. These things happen all over the world in every army but are rare thanks to proper training and protective gear and guards.
@@omegacentauri73 that wasn’t my point. It was that there’s a lot credible proof of Russian tanks destroyed in Ukraine, which is why I have an easier time believing Ukrainian reports over Russian ones.
I'm 207cm tall and i was a Cv90 driver in the late 90's in the Swedish army. I was young flexible and blessed with a well proportioned body so it worked. The image intensifier sucked though as that was 15cm lower than the regular prism so i had to lie down and watch the intensifier from over a meter away. Luckily the Cv90 has nothing behind the driver so you can recline the back of the seat as much as you want. On a laugh we even put me in a Strv m/37 at the local armour museum this was a Czech pre war tankette for two people and i managed to fit in the driver seat, would probably have had trouble driving it though but the driver sat in a leather hammock so that could probably have been made to work.
@@rogue__agent5884 y'all need to think. it won't protect you from an rpg unless you are exactly above. you can shoot under it. it is made to protect against javelins but it isn't reliable. but it will protect none the less
So what, it has sparkplugs that can be turned on/off depending on fuel type? Those engines don't have very high compression ratios, so there's no way it could do compression ignition of gasoline, and if it could, it would most likely destroy itself in the process. First mass produced gasoline engines with compression ignition capability are very new (Mazda SkyActiv-X), state of the art basically, and only work in the gasoline compression ignition mode i na very narrow rpm and load band.
Gasoline doesn't "compression" ignition....... wtf are you talking about. Diesel engines have 14+ compression ratio regardless. More than enough for gas. What you are saying doesn't even make sense.
Well frankly most Russian/Soviet tanks have one vital flaw, their ammo rack is just beneath turret, anything that penetrate the hull from side and hit the shell will ignite all, what results is catastrophical explosion which can send turret flying, ironically they never fix this, only T-90MS actually have aft storage compartment and Armatas.
Receive an Amazing New Player Pack, only available for the next 30 days! Play Conflict of Nations for FREE on PC or Mobile 💥 con.onelink.me/kZW6/RedEffect
an yet Still no Mention of The RCETES .."Russian crew emergency Turret ejection system" .. Still Classified I guess..
hello red Effect, I live in Italy and I make videos on TH-cam about armored vehicles, in large part it was you who inspired me and for this I thank you, I was wondering if there was the possibility of meeting you and exchanging ideas with you about tanks maybe on ds, I would also like (if you need) to provide you with information for your future videos, making your work easier
You mentioned nothing for the pure tactics of the Iraqi tank units! Or....OK, you only catch up with machines?
How does autoloader remove misfires?
looks like absolutely shit
I think some of the rumors actually pre-date the T-72 itself. Short crew member requirements were an artifact of from either IS-3 or T-62 tanks where you had 122mm/115mm shells in small spaces. Arm-eating auto-loaders may have originated with the initial operating problems of the T-64, which would have been presumably rectified when the T-72 got fielded. "A great tank for robotic dwarves, but a poor tank for humans" was a rather memorable description of the T-62 from an old book I read.
It kind of depends on how big you are, I'm 6'4 or 194cm and I've been inside a merkava mk4 and it was very cramped and uncomfortable inside the turret bussel. And the merkava is a relatively spacious tank.
Makes me wonder, to what extent is it a viable & practical candidate for modern unmanned ground combat vehicle conversion. 🤔
Autoloader already helps.
With VR cockpit, will it be economically feasible & practical?
@@IdoDekel-do7hh shalom
@@phantomaviator1318 shalom
@@eustache_dauger A few problems pop up with that.
There is a reason my most modern AFVs have three crew. One person to totally focus on maneuver/navigation and forward, one to aim and maintain the weapon, and a final one to collect data, search for targets while the gunner has tunnel vision. Tanks with smaller crews were tried in WWII, but were out-performed by those with better crew job definition. Modern systems have only added more for the crew to be doing.
Tanks are designed as hollow shells to contain the crew. If you wanted to make a remote operated vehicle, you would save a lot of size/weight/height by not including space for humans.
Telemetry is the big killer for remote operated vehicles - and tanks are going to operate in spaces with more obstructions than aircraft.
A nation's AFVs reflect its armored doctrine. T72 suited Soviet doctrine at the time, just as M60 suited the USA. As a US veteran with a good friend who served in the M60A3 in Germany I can assert that the NATO tankers facing Soviet tanks in Europe did not think the T72 was a toothless tiger. My impression is that the opposition felt much the same way.
Because no one on either side actually wanted to ever go to war again. Especially at that level. And for German tankers especially I bet they felt even if they had a superior tank in some respects or a new one on the way, they knew they would be facing HORDES of t-72s at one time if war broke out. Thank god it didn’t. Have a close family friend who served as a tanker in the red army in the 70s in believe, he too had no desire for war and feared it just as much.
The Gulf War was an anomaly unlikely to be repeated and was a surprise even to the US. I doubt anyone on any battlefield ever while being shot at thinks the enemy’s weapons are ineffective or “toothless”. I know a few guys who served in Germany during the Cold War. They all believed they had hours to live even without nukes if it went hot. Unfortunately propaganda works for every side and is often how myths are created. It’s easy to trash other guys troops and equipment on the internet when they aren’t shooting at you.
Gulf War vets that I know don’t talk about the equipment so much as the lack of motivation and leadership of the enemy as the main reason for victory. They are just happy their own training, equipment, etc got them home. I for one would not want to face anything in war built by Russia or anybody else for that matter. It’s all designed for the same purpose and all of it works pretty well for that purpose.
@@bryangrote8781 here here! Great comment man!
@@fartnutssupreme4930 I do not remember the name of the TV presenter from the United States, he said: earlier, under the influence of propaganda, I considered Russian (Soviet) people aggressive and angry, dreaming of worldwide enslavement. But one day I saw Soviet TV shows for children, one of them is analogous to Sesame Street, then I realized that people who love their children so much cannot wish death on other children.
@@fartnutssupreme4930 Not a single mentally healthy person wants war, and I hope that such people are taken into the army
The onion tank is the best tank of them all with addition layers of protection
@ doing ordinary things what an ogre would do
@@shrektheogre5755 did ogres go to South America after that period ?
It can still be defeated with a well placed panzershrek
@@shrektheogre5755 shrek do you hate jews in your swamp?
@@davidtoth8975 what?
About the chopping of of arms, the Chieftain has told a story about how the Ambrams automatic ammunition blast door almost chopped his hand off. It's meant to be opened and closed by the loader between every reload but crews would rig it to achieve higher fire rates, but of course this lead to dangerous situations.
So the blast door is automatic. You use your knee to hit the door open button. The door automatically closes after a set time. However you cam turn of the door hydraulics which means the door has no power to close. The real danger arises is that if you get hit in the ammo you have no blast door to protect the crew.
Edit: I forgot to mention the blast door has a safety feature that if it hits something it will automatically open again. However this feature does not work when the door is almost closed. I.e. the worst time to have you hand in the door is when the safety feature is disabled. However this is very rare because you can open the door again at anytime so idk why you would have you hands in front of a closing blast door.
@@ChefClap at least you would not worry about that for long
Also when loading rounds into the ready rack , flip locking tabs on door track preventing movement and turn off CB 12 in turret networks box. When powered, door has sensor on it that feels resistance to within few inches of closing
The Chieftan is right the First series M-1 Abrams doors could take a finger or hand off if not quick or careful. I know because I asked an M-1 loader and said yes it can. That has sense been fixed and if your hand or shell is in the way when the door closes; it will retract and then close agian 5-15 seconds later. I was in from August 1988 to July 1992 US ARMY Infantry.
@@Fenncer24 all series m1 doors has the possibility of biting ya, but they are plenty safe if ya adhere to the standards. Gotta keep an eye on officers. They have a tendency to break the tank of hurt themselves. I crewed m1 series for 10 years. In my experience, the turret monster and dealings with the track gotten guys hurt.
The myth that crewmen for russian tanks must be short comes from the T-55, which really did require the gunner and commander to be 170cm (which was average at the time when it was designed) or below, since the legroom was very limited. But in T-64 and all later tanks the turret is much more spacious. I know in person one man who is 190cm+ who served as a commander in an M84, and he said that only the driver needs to be short
Also partially from WWII, when several Soviet tanks required certain crew members to be relatively short to fit into a cramped work space (mostly drivers, I think, but some gunners too. Low profile can come at an ergonomic cost)
So you are saying I’d be completely fine in a T55 at a height of 1.72m
@@Eskeletor_210 maybe on the loader's or driver's seat. But still, i heard in Romania (they still use t-55 in active service) that they set a height limit to 168cm and 45cm shoulder width, saying that it's uncomfortable for anyone bigger than that.
@@Eskeletor_210 dude I am 1.86m and felt short but when I heard this I actually kinda felt tall the bench mark is 1.83 cm after that your above average height
Ah yes the glorification of russian massed garbage continues...
Anyone who sat in any modern western tank does not want to return to this garbage lmao.
I'm a Hungarian T-72 gunner, I'm 184cm and I fit in the gunner position quite comfortably.
Not cramped?
@@theforgottenhistorytfh601 compared to the driver's position, it's not :D
@@theforgottenhistorytfh601 the gunner's seat is even comfy enough to have a nap there
@Helmet Head u have poor dreams then lol
also my friend is gunner in croatian m84 and he is 185cm
hungarian brother greeting from croatian brothers
gunner definitely was not keeping his eyes on the target , fucking off 125mm rounds whilst looking at his mate 😂
You too would be fucking around too don’t deny it, even I would and I’m paranoid as fuck
@@LeMeowAu His comment is very light hearted. Wasn't blaming the gunner just pointing out his funny behaviour.
@@Ironpine27 I was too what are you talking I wasn’t chewing him out what you mean.
There is no need to aim, Comrade. Let the hand of Stalin guide your shot.
barry bryant and that Russian tanker is a pretty cool guy, got to speak to him.
I like how people with one brain cell comment about the Russian tanks in the war of Ukraine, the thing that they are being destroyed by infantry AT weapons like many people know those weapons against tanks are excellent and since the ww2 they have been proven effective. We could say the same about the M1 in Yemen has been destroyed many times by these weapons or the Leopard 2 in Siria. Is the same story once again, but for these people is so difficult to understand
No point of arguing with those people
Just because the tank wasn’t used properly in Ukraine and Yemen doesn’t mean it’s a bad tank
also, casualties are highly exagerated. even destructions by tanks or aircraft may be attributed to the javelin to reinforce the Idea of the little brave ukranian man going up agains the mighty big and scary russian tanks and defeating it in a david vs goliath manner
On a perception view …
*What many people don’t acknowledge are the KEY differences between domestic & export, base series & modernized*
*Another issue for the uninformed is recognizing how well the T72(export) performed against other 2nd generation tanks during the IRAN/IRAQ conflict, where MBT’s like the British Chieftain were outmatched. This is one of the main reasons why the U.S/U.K celebrated with such conviction after the 72’s defeat during the Gulf wars. The T72 was a feared tank up to that point.*
*Understanding that even a base model export 72 was an overmatch for the Chieftain gives a better idea of how good it was against what was considered at the time one of the best MBT’s in the Western Forces*
Apparently I want to clear something out also about the gulf war
1-the T72 didn’t lose because Iraqi’s training or anything but the place Iraq fought in is where Iraq’s soldiers would be their worse whcih is the desert making up around 30% percent of the country and is flat
2-the shock
Iraqi army was very shocked because it cannot retreat for any reason because there is an urban civil war happening behind them and the fact the US used more cruise missiles than aircrafts and any weapon at the time that’s not even counting how Iraq was extremely outnumbered
3-till this day no one knows how many abrams tanks or Iraqi T72 tanks were destroyed because obviously the casualties in Wikipedia or fake
That’s mostly because the US fears what people would think about the abrams tank in the future or rather wouldn’t want it’s people seeing the US lose so many casualties for nothing and will soon be against the government (and we saw that in the Vietnam war) so that’s why
@@husseinoskovjino9398 I always had this subject in mind, why does the west never release information about their ground losses in the gulf war, like we know that hundreds of T-55's were blown up but no one mentions how many western armored vehicles were downed during the conflict nor do they talk about the aircrafts they lost, they always cover it up as 'friendly fire' even in the Iraq war.
All of that is open source and is out there if you look for it.
The winning side in any war is naturally going to downplay their own losses vs the enemy and the winning side Always does. I have actually read a lot more material on Coalition losses vs Iraqi. This is partly because they were so small in comparison and the Iraqi army was also in a poor position to keep good records once the ground campaign started as they were overwhelmed too quickly. Also, translated documents are very sparse from the Iraqi side and that makes detailed comparisons more difficult. All we did is count destroyed vehicles etc on the ground and compare to our intelligence documents about what was believed to have been possessed on the other side. There are few records available from the Iraqis.
@@bryangrote8781 i doubt that the number of Iraqi destroyed tanks got counted
Because though someone can say yeah the got counted but they can easily increase the number of enemy casualties
Shwarzkoff when one time was interviewed when he was asked about casualties he preferred to not answer many times
Till this day no one know the truth about each country’s casualties
@@husseinoskovjino9398 This is the problem with wars between countries that censor any information regarding their casualties which in this case almost all the countries involved in any conflict throughout the middle east, no one will talk about how much they lost so they don't get criticized, also Iraq pretty much burned most of their documents after the invasion, and no one will go through the effort of searching and translating documents just for the sake of a debate in a very debatable war.
My uncle was a Soviet army officer and he also served a t 72 commander. He is about 1,80 meters tall rather well built.He told me that he was comfortable inside the tan.As for the performance of the t 72 in iraq , i noticed that in most photgraphs the hits the tanks received were from the side , so it probably would not make a huge difference if the Iraqi army had better tanks .
Iraqi army was
Outnumbered
Fighting a big war and a civil war with all of its allies having civil war like Yugoslavia or fallen like the USSR or cannot able to help like china
Fighting in the only region at the time where the abrams would definitely be superior to the T72 and a place making up 30% of Iraq’s geographic areas and the Iraqi army wasn’t familiar with
The flat desert
The large amount of newly made cruise missiles at the time should also be mentioned
I think it would make a difference. For example if they had IR capability the outcome would be little different, but i think that Iraq would still lose
@@husseinoskovjino9398 lol, the M1A1 Abrams would have been superior to T-72 Ural, T-72M and T-72M1 in any region. Although this specific terrain enabled it to use its superiority even better.
@@hendi1571 what about t72b?
@@viktorD4 would have fared better. T-72B was a major upgrade regarding protection although it might have taken to T-72B obr.1989 to really challenge M1A1s M829A1. Furthermore T-72B introduced V-84 engine but was still not on par with M1A1 mobility wise.
But the most important issue remained, T-72B lacked a thermal imager and a really capable FCS.
Ivan: comrade commander we need air support.
Igor: private load up the jet fuel. WE ARE THE AIR SUPPORT.
and then the tank goes "kirov's reporting" on their enemies :P
I wouldn't be surprised if the "arm eater" myth was spread during training, just as an old wives tail to scare recruits into being careful, staying on task, in their stations, "no passing around cigarettes or beer in the middle of firing drills! The auto loader will eat your arm young man!"
yeay imagine passing a cigarette when the breach slams back during firing. that would have been nasty.
This is likely the case imo. A story told to recruit tankers so they don't goof off. Scare them into doing their jobs and stay on task, in a way.
The main problem, as the video did point out, with the "poor" performance" of the Iraqi T-72 tanks was the obsolete Steel Penetrator rounds.
I've read reports a long time ago, (dont ask me for sources i've lost them, its over a decade ago) that American and allied tanks were hit multiple times by T-72s. This prove the Iraqi tank crews knew what they were doing, they just dont have the proper rounds to do real damage at all.
There was one incident where a lone Iraqi T-72 were duelling with an APACHE in a built up environment, scuttling from cover to cover to fire shots. Thats obviously almost impossible to do, the tank lost eventually but just show the Iraqi tank crews were undderated.
Well I've read about 20 years ago that the Army had denied any M-1's Abrams being damaged or even destroyed was false. Said at least 22 M-1's were damaged in one way or another needing repair in the back lines. And at least 2 maybe 3 were totally loss and write offs. They hid these do Americans would believe that the M-1 was indestructible, but we have seen the M-1 is not by Iraq 2003 to 2005. We always gotta make the other guys weapons systems look crapy then find out their not that bad and sometimes better than expected. Even Israel said the T-72 while in their opion not ergonomic it is a formidable tank to not be taken lightly. This is my favorite tank along with the Chieftain.
Imagine how demoralising it must have been hitting an enemy tank multiple times and it still goes on
@@Fenncer24 Israel also did the same the first time they met them in the Yom Kippor war originally claiming they had knocked out more T-72's that Syria even had, while the Syrian general for the area was praising the tank for being the best tank in the world due to how well it performed and how non were knocked out (which we know now to be the truth). It's very much a game with Israel and the US military relating too losses, lie to the public again and again and those myths can prevail today. Read any wiki for a war Israel was involved in and every other line is contradictory as you are having to deal with fantasy results, that are still laughably considered credible, the Iron domes actual effectiveness, as a more recent example.
And for the US just the recently released evidence of the hundreds of civilians k illed in Syria by the US for example
@Moraceae which frag round would that be?
ain't it british lynx?
A word on the height thing: I have a family member who was a T-72 and later T-80 commander, and he was about 190cm tall. Soviet Union and later Russian Federation.
The "autoloader eats your arm" meme appears to originate from the BMP-1's autoloader.
Not really, more like "autoloader eats your hand". The caliber of 2A28 gun on BMP1 is only 73 mm, so human arm simply will not fit into the breach. That being said all BMPs in my battalion came with about 15cm wooden baton as a rammer (this ultra sophisticated device beeing connected with loaders hand via clinched fingers) to aid loading, as autoloaders were always disabled for some reason.
@@grzegorzbrzeczyszczykiewic5895 Yeah, but you know how rumors spread around, especially pre-internet and with the information blockage of the Cold War.
"The BMP autoloader might jam your hand if you're not careful" very quickly turns into "Soviet tank autoloaders can rip the arms off their crews".
About the hight of Leopard 2 Crew, i am 1,87m and a gunner/loader and fit "well". You are allowed to be 1,90m for all positions in the tank. An optimal hight however would be anything below 1,80m.
I'm 193cm and had no problem in either as a driver or gunner in Leopard 2, though gunners position was a bit cramped for anyone.
@@karhuwaari 192 cm here and I'm very adaptaple to the smaller places :D I fit fine in Leo 2
If I remember correctly, the myth about Soviet Autoloaders taking off body parts like arms came from an incident inside a BMP-1 when a crew member was injured by the autoloading mechanism. Although im not sure of the extent of the injury.
So that is a fault of the crew being dumb af and not the auto loading mechanism
@@ee214verilogtutorial2 yep
@@ee214verilogtutorial2 It's almost always a crew issue. Soldiers, globally, are well know for getting into shit they're not supposed to be lol
Bmp 1 doesn't have autoloader
@@АндрійБулгаков some does have autoloader
About the Iraqi T-72s, I wonder if maybe there might have been an element of "Everything's A Tiger" in play? Iraq had plenty T-55s around, plus Chinese made 59s and 69s. Surely a few of them got accidental upgrades in reports as being a more modern tank.
also the fact the t-72Ms used where bought from Poland, which were made extrmely poorly and it's armor was underperforming (not like it would've stood a chance against the silver round, but you get the point).
The coalition had complete dominance in the air, complete control over the flow of information and complete intelligence coverage of the battlefield, the whole war for coalition generals was nothing more than training. On the other hand, it does not matter at all which tanks the Iraqis would enter the fight, the outcome would be the same, because they were familiar with the situation on the battlefield no more than how much the blindfolded person standing in front of the firing squad is aware of the situation.
@@jerromedrakejr9332 they had cruise missiles but not complete air superiority
The Iraqi air force put up hell of a fight in the Air
@@husseinoskovjino9398 yep also if i recall one unarmed F-111even got a confirm kill
@@joshuajoaquin5099 incident in all wars like these can happen even to the US
I had the opportunity to get inside the M84A4 during a tactical-technical exhibition.
I am 1.83m tall and that was no problem for me.
The bigger issue was that I am fairly well built, so my shoulders are a little over 60cm wide, which made getting in through the hatch a bit of a tricky maneuver, and that was without any gear.
on the inside, it was a little tight, but not that really that bad. Yeah, I was pressed up against the gun breach shield on my right, but I had room on the left.
It's not just climbing in, nor standing inside an AFV. Try conducting Crew Drills, while in the specified uniform, AND with ALL of the equipment and ammo aboard the vehicle.
Almost never are vehicles on display equipped with the "Basic Load" of equipment, tools, food, ammo, etc.
AFVs get very cramped when fully loaded.
Exacerbating the lack of space, and ergonomics inside an AFV.
As for all vehicules, there is a size profile for each crew member.
If you fit the profile, you will be OK, but that doesnt mean comfortable
Many things are not adjustable in a war machine, because it is impossible to make them adjustable.
In some cases, it could be better to be close to the max size allowed to the combat station, in some cases it is better to be close to the min size.
If you dont fit the required size profile, you are just not allowed to serve on the type of vehicle, and you are assigned to another position.
As time passes because of richer food, average size of people is increasing , especially for Americans, Japanese and Europeans. So vehicules has to be adapted to that fact.
If you look at WWII pictures, you will get an impression of the vehicules being bigger than they are, because the average size of people was smaller than nowadays.
In any case, I would say it is better to be short and slim in order to offer the minimum target to any projectile or schrapnell... XD
I am 1.86m barefoot tall so without shoes would I still fit in there
@@kawazaki23 guess you'll just have to try and see
It’s cheap, but reliable… for now
@UCZBhBKpQQCfz0bTf49ZxZNQ xaxaxaxa
@Vladimir Putin hahahahhaah
@Vladimir Putin
Ngl, you be actin kinda sus
When its not reliable they'd just add new ERA on that old tin can
Ohh Putin
Regarding Iraq - they did not have a lot of T-72 tanks and T-72M / M1 are export variants that are downgrades. M stands for Monkey as a joke. T-72M1 is very similar to T-72A, that is true but Iraq did not have too many of these. Also a lot of tanks, such as Saddam were only "partial" T-72s - i.e. they had Polish made chassis but turret was local. There were up to 200 such tanks made. Note that Taji factory was the one that supplied steel. The partial kits were to go around sanctions.
We will never know how many tanks Iraq actually had in the first and 2nd gulf wars.
If you conduct some research there are numerous sources of reliable information. The collapse of the Soviet Union resulted in availability of documentation to confirm reports from Janes, The Military Balance (based in Stockholm), among the most reliable publications available at the time.
Tanks may be knocked out, but the hull (and usually the turret too) remains. The US Army was able to study those hulks, as well as intact AFVs.
I was able to personally investigate dozens, ultimately over 100 Iraqi AFVs of Russian, other Warsaw Pact, and Chinese manufacturers. The PRC made vehicles had the worst workmanship!
The M thingie and it means it’s monkey is wrong because there is nothing in the history of T72 is like that
The fault isn’t on the Iraqi army or the T72 but rather the circumstances
T-72M and M1 are not downgrades. Did you watch the video?
No offense but these are older rumors that are not true. As the video said, the T-72M and M1 were made for export but were not downgrades. They were identical to the Soviet T-72A, each corresponding to a different year (M1 was T-72A model 1983). Also from the video it is highly doubtful Iraq built/assembled so much as a single tank. And it is known they had a few hundred of each variant. They had enough in fact that several of each model survive to this day.
@@paladinsix9285 Do you happen to know of any sources that talk about the examination by the US/NATO of Iraqi or Soviet tanks and tank ammo? From your comment it sounds like you do and I would be very interested.
Now that the T-72 autoloader no longer eats arms, what are the arms manufacturers going to do? :(
Are you the guy that makes the TTS mods?
@@Kazako83 I made a few, yes.
The rumor for the height requirements probably comes from the fact the T-72 is so squat and the US has a six foot limit with waivers. I'm just shy of 6-3 and I have to get a waiver to be a 19K.
It looks like T-72 is a good target for shooting practice, much like leo 2 in siria
Here's a task for you. Find a tank whose roof armor is strong enough to withstand over 500mm of RHA penetration.
@@JAnx01 Bob semple lol
@@JAnx01 cope
any tank that is sent in against entrenched infantry without infantry support of its own tends to get busted.
@@JAnx01 here is a counter task, find me a tank currently in ukr that doesnt have sun shade on its turret, looks like an indian carriage, pathetic
Please if we can equip every country with the bob semple tank, there would be world peace due to it’s power
Truly mutually assured destruction
The mere sight of Bob Semple will enforce global peace.
we want arjun
The fact that it's a tractor in disguise would make it especially lethal to a T-72
I guess it could also be mentioned that those T-72M produced in Czechoslovakia and Poland although lacking all the bells and whistles of the newer versions produced in the USSR were considered to be of better baseline quality than the Soviet produced T-72s.
Вы верно сказали, что основная проблема танкистов Ирака заключалась в использовании бронебойно-подкалиберного снаряда ЗБМ9, снятого с вооружения в Советской Армии в 1973 г. Однако Вы не правы, утверждая, что Т72М не уступал другим танкам Т72. У вас не верная информация. В Ираке использовались несколько типов танков Т55, Т62 и Т72М. Первые два танка преобладали. Последний поставлялся в Ирак в небольших количествах, с упрощенной несекретной бронёй (самая главная проблема), древним оптическим дальномером, механическим баллистическим вычислителем, аналоговой радиостанцией Р-123 и двигателем В-46. Зачастую, Т62 принимались за Т72... Мы иной раз, в России, сами путаем модификации Т72. их было очень много
I just discovered your channel and I love it.
I'm from America but I find all the anti-Russian propaganda in armor and weapon discussions to be extremely annoying.
Your Channel cuts through so much bullshit and it's awesome.
Thank you.
I've heard that instead of the Soviet MBTs that constantly chopper their crew hands off, but it's the BMP-1 that does that. Is that true?
Its the BMP-1 whit its auto loader, but there is a variant whit regular manual losding
Well yeah it can break arm if gunner is poor train .Turret in bmp 1 is claustrofobic sry for poor engl
Well if Autoloader is disabled the manual option is somewhat dengerous.
Yes, which is why many of them where eventually removed
@@TheBojo1988 Don't worry about it my friend, your English is just fine.
Part of the myths, came from the "Otherside" in attempt to boost the morale of their own forces. Ie why Russian using Auto-loader and the "Other" using Manual.
Auto-loader chewing limbs. Operational and maintenance mode. In theory will never occur. Having served, you be surprised how soldiers (especially conscripts) get themselves into usual situations. Not often, but does happens in a rare while, especially pre guard rails.
Wasn't it a thing carried over from the early T-64, but the thing got reworked pretty quickly after one or two incidents and a few close brushes.
@@vojtechpribyl7386 yes you are correct. The T-64's auto loader was known to take a least 2 arms off two different people. Shields installed and proper training reduces this to maybe 1 a year. Very rare now.
The T-72 "Z" variation comes with a self-incinerating ammo carousel, flip-top turret, 3 charred corpses as assorted parts, super-glued 'inwisible to Jawelin' twigs on the hatch, and the ability to drive in reverse up to 200 times faster than forward. Russt.
hahahahh Funny cause it's true!! 🤣🤣🤣
Multifuel myth is pretty dumb. Norway runs our diesel trucks on kerosene, since diesel is more expensive and freezes in cold temps.
I agree with all your points bar the size issues. Chieftain on TH-cam Abrams talk states he is 6"5 and says he stayed comfortable for weeks. A T72 is designed to be smaller and inside you can see the extra huge amount of room in Abrams. He said he could drive the Abrams but was a Little heavy on the pedals. Abrams is a lot more roomy even with a loader. Apart from that I agree.
With the short people, the army preferes smaller soldier for the tanks if it is possible, and that only becouse they have more space inside, but what was more important they have easier way to get inside and out in comparison to tall man. Everybody whohas experienced T72 and is tall more then 180cm knows what Iam talking about.
I am 29 years old and i used to be a T-72 driver and i am 178 cm. And it is true that taller you are, the more you should be driver. I have been a gunner for 6 months and once i was driver, i was expected the seat position to be more small but i was glad that i was wrong. Plus, i engaged myself to be driver so 👌🏻
Nice which T-72 you worked on?
@@Wafflewerfer-1st I worked on a T-72b for the first 3 years and 1/2, then the last year and few months left, I was working with a T-72b2.
@@piotrsergeievichrakovsky9087 nice have you seen 2S25s?
Some people don't realize that T-72 was unmatched from 1973 to 1990 and by today standards still relevant with the new variant B4/B3M.
乗員にとっては誘爆の危険がある弾薬を、被弾率の高い砲塔ではなく車体底部に持ってきて、その上自動装填が可能というのは当時としてはかなり進んだ戦車だった。
ロシア軍が未だにこのタイプの戦車の派生型を使用しているのには、長年使ってきた信頼があると思われる。
for iraki's T-72s poor performances against western MBTs, it is also important to take into account the fact that thoose T-72 where just dug up in sand, and wheren't up-armored (so, the only protection they had beside basic armor was some sand. wich, against HEAT ammunition could have been usefull, but since the west was using APFSDS, the protection given by sand could be considered almost negligible. if thoose T-72 where uparmored, with either modern ERA or an improvised kit similar to the T-62M's BDD, or to the T-55enigma's kit, *maybe* some could have survived one or more shots of the M829 APFSDS
Maybe but I think the more important thing was A) poorly trained crews in comparison to the Abrams crews B) the surprise "right hook" the Iraqi's had no idea GPS would allow Abrams crews to navigate the flat featureless Iraqi desert. The Americans came from a direction the Iraqis were not expecting and thought was impossible to come from. Lastly C) poor quality ammo even if a t72 got lucky and survived an M829A1 round they wouldn't be able to kill an M1 from the front and would have been splatted with the 2nd round from the M1.
@@shabah2644 Iraqi armor units were with poor training and combined with years of sanctions, which crippled it with no upgrades and parts.
Moreover, their armor units faced the combined arm of NATO. They stood no chance of facing NATO air superiority.
This comment didn’t age well. Latest versions of the T72 have been taken out by infantry units with ease while being crewed by Russian forces in Ukraine.
@@steelgear3876 it is worth noting that the ERA kits used by the russians where...well, not the best ever. on top of that thoose T-72 wheren't properly maintained and where poorly used.
as a comparison, by observing the syrian civil war, simple T-72A and T-72M1 that had some improvised stuff slaped on it (making things like "T-72 mahmia" ) performed in an acceptable maner.
the fact that russian T-72B (so, a superior version compared to T-72A and T-72M1) are getting wrecked like crap that easily, and how much it is a contrast compared to syrians T-72A is just a proof that whatever protection kits and modernisation you fit on your tank + the level of maintenance + the training of the crews are as important as the basic tank itself.
tanks are like modern rifles and modern helmet and modern pieces of body armor: they are modular, you can slap extra things there and there. if you don't put proper upgrades (or no upgrade at all) you will underperform.
@@steelgear3876 saudi m1a2 were taken out by rpg7. Infantry is the biggest threat to a tank
Umm about the arm chopping thing- it may not take your arm off but the bars coming down from the auto loader definitely look like they could break your arm relatively easily if you had your arm extended with a hand on the breach…. I definitely wouldn’t want my arm next to that machinery all day and with the bumps from rough terrain or explosions, I can see accidents happening with this relatively easily.
I've seen way too many of these things get shredded by 80s tech lately to be impressed by this tank ever again
I was a mechanic in the Army. I sometimes had to test drive the M1. I am 6'2 and it was very hard for me to get into the hatch. Once I was in I had plenty of leg room.
This was great 👍 especially the "arm mangler", wild how much traction these tales get - thanks for clearing these up 🍻
The T72 has been around forever. For awhile it might well have been the best tank going. Once the Abrahm’s and Challenger tanks came into the picture it was eclipsed and is well behind them . But it is still a reasonably capable tank that can hold it’s own with a good crew. Thats part of the problem, most of the countries that buy these things don’t have very good training for the crews. Thats not a reflection on the tank!!! If I were going to war in a Russian tank I’d sure rather be in a T90, but the T72 would probably beat walking.If they aren’t fighting the US or the British you probably have a pretty good chance in a T72. Like I say, it would beat walking.
Challenger have a paper-like hull protection, weak engine for his mass and obsolete rifled cannon, and M1 at the beginning had paper-like armor and 105mm rifled cannon... so I wouldn't say that M1 and chally "eclopsed" anything when they were put into production.
@@unholyknight786 Challenger only had weak sides for it's time. The hull front was reasonable well protected for around 450mm KE protection, which was considered adequate considering the average penetration of KE projectiles at that time. The average KE penetration of Sabot's of the late 1970s was around 400mm RHAe penetration. The Chobhom armor gave it better CE protection and protection against HESH nearly double of KE as these were still extremely common in the late 70s and into the early 80s.
The M1 Abrams had around the same KE protection frontally on the hull and around 500mm KE RHAe on the turret. By the mid 80s, testing with the newer 120mm guns and the newer 105mm penetrators, they opted to place DU Plates in with the Ceramic plates to better increase protection against KE. This was because the Soviet Union was running 125mm guns and based of the new 120mm gun, they knew the penetration of their newer 125mm KE would be higher than the M833 105mm's, so they calculated based off this and did a rough estimation on what would be required. The Challenger 1 had issues with such uparmoring which is why the Chally 2 came out quickly after the Chally 1 for the turret adjustments.
I wouldn't say the t72 was ecslisped by the m1. According to us tests the 1985 modle t72b had better raw firepower and armour compaired to the m1a1 as late as 2008. The only thing the abrams did noticeably better was with optics and firecontrols , but that advantage started with the m60a3 not the abrams.
@@matthiuskoenig3378 Not sure what tests you're talking about, but per Aberdeen reports, the T-72B which we got reports of how it operated thanks to Israel as the Soviets gave the Syrians their better models we found that per our own theory, the 125mm guns did have better penetration capability as we expected. Armor wise, the M1A1HA, which is just known as M1A1 was superior protection wise than the T-72B in the frontal arc, the M1A1 had better side protection due to the stand off composite panels running the front section. The T-72B with ERA had superior HEAT protection.
The main difference we saw was the far better arrangement of their composite armor system in the turret vs the older T-72A, as well as the ability to fire ATGM's from the tank which caused us alarm. We were unsure how effective the missiles were as none were captured, but knowing their maximum range was beyond the return fire of our own guns was considered a major concern.
@@Azumazini Would it be too much trouble if I asked for more info on those Aberdeen reports
The arm thing was my favorite tank myth. I might pretend I didn't watch this 😆
bust the myth that t80u from mid 80s having thermals
I was planning to do this kind of video on T-80, and that is actually a good one, thank you.
@@RedEffectChannel What is the song you use in your videos please RedEffect for god sake
@@grimmerjxcts2206 I dont know, Ive had it as a file from years ago when I was making a mod for a game and had that in the files of the mod, I dont remember where and when I exactly got it, but it has been probably 10 years now. The song has just some random numbers and letters as the name on my computer, so I cant really help you :(((
T-80U doesn't have thermal but T-80UK and T-80UE-1 does have thermals.
@@jaroslavdudas7227 yeah the U was striped of features like thermals due to cost. The USSR would have loved to be able to field only the UK
T-72 want even able to kill 1 tank in the desert storm war, pretty much being useless as a peasant car.
Hello Mr. Sofa warrior
Thats because The iraqis were using 3bm9 from the mid 60s
It wasn't the tank it was the ammo that they used. The Iraqis ammo couldn't penetrate Abrams at all
As a man that is 6'3" tall (190cm) i sat in Serbian M84 and i had no problems fitting inside.
About the height limit. I'm 1.8 m tall and fit into driver and comander positions, however it is veeery cramped for me, however gunner's position was so cramped for me, that i couldn't operate. But keep in mind that this was PT-91 Twardy, polish modernization fo T-72.
Not being multi fuel isint problem, if you cant get Fuel at all
The only thing weve learned about t72 is, that it makes a good cooking station for Russians.
About that height requirement i always imagined there is a "You must NOT be this tall or beyond to apply" sign in front of every tank academy in USSR.
I am a career 19k for the U.S. Army, and I've been in every position but TC seat. I'm very nearly 5'8" tall, and I have to crouch to load when the hatch is closed. I'm quite comfortable in the gunner station, although I like small spaces. And obviously very comfy in the driver seat. It's not exactly 1st class on the Emirates, but all things considered... My buddy from OSUT was 6'1" and he has to really work in there. My friend from Serbia was on an M84 for a minute and he is 6'2". So this idea of Eastern tanks not being comfortable is silly. No tank is "comfortable" to be in for more than a couple hours. Even that is pushing it. You just push through it, like everything else in military service.
I would also add that the ammo rack wasn't really easier to blow up than Leopard1 etc. which had huge ammo block next to the driver and no effective armor. Similiar case with Leo2 etc.
Anyone who's got a clue about diesel engines will know that even a regular car diesel engine will be able to work with a multitude of substances as fuel with minimal modifications. It baffles me how armchair tank gurus somehow miss this information.
Old diesel cars can actually run faster and more powerfully on petrol, albeit with some wear on the engine
@@ataphelicopter5734 how would it run more powerfully on petrol when diesel has more energy?
Fill up with petrol next time and see how far you get.
Your injection pump will be shredded in 4 kilometers...
A diesel engine typically has a 23:1 compression ratio and running on gasoline would cause detonation, meaning a diesel engine can't effectively run on gasoline.
Kerosene, jet fuel (which is high grade kerosene, fuel oil would also work, but not gasoline.
I did some research for my first science fiction novel I discovered much to my absolute delight that diesel engines are inherently multi fuel and can run on an insane array of combustible materials because they were actually purpose designed and invented to be able to work in primitive conditions on basically any sort of combustible fluid as fuel. Perfect for an alien planet where the nearest resupply is a six year flight away.
The myth of the autoloader loading limbs might have originated in David Isby's 1981 book, "Weapons and Tactics of the Soviet Army" a Jane's publication. It says within the book that Soviet forces had to manually load the gun because the autoloader was removing legs and arms. The same book also says that the USSR imposed very short hight restrictions because of the cramped interior of the T64 / T72
Does it say the autoloader of T-64 or T-72 did that or could it be some prototype or some other vehicle where some bootleg autoloader was attempted but got removed later? Since there are dozens of videos of crew just sitting and letting autoloader do the job, and almost no videos of manual loading of those tanks.
i watch you all the time and like your stuff. really interesting on the T72. i enjoy go pro Syrian T72s. their sound is awesome.
Daleko najbolji videi i sadržaj na temu vojne tehnike na youtubeu,iz hrvatske san ali stvarno svaka cast stvarno objektivno i profesionalno
Almost as good as the t55.
I have nothing to back that up, I just love it :)
i'm from algeria and im angry because my country bought a lot of these junks
There not junk tho
Plus Algeria has more T-90 than T-72
John Howard seems a Western Countries Name ??
Your thoughts in the recent installation of top turret cage armor on Russian tanks based in Crimea?
it's a bit over the top
Byraktar armor.
@@becauseiwasinverted5222 Pahahahahaha
One error here:
T-72M had a coincidence rangefinder unlike any tank still in service with the USSR at the time of the Gulf War (T-72A had a laser rangefinder).
I think the T-72M1 got a laser rangerfinder but I cannot verify if it was equal or better than the A's.
Myth number 4: T-72 has great protection against Ukrainian farmers
The T-72 is an extremely powerful tank. Ukrainian farmers just happen to be more powerful.
Same goes for t-64 of ukraine.
To be fair it's mearly darwinism, after holdomor Ukraine farmers where like doomsday from the super man comics, or viltrmitres from invincible. As a rural midwestern American I won't lie I'm excited for the new shipment of Ukraine farmers plus so we can reverse engineer them to add to our domestic farmer production.
@@juamu1132 no it doesn't
@@tallshort1849 yes it does, there are videos of t64 or the Ukrainian army being destroyed with so many things
The way that gunner just turn back every time he's about to fire and smile is quite wholesome
The explanation on the autoloader is not very convincing . Of course he is right that it will only happen if you put your arms in the wrong place, but that is true about all accidents, and it is clearly visible from the video itself that you could easily put your arm in a place where it would be severely injured.
And arguing that there is no injuries because Russia has not reported any is laughable. The Ruusian military never reports bad news.
Even with manual loader you could lose your finger if not careful or doing it on purpose to lose your finger
Autoloader you have to be doing it on purpose to lose your arms and not just on purpose but also perfectly
@@rogue__agent5884 Yes accidents do happen for Western manual systems as well. I have seen it several times myself. But the accidents tend to be minor.
@@vmanrn2906 ye but my point is the auto loader can take you arm if your being reckless and doing it on purpose
You have to put your arm in perfectly without any mistakes for it to be cut off
Two things that will never get old:
*Russian tank operators in Ukraine
*Jokes about Russian military
another thing that never gets old is a Ukrainian T64BV
being a tank crew especially T72 is just like being a submarine but on land. if you got hit, the chance of you getting out is slim to none and your body will be shared into small pieces. so the moment you buttondown the hatches and enter combat, it is probably the last time you see the daylight without looking at the periscope.
Поверь лучше ехать с закрытыми люками, чем с открытии и контузией после первого попадания ПТУР. Открою секрет топовые ПТУР, если не уничтожил ваш танк с 1 попадания вам просто повезло.
Probably true if you have a okraine crew
Do a review of our plasma armed, hover tank
Please do a Video on South African tanks
Olifant Mark 2 and the Ratel 90
Bro. Czech and Polish didn't build T72 the same way as Russian factories.
Look at all the propellant fumes they are breathing in after every shot💩
I'm 1,86m and I have been inside the gunner station of a Russian T-64, which I believe it is even smaller. My experience is: not only I was able to fit, but I was able to seat quite comfortably. In terms of personal space it felt a bit like the front seats of your every day car. I could even stretch my arms sideways (not to the right - canon) and up. I know a guy that is almost 1,90m who also enter and fit inside the same tank.
okay Andre but are you 1.86m barefoot or with shoes on because if its with shoes it doesn't count
The amount of people who don’t do their research and still shiting on tanks is laughable
The cope cage isn't working comrade. :(
It’s meant for rpgs when entering urban places not javelin
But it’s cheaply made so basically worthless
@@rogue__agent5884 Apparently the attempts at attaching wood to the front of trucks have likewise been unsuccessful...
But I feel better driving the truck before we all die.
Anything about Serbian M20 tank prototype? I love your channel, I am goin to Aviation academy, but i learned so much about tanks from your channel
The deadliness of Russian tanks is being exposed in Ukraine right now as pure myth. Turns out they are becoming famous for turrets popping off. However, their biggest problem appears to be poor tactics and incompetent leadership. It doesn't matter how good a tank is if it is being used in places that negate its advantages, and instead favor your enemy. The Russians have been highlighting how good their tanks are, but not spending the money on maintenance, logistics, and training that they need to make them effective in combat. This is very fortunate for Ukraine.
The turret thing happens in World of tanks when you get ammo raked lol
bs
As well as it’s seen that Ukrainian T-64s are performing quite admirably. It truly goes to show that if you have good crews who know their tank and what to do then you can use the tank very effectively.
What i dont understand is that the russians didn't update there old but good shilka s too be used as anti drone gun platforms
@@davidquak4398 I'm also wondering if things like the TB2 will see a resurgence of AAA gun platforms as protection against smaller, lower flying drones.
I have 186cm t72 gunner and commander positions are comfortable for me drive position not so much but not for hight. Autoloader mit is from bmp1 is one of the reasons because soviet from 1973 don't mouth them.
Oh no, another coffin on wheels for anti tank missiles.
This video has aged well.....
Unlike Russian tank crews
@@757Poppy unlike your mom
I’ll trust the tank used by 50+ nations over decades more then the NATO wundertank with zero problems, thank you.
Don't underestimate the power of vodka.
Like the Russian crews of these, this hasn't aged well.
How come?
For every one myth busted two are created in the fog of war.
I an 177cm tall and I sat in a T72 at armoured fest in Cairns Queensland and it was a tight fit very cramped.
Well my friend as an Iranian viewer of you're channel, I have to disagree with you on Iraq's T72 ammunition was horrible and that's the Iraq's T72 kill ratio against Iran's Chieftains and M60s. Which was completely in favor of Iraq's tank battalions. This kill ratio was so high that my country decided to import North Korean version of T54 or T55 (Chong ma) to stand a chance against Iraq's tank regiments. Later in the war we also imported T72 S variant from east Europe. Plus our soldiers stolen alot of Iraq's T72 M variant through the war which also a small number of them are still in operation but most of them upgraded to M1 variant. Have a nice day
Iran got all T72 they have from Iraq after 2003 not the 80s and there is still archive photos of this and a whole Iraqi army forums about this
@@husseinoskovjino9398 2003?? Alot of Iraq's T72 M variant was captured during the war. Most of Iran's T72 are from Slovakia and acquired in late 90s and after the Soviet collapse. Also they are designated as T72S model and Iraq's captured T72M models upgraded to M1 standard with the help of Russians. After 2003 the left over Iraq's T72 's were in bad shape and needed a heavy overhaul also they were early models and they were obsolete by that time, so Iran didn't need to take them.
Thank you for a very informative video. I didn't know the Iraqis were using inferior ammunition during the Gulf wars. It's good to hear good things about the T72.
Actually they did have the best in 1989 at that time
But i guess the government didn’t know at all invading a small nation would result in like 35 nations against you and the logistics were poor because everything happened too fast
Same thing with ammuniton to Abrams, Leopard 2 and similar tanks. In Poland we've got leo's, but with outdated apfsds, which maybe could do something in 1980's, not now. Heard The same story about ammuniton to polish 72's.
@@matta1966 Why is it so hard for Poland to get some DM53/63
@@matta1966 yeah but steel core? Thats like the lowest low
@@becauseiwasinverted5222 its the top performing shells atm im guessing they want to keep their best for themselves like other nations do. Classified shit too i guess
The misconception about t 72 autoloader comes from BMP 1, many BMP 1 crews actually didn't use autoloader because it was too dangerous.
The detail that made Warsaw pact tanks totally outclassed compared to western tanks during 1980's was targeting systems. Western tanks had thermal cameras, while easten block tanks still had infrared light systems. Thermal camera can see through smoke. So, in order to destroy a bunch of eastern block tanks, western tanks would only need to shoot some smoke in front of them and the eastern block tanks would be blind, while western tanks could take them out at leisure.
First gen 1 thermals were overly expensive and realy badbin terms of resolution, they would only be used at night. Also thermals cant see through smoke grenades they can only see through ESS
What would happen if the T72 uses ESS when fueled by petrol?
I don't really know how ESS works other than the heat from the engine itself is needed for the ESS
the system would catch fire
I heard that the smoke agent is directly injected into the engine, and the combustion of thereof is what causes a smoke
@@danielsteger8456 i was thinking the same but dint know how to explain what happens. Like idk hoe the system works at all but i presume it would catch fire
When diesel fuel gets hot it creates a big puffy white cloud so ESS on pretty much every tank works by spraying diesel fuel onto the outside of the exhaust manifold to heat it up. If petrol is used that would be sprayed onto the exhaust instead. Petrol, when it gets hot, doesn't make a big puffy white cloud, it makes a big angry red cloud that, to put politely, might be detrimental to the welfare of the crew.
ESS is only supposed to be used for a few seconds to prevent a dangerous build up of fuel.
There was actually an incident a few years ago when a Challenger 2 driver forgot to turn the ESS off and so much diesel fuel was sprayed onto the exhaust manifold it actually caught fire!
Fun trivia: this is exactly the same as how smoke generators in stunt aircraft work, though they often include dye mixed into the fuel to change the colour of smoke.
Isn't the video at 7:23 the video of a T-72 having a misfire inside the turret during a reenactment?
Yes it is. Most have been crappy to be in a confined space when that happened. Also crappy the Mdics just stood by and watched these bailbout but didn't see if they were ok.
While I was in West Germany 1988-1991. An M-1 Abrams crew had a similar training accident happen. This though was far more serous as all 3 turret crew were burnt with 1st and second degree burns. What happened was the loader was loading too fast and scratched the fabric casing on the Breach just as it was fuming. With the casing ripped the powder caused a flash fire in the turret. All survived but most have been scary ad Hell. These things happen all over the world in every army but are rare thanks to proper training and protective gear and guards.
This aged like milk
What part?
Like your mom
T72 tank when first introduced in the late 60s was consider the best tank of that era.but was upstage by advance in anti tank. technology
They are being busted open literally right now in Ukraine. Crazy that all these videos are being recommended now.
Please don’t tell me you believe Ukrainian numbers
@@sasamihajlov2862 there are dozens of videos and pictures of t-72’s in Ukraine with their turrets blown clean off
@@omegacentauri73 Maybe 2 or 3, not dozens haha lol
@@omegacentauri73 so russia is only as competent at the Arab emerits?
@@omegacentauri73 that wasn’t my point. It was that there’s a lot credible proof of Russian tanks destroyed in Ukraine, which is why I have an easier time believing Ukrainian reports over Russian ones.
I'm 207cm tall and i was a Cv90 driver in the late 90's in the Swedish army.
I was young flexible and blessed with a well proportioned body so it worked.
The image intensifier sucked though as that was 15cm lower than the regular prism so i had to lie down and watch the intensifier from over a meter away.
Luckily the Cv90 has nothing behind the driver so you can recline the back of the seat as much as you want.
On a laugh we even put me in a Strv m/37 at the local armour museum this was a Czech pre war tankette for two people and i managed to fit in the driver seat, would probably have had trouble driving it though but the driver sat in a leather hammock so that could probably have been made to work.
Myth #6. Cope cages will protect you from Javelin missiles.
They aren't for javies
@@devon5154 That's why its a myth.
My god y’all need to do some simple research 🤦♂️
The cage are for RPG-7 shot from building and rooftop
@@rogue__agent5884 y'all need to think. it won't protect you from an rpg unless you are exactly above. you can shoot under it. it is made to protect against javelins but it isn't reliable. but it will protect none the less
@@arcani695 low intelligence specimen
Using the smokescreen on gasoline just changes it to a flamescreen.
So what, it has sparkplugs that can be turned on/off depending on fuel type?
Those engines don't have very high compression ratios, so there's no way it could do compression ignition of gasoline, and if it could, it would most likely destroy itself in the process.
First mass produced gasoline engines with compression ignition capability are very new (Mazda SkyActiv-X), state of the art basically, and only work in the gasoline compression ignition mode i na very narrow rpm and load band.
Gasoline doesn't "compression" ignition....... wtf are you talking about. Diesel engines have 14+ compression ratio regardless. More than enough for gas. What you are saying doesn't even make sense.
I love the T72!!!!
U can stop an invading force by just putting it in your garage and when enemy drives past u can fire and run
Javelin makes the turret go pop pop pop!
Well frankly most Russian/Soviet tanks have one vital flaw, their ammo rack is just beneath turret, anything that penetrate the hull from side and hit the shell will ignite all, what results is catastrophical explosion which can send turret flying, ironically they never fix this, only T-90MS actually have aft storage compartment and Armatas.
@@Zagoreni02A T90M and MS. the MS is the export version of the M
In the very near future, kids will shiver at the stories of tanks that had to be operated from the inside of the tank