Get your 20 % discount until 27th September on the T-72 books and around 10 % on our other books: militaryhistorygroup.com T-Shirts: everpress.com/mhv 3:14: "anthropological" should be "anthropometric".
Thinking about economy class on a commercial airplane as being designed with similar ergonomic principles as a Soviet tank explains a lot, actually . . .
I was a US Army tanker in the 80s, and got to climb into a T62. Im 6'1" and was pretty comfortable in the Abrams. In the T62, I couldnt function. It really wasnt made for me
In the Soviet recruiting office, they wouldn't send you to certain troops if you didn't meet certain physical conditions. I've never met a tanker taller than 1.7m (5'5") in my life, and I've seen a lot of them. My buddy, a tank driver, was the shortest guy I had ever met. His height was on the verge of being recognized as a midget.
A little anecdote on this topic. In the former GDR (DDR) small men often get the common nickname "panzerfahrer" (tankdriver) because the NPA (NVA) conscript mostly small men for the tank crews to fit in the soviet tanks.
The smaller size of Soviet armored vehicles was not due to ignoring crew comfort, but due to this principal design philosophy: smaller size = less area to cover with armor = better armor for less weight + better mobility due to better power to weight ratio. Additional important consideration was that a smaller size target is harder to hit and easier to conceal.
@@nebojsag.5871 Yeah, but it's against the FREEDOM for a 4'5” guy to be a paratrooper or Navy SEAL. Because that's what the Army is all about: FREEDOM and DEMOCRACY (doing exactly what your drill sergeant tells you to do).
@@osmacar5331 Then again, Vietnam, Thailand, and the Indochina regions in general very rarely saw famine. But do I need to remind you how tall were the “men in black pajamas who defeated the green giants”?
Anecodtal, but if iirc, the USAF also experimented with the 50th percentile in cockpit designs in the early Cold War years. Turned out, it fit *no one*.
And there is a joke from Soviet era here in Finland: Inventor Uspatoff (a joke in itself Us Patent Office...) presented a new barber machine for men to the Central Committee. "It makes every hairdo look exactly the same for every man" he said. But someone from the Committee wondered "what if men have heads of different shapes and sizes?" . Inventor replied "the machine is stronk, so only at first time..."
@@ranaldbanzac4375Russian humor at times can be difficult to understand. In this case the machine is powerful enough to cut off whatever is in the way of where it thinks hair should be.
The Japanese used Kaiwo Maru, a four masted Barque from 1930 as a training ship for merchant sailors. They replaced her in 1989 with an almost identical ship Kaiwo Maru No. 2. The old ship still exists as a museum and is in such a condition that she could still be used today. The main reason for the replacement was the huge size increase in Japanese men since 1930. 1980s japanese sailors simply were too big to fit her berthing decks.
@@Teh0X Japanese civilian industry and the average income of Japanese civilians was minimal during and prior to WW2. The average Japanese person's education also maxed out at a grade-school level. I would not at all be surprised if issues with malnutrition were rampant. America's response to the beginning of the great depression of enacting protectionist policies under Hoover did significant damage to Japan's economy and undermined Japan's civilian government but the post war free market system and Japan's focus on industrial development and more specifically tech allowed Japan to import vast amounts of highly affordable food from a market with the ceiling set by the US.
As I watched this, I was reminded of a video The Chieftain put out a while back where he was addressing the size discrepancy between Western (US, specifically the M60) and Soviet tanks. IF MEMORY SERVES, he indicated that the Soviet tanks were built for an offensive philosophy so they were smaller and crews weren't expected to 'live' in them for days at a time. Western tanks, OTOH, were expected to sit in defensive positions for extended periods, so were larger in order for crews to stay in them for days with some semblance of comfort.
Yes, but there were other tradeoffs involved as well. They designed to that 50% mark, but that excluded a lot of potentially good tankers from the ranks. It made them lower profile and cheaper, and had other advantages, but there were disadvantages too, even under soviet doctrine as envisioned.
@@surters Oh, yes...and he made his height a feature with his 'Oh, bugger!' vehicle exits. 😎 Many times I have cringed a little, watching him struggle.
@@surtersOf all the vehicles on the channel, I believe the ones he didn’t fit at all were the Ford Canadian Military Pattern truck, the Irish BDX armored car, and anything French. This is from a list of vehicles that includes particularly large and spacious vehicles like the Italian CV-33 tankette, American M22 Locust light tank, Polish TKS tankette, British Universal Carrier, the American 3-Ton M1918 Ford tankette, and the German Hetzer.
Re averages, there was at least one crash of a (small) passenger plane in the US in the 1990s that happened because the average weight used for calculating passenger weight was still based in 1940s Americans and these particular load of passengers was almost twice the weight.
When I did my Finnish conscription service in 1992, I was in coastal artillery (that really was a thing back then). In the island there were very modern 130 mm guns, but the repurposed T-55 turrets hadn't yet been obsoleted. I've tried operating in one of those, and it's a nightmare. The ideal loader would be 140 cm tall, with arms like an orangutang and the strength of a gorilla.
Tankograd is an excellent resource and is very well written. I enjoy the Author’s work and these interviews a lot. That being said, as someone who has spend hundreds of hours in an Abrams gunners station and also been inside a T-72 equivalent (M-84) I’m gonna have to very strongly disagree on the “minimal ergonomic different” between the two tanks. It’s hard to quantify but 10% seems very generous to the Soviet designs. I assume I’m outside the 50th percentile for a Soviet man at the time the T-72 was designed but the ease of doing a lot of gunnery tasks in even earlier M1s and Leopards compared to the T-72 is night and day.
@@pixelsonascreen you're not considering the fact that americans and europeans are in average, much taller than most other countries, seriously, i'm brazilian i'm always horrified about how ya'll are giants dude! plus it was made in the 70s and people were way shorter back then, they valued having a harder to spot and more compact tank over having one that can fit any soldier comfortably, which i think is pretty fair.
I too greatly enjoy Ryan's writing and look forward to buying this book. However, I also agree that some hands-on experience with a T-72 is important if you're going to write an entire book about it, and hope that Ryan gets invited to look one over.
"50th percentile" is an extremely low target. A more typical design target to suit 'most' people without excessive cost is fitting up to the 70th or 80th percentile (pending on what you actually design and how hard it will limit people). Designing a tank around the 50th percentile in body size will definitely make it extremely unergonomic for a large part of the population. Accomodating smaller people is often doable through adjustable chairs and instruments, but it sets a pretty hard limit on how effective taller people will be.
It's fine for Russia due to extreme ethnic diversity. They got ethnic groups dominating particular branches. Asians traditionally crew tanks in Russia.
@@usun_politics1033 It's not just ethnic diversity. I grew up in Canada but live in a heavily Russified part of Ukraine. Despite official stats saying that adult males are about the same height in each country, men, including younger generations, are quite a bit shorter than in Canada, especially if one considers only white Canadians. I would say, on average, the Russian tends to be shorter than the Ukrainian (ethnically speaking, not citizenship -- though that might be because Russians are more Asian, I don't know), and working-class people have a lot more surprisingly short individuals than the rich in the young generation, I guess the effects of uneven poverty and malnutrition in the 1990s-2000s.
@@T33K3SS3LCH3N I think it's meant in a different way. As mentioned in another comment, the assumption is that e.g. height has a normal distribution. For the normal distribution, the median and average is equal. Based on that value, they select the value and assume that left and right of it they can capture a large amount of the population, for example one standard deviation (roughly 2/3 of the population)
On the British Chieftain and I guess Challenger 1 ( it had the same gun kit ) you would laze the target, track it for around 2 seconds and then press autolay. That would track the target but best to fire asap as tracking goes out the longer you leave it because the target won't hold a constant speed. For static targets you laze then autolay, the elipse that is displayed in your site will move to cover the target and then you fire with the command "firing now" pulling the trigger on the W of now so your commander and get his face away from the sight. For gunnery and D&M training ( Driving and maintenance training ) you would do it in the classroom and practically by actually doing it in the British army, when you got to your regiment you would learn a few "better ways" to do a few jobs but you would also get a lot more experience in actually doing it in the field while on exercise. It's not exactly the same in the field as in the classroom or on the tank park, that experience is what makes a good tankie who can maintain his tank in the field and reduce breakdowns. Unreliable Cheiftains were the early ones ( from what I heard they were really quite bad ) or poorly maintained tanks later on ( I only had one pack lift in 4 years on Cheiftain and that was down to a gunner driving my tank while I did my first range period, I was screaming down the intercom trying to tell him how to drive it properly while engaging targets. He labored the engine in too high a gear for too long and on the next exercise while I was driving it gave up the ghost. That was a damn good engine too.
@@GARDENER42 We had to get them out from the armory at BATUS and clean them although they were never used and even the port in the turret that they used to poke through was welded over.
@@GARDENER42Chieftain had a ranging gun originally, and upgraded to Tank Laser Sight and Improved Fire Control System down the line with the Ranging 50 cal removed
I love tanks. I love fighter jets. But at a height of 6'2, I know that serving in either would not be a comfortable experience. So if I went into service, my lot would be to be a big, scary footslogger, while my short king bro's man the tanks and the planes.
a ukrainian channel called Shawshank redemption on youtube made a great video showing and explaining a captured russian t-72v3 and t-90a, it's incredible how little room they have, and because of a very compact design it lacks ANY sort of room for future upgrades, the scopes are bolted one on top of another instead of replacing them, which reduces the real estate of the crew even further
When talking ergonomics there is imo one more thing to consider that was not mentioned here at all. And that is the amount of crewmen. Western tanks usually have 4, soviet tanks usually 3. Thats one less person to do maintenance, to stand guard etc. Its not a big deal for a short operation, but it multiplies the longer you are living in the tank.
I've been in a fair number of armored vehicles. The only one I have found to be more claustrophobia-inducing than the T-72 is the Jagdpanzer 38 with the T-55 a close runner-up.
The first person to get off an accurate shot gets to live. That's just how it goes 99% of the time. So whatever it takes to deop a few milliseconds of advantage into an average crew's hands is more than worth it.
Real life battle situations are far away from War Thunder game. The main job of a tank is to fight enemy field fortifications, not the one on one duels.
You're getting ahead of yourself there, friend. First, you have to spot your target. Most Soviet tanks have almost half the frontal profile of their NATO counterparts. They're lower to the ground and much easier to conceal. Nowadays, with drones that no longer matter but it's a big deal in the 80s.
@@cuongle7990 The Soviets would be on the offensive in the European theater. You can't really charge into western Europe and remain in cover and concealment.
Well if you drastically truncate the training due to time constraints, you should expect the level of training to be less comprehensive. No doubt Western tank crew training covers the stab issue comprehensively, whereas the training of Ukrainian Leopard crews probably glossed over it (or removed it from the syllabus) during the training.
they needed to go over bridges in eastern europe. not repeat mistake germany did with heawy cat tanks who couldnt go over bridges got encircled or airbombed becouse couldnt move unless road or firm ground
Man. For not having been in a T72, the author has very clearly done his homework and displays a familiarity in terms and body language that is rare in this context. Great interview and perspective; thank you!
I heard that WWII tanks were built for 5' 5" crew but with a stocky build. This was carried to the T-62. Though this may have just been military scuttlebutt.
One should also keep in mind that people in the USSR were shorter, on average than westerners. I live in Ukraine, though I grew up in Canada. I was a little below average for an adult male in Toronto, but noticeably tall (although not extremely so) here. Don't trust online statistics about population heights....I think a lot of folks, especially men, exaggerate their heights, because there's no way the published numbers are true, at least for these parts of the world. On paper, the average male is basically the same height here as in Canada, but, in reality, there's a several centimetre gap, very noticeable.
@@WangMingGeHad a funny moment attending a big airsoft game with about 2000 players from all over the world. Met up with some slavic fellows at a respawn zone, I think they were Russians but I can't be sure. So we were chatting for a bit and I mentioned that i was from Scandinavia. They just replied "Yes, we know" I asked them what gave it away and they said "You're like a full head taller than everybody else here" 😄
@@WangMingGe when I was in central Russia, I'd say they are about as tall on average as what the stats for Canada show. I am 5'8" and has been since long before finishing high school, on the street an average guy was a couple of inches taller than me, so about 5'10", supposedly the Canadian average. Wonder how this breaks down by region. Oh, and in Serbia I felt like I have dwarfism. 6'5"ish dudes are more than a daily occurrence. Doesn't have anything to do with anything, just wanted to share because was surprised since it isn't usually in public conversation as a particularly tall country. I'd say an average guy was shorter than in the Netherlands, but I've seen very tall people more often in Belgrade.
@mr_ThreeEight_1776 Yulp. The tooling was set for making cramped tanks, based upon faulty assumptions that a 50th percentile would mean a generally useful tank. So the recruiting doctrine was lead by the machines, like in interkerfuffel French tanks. Doctrine didn't influence the machines.
DANKE! Für ein weiteres informatives Video. Der Werbungsteil wird allerdings langsam bisschen viel, fühlt sich immer mehr an als ob das immer mehr die Werbekanäle für den Buchladen werden. Noch geht's und ich schaue gerne zu, aber ich hoffe, ihr habt das im Blick .
@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized Ich weiß, hab da auch schon eingekauft. Mag euere Videos und Merch wirklich gerne. Ich hoffe halt es nimmt nicht überhand wie bei vielen TH-camrn, wo der Kanal nur noch existiert, um Zeug zu verkaufen, oder wo es sich zumindest so anfühlt, als ob nur noch Videos erscheinen, zu denen man gleich das passende Buch hat. Noch ist es nicht so weit und wenn man davon besser leben kann, ist das natürlich auch völlig in Ordnung, ist euer Kanal und euer Geschäftsmodell.
While the Soviet tanks being lower to have less profile and thus not being spotted so easily is a good idea back then it stopped being an advantage today due to drones and better aiming systems. It's still a pretty good concept it just aged badly.
as did the russian economy with Krushevs reforms, and Gorbachovs Perestroika that enabled shock therapy under Yeltsin. now, coorporate profit is put over providing services to the people, or protecting it, and thus more modern tank concepts weren’t develop because funding them means less yachts
I had a chance once in my life to sit in a T-72B3 first and Leopard 2A5 perhaps one hour later. The difference couldn't be more noticeable. I'm 1.78 and I could fit into a T-72, but it was very cramped and performing of any real combat tasks would have been challenging. In Leopard 2 I had plenty of space and comfort, so much so that any task would be very easy to manage.
Having had the chance to sit in the commander’s and gunner’s stations on a T-72, I have to agree with the general thesis. It’s definitely not designed to be comfortable for a relatively tall person like me, but unlike a BMP-1 it wasn’t uncomfortable. All the controls (at least the ones I could read, my Russian is not especially good) were well laid out and readily accessible. If I were a Russian TC or gunner and actually trained on that particular track, I have no doubt I could effectively fight the tank. And also unlike aforementioned BMP-1, I think I could actually survive it driving over a small bump without losing several teeth or getting a third concussion. Overall, well thought out and a good design. If not for the lack of an independent thermal for the commander, it would definitely be on par with any other mainline MBT. Mind you, I would never trade my usual mount for a T-72, but that’s mostly because I’ve gotten used to having enough leg- and headroom to move get comfortable and enough space to shove a week’s worth of snacks and energy drinks into various crevices. The CITV and Blue Force tracker are nice, but the latter isn’t strictly necessary except for platoon or company commanders/XO’s vehicles.
I knew someone who had been a USAF pilot flying MiGs and other Soviet aircraft, I believe in the 1970s and 1980s. He said not all had been bought or stolen. Some had crashed and been rebuilt, and had odd placards like "Don't pull over 3G because the right wing is bent 3 degrees." As for ergonomics ... he said the planes themselves were a joy to fly, and he could always get on the tails of opposing (production, current inventory) USAF planes, but every time he tried to do anything such as arm the (simulated!) missiles, he had to take his hands off the stick or throttle and would lose his weapons lock. They also had old-style gauges, and not in any kind of modern order, so he spent a lot of time scanning instruments instead of looking outside. He didn't provide any model numbers or names, always talked in generalities.
Considering the thorough reviews of many 60s-70s Soviet jets No way in Hell the majority of jets He flew were that Good They have Good maneuverability but most certainly not all of Them And how Inept were His opponents to consistently lose to a 70s-80s Soviet with 60-70s Tech in anything about an F-16 or above? Not Your blame to not know this but when He was generalizing Oh Boy was He generalizing
@@ComfortsSpecter It sounds like you're trying to say he was wrong, without being able to say he was wrong because he actually flew those planes, and you didn't. How do you know his opponents were inept? Because his experience doesn't match your books and video games? Where is your proof that the USAF in the 1970s and 80s was full of inept fighter pilots? Sounds like you are the one generalizing.
That's an anecdote and is colored by the context of the situation and the experiences of that person. The USAF and USN tested IRIST in aircraft in the early 60s and HMD's in the 70s and never fielded them. With the advent of the internet you get unintelligent people writing how the Mig-29 and Su-27 was revolutionary with IRIS-T and HMD's when compared to the US. When in reality the US tested early iterations of those technologies and decided they were not yet matured yet.
@@ComfortsSpecter what he wrote is probably true, this is same thing that I heard and read Polish pilots say about soviet-made jets when they later had comparison with western ones, and experience with joint exercises with various western countries. Soviet jets, although very rough around the edges, with bad instruments and ergonomics, were more maneuverable than western ones (like F4 or Tornado) and well trained pilot would commonly win. But they were inferior in everything else and maneuverability often didn't matter at all when they lost the mock fights before they even detected the western plane, not to even mention entering visual range
From my understanding, some Mig's had crazy acceleration and top speed. Some pilots even refering to them as a rocket ship with wings. But they had trouble with agility due to going as fast as they did. From a physics perspective it would make sense (the faster you go the harder it gets to turn), but I can't say for sure if this was true for them since I've never been a jet pilot.
Apparently there are Russian ERA block designed for thin-skinned vehicle use, but mounting on glass is perhaps stretching that friendship a tad too far.
@@dj1NM3Those are pretty much exclusive to the BMP-3 and are prohibitively expensive. Sticking K-1 on anything that isn’t an MBT is going to get you killed as it just cracks the armor (aluminum BMP) and the explosive force enters the vehicle and explodes your eyeballs… also the fact that ERA doesn’t stop anything it just slows and degrades it enough for the armor of the vehicle to do the rest… if there is no armor to stop it it’s still going to enter the fighting compartment and turn the crew into jelly paste.
The guest is clearly confusing cause and effect. According to him, the poor understanding of energonomics by Soviet engineers led to a cramped little tank. The obvious truth is that the need to develop a small and relatively cheap tank led to cramped conditions and inconvenience, but not the other way around. The developers of the Volkswagen Beetle may have been PhD in energonomics, but given the size and cost of the Beetle, it could only have the energonomicss of a Beetle, not a Rolls-Royce.
I think you misunderstood what he said. He said that they studied ergonomics, but the benefits of a smaller armored vehicle outweighed the benefit of accommodating everyone.
One advantage of designing for the 95th percentile is as decades go by nutrition improves and people live longer so you can fit both new taller recruits and older, heavier reservists. 50th percentile assumes your country won't advance nutritionally during the life span of the tank and will never need to call up the reserves. Both assumptions have been proven false.
1. What are You even talking about 2. If They wanna Die in Excruciating Agony for nothing Except maybe filling someone else’s Pockets All You can do is warn Them Inches mean Everything to Everyone Either accept It or… You want Me to type It again or like?
My issues with 50th percentile design: 1. If both sexes will use something, their statistics are often bimodally distributed, meaning the majority of one sex is too large and the majority of the other sex is too small, with nobody actually fitting the design correctly. 2. Even if we can assume that the distribution is monomodal, there is often greatly asymmetrical effects from being too large or too small. Being too large is usually much worse if space is a premium, since you simply won't fit in a normal position, although being smaller can have its disadvantages as well, especially if the controls take a lot of strength to use. I would suggest the better option is to take your percentiles and integrate how effectively they could use the thing, possibly with a weighting exponent based on opportunity costs of how effectively they could use something else instead, them try to maximize the area under this curve.
Modern conflict in Ukraine will be researched decades after to learn about new ways of fighting. No armies other than Russian and Ukrainian has combat experience of fighting equal forces. GWAT was fun but there’s significant differences between fighting guys with 19th century weapons and fighting army with all modern capabilities like air power, anti aircraft systems, electronic warfare and so on
Definitely true. But you have all these Ukrainians being taught by instructors from different NATO countries who never went to any war. And then you get things like Ukrainians asking their German instructors how to deal with minefields - and the German says 'we go around them'. Then they do their summer '23 offensive and face minefields stretching hundreds of kilometers to each side. If the NATO countries were smart they would import lots of Ukrainian veterans as instructors - and better do it now, because if they wait much longer there won't be any left alive.
@@mananaVestaRespectfully, there are areas that Ukrainians would be able to reach us in. Drone warfare and such, but then there are others that they shouldn’t try. Combined Arms warfare is one. Constantly and consistently we’ve seen them send out their tanks alone with no infantry support. That is a good way to get taken out by an ATGM, a Drone or a some guy with an RPG-29. Helicopter and Fixed Wing Aircraft is another, as they really haven’t been engaging that many Russian aircraft with their own just due to limitations of the available assets. While we haven’t been actively fighting LSCO since 1991, we still train for it, and have taken lessons learned from Chechnya, Georgia and even Pre and Post 2022 Ukraine.
@@mananaVesta it’s easy to fight like nato taught if you’re nato. With total air superiority, total weapon superiority and so on. But in reality nato controls intensity of a conflict by controlling supplies. Aa systems? Sure we give them. Next year. Fighters? Sure. Three of them in December next year. Close support aircraft like a10? No
@@andrewdenzov3303 Do you think NATO 'controls the intensity' because they don't want to win? No, it is a combination of lack of resources and fear of open war against Russia with its superior strategic and standoff weapons. But this war was never supposed to be fought out - Russia was supposed to collapse under the sanctions and the confiscation of its foreign reserves. Now that it is fought out NATO is out of ideas and just fumbling along from day to day, with no way to win and no way out (unless the Western leaders admit being totally wrong about everything and doing a 180° turn, which has a snowball's chance in hell of ever happening).
@@PeterMuskrat6968 you should be well aware that even thorough training isn’t real combat. Soldiers will learn how to fight in new circumstances but how much they will pay for it. Combined arms is very good. On paper. How you could implement it when even couple of soldiers or MG nest is a valuable target for 155 mm? You had to gather forces far away from reach of rece drones and striking distance of 155 and MRLS. Than you had to get combat groups to enemy line under constant fire of artillery and drones. Your AirPower would be pretty much grounded by AA systems and such. And even if you succeed they still have nukes to fry up couple millions of people
I mean… if you’re designing a tank for the 50th percentile… that still means that HALF your soldiers are going to be too big to easily fit/operate the vehicle… which, when you really think about it, is an absolutely HUGE percentage of your fighting force that is going to just, inherently, be less capable of fighting in the vehicle.
In Russia it’s considered military vehicles don’t need ergonomics in a similar fashion to how bosses in America don’t think employees should sit while at work…
Hello, my questions for the Asian fellow who is fully armed with all this cold war, tactical and technical knowledge. What was your inspiration to learn all of this? I grew up during the '80s and so it was weekly news or stuff I would read in Newsweek you know but all these grown-ups were doing with tanks and fighter aircraft in Europe, and what was your introduction and fascination with it?
Well, a guy interwieved about a tank which he was never used. I’m pretty sure he ha great insight of its ergonomy… Maybe he left out a few major factors in its ergonomy (like vibration…) but half the SU population at least fit into it…
Two other TH-cam channels have come across it, so is it a T-72 thing?... With the T-72 why would a part from one country where the T-72 was built not fit onto a T-72 tank from another country? IE you can not mix and match parts of apparently the same design of tank with other partners that made up the Soviet block/Warsaw Pact?
Could be a quality control issue. My Grandpa told me story about a project for the government he was part of shortly after WW2. The people in charge decided to swap some parts manufacturing to a factory in Mexico instead of the US to save on cost. The factory in Mexico was given the same blueprints and specs as the American factory, but some of the parts from the factory in Mexico wouldn't fit when the scientists tried to install them. They threw away so many out of tolerance parts that they lost money despite the cheaper cost. They went back to ordering from the US factory afterward and the problem went away.
There is a slim, small possibility that it a was a "monkey model" export version control that the USSR implemented, so that if there was breakaway nation, that they couldn't loot disabled Soviet tanks for spares when the Red Army rolled in to quell the revolt. Giving each satellite state a slightly different set of blueprints and specs, each would work as a system on their own, but wouldn't quite be compatible with each other. More likely it was just crappy quality control and lots of hand fettling to get things to fit and (mostly) function.
Different factories making things with varying qualities with different methods. Factory A in East Germany makes a part that is 1mm off from the blueprint, Factory B in Poland gets it almost spot on with just a 0.1mm difference. Part A will not fit into the same place as part B.
@@altaccout no vehicle gives you this. Even in your Mercedes s classe you will be tired after hours driving. And in fighting vehicles you should fight and not get comfortable. Will be crew of say m1a2 Les tired after few hours of fighting? Maybe. But who cares if there’s five 72s for one m1a1
The 95% percentile rule can get quite annoying on the other end of things hen it gets mixed up with bureaucracy. I can fit into modern fighter cockpits just fine and reach pretty much everything important with little or no trouble but I'm officially a couple of centimetres too short to be a military pilot. Even for cargo/utility aircraft where things are less hectic.
Another problem with soviet training was the language barrier between soldiers from different nationalities (for example in east germany a rookie from Kasachstan stoped his tank right on a railroad track, because he could not understand his Russian instructor, resulting in a litteral train wreck)
actually, having all controls "right in front of you" as a gunner is a bad layout. Your eye is on the sights, so things are better if they are to the sides of you. But what does a guy who was a BFV gunner for 3 years know?
Not literally right in front, the most frequently used controls on the T-72's gunner's station were all on the control handles and the switch for the autoloader was right above his left thumb, so there was no need to break away from the eyepiece ever in an engagement. When fighting in degraded mode the wheel to operate the optical rangefinder could be turned with his thumbs. The most frequently used items were placed closer and to a more visible location. Infrequently used items like the fusebox (turning on/off the turret electrics) were stuffed into a corner behind the night sight.
lol, tell me your only knowledge of the t72 gunners station is from this video without telling me so. Gunners station is quite similar to that of the Bradley.
So I have been in a pt91, a t72m1, all m1 family vehicles, leclerc (while I was in kuwait) and a challenger 2. The t72/pt91 is the worse for the crew to function and fight in. The gunner having one fire button for the main gun and the other for the coax means that you could be in a situation where u need to keep u hand on the leftover handle but need to us your control switches or button on the left side. Meaning u would need to cross ur hands. That 1. Then the lack of guards/cage inside the turret means ur limbs can be lost. I am short 5'4 and yet my legs could be chopped off. That 2. 3rd. The lack of a heater. That was one of the 1st things both the cz and polish soldiers notice a huge difference between their tanks and m1a1 and leopards. 4th things on a tank. Auto loader goes down it hard to load a t72. 5th boresight a t72 family of tanks is really non exist. I used the mbd, string and used a mean with a mbd. The t72 method is not effective or good. 6th. Crew size. 3 crews means u pull longer guard duty on the tank. It also means if u lose 1 person u r down to two. For operation, guard, and maintenance. Greatly reducing the effectiveness of the tank. Stabiztion is not on all the time in t72. Crews can turn them on when they need them. Ppl forget. Most western tanks have them on whenever the tank is powered on and hydro. So ppl can't forget and u always have it. Sometime u are surprised and t72 crews will forget to turn it on. As a tanker with 22 years of army experience and another 5 years as a tank instructor. A lot of easy things are lacking on a t72. Remember we should judge tanks by it least experience soldiers using them. Not experts. As most will never be experts. I forgot about l the lack of redundancy on the t72 family of tanks. Again things break.
@@goforbroke4428 no my point is it easier for a barely skilled crew to operate a m1 family tank. And still be effective then a t72. The issues I listed above make operating a t72 harder then a m1, challenger 2 or LeClerc tanks. It is a lot of lil things.
@@kayleeswackyadventures8672Do you think this has anything to do with soviet plans, to have the T-72 serve the role of ‚mobilisation‘ tank? As far as im aware, it wasnt originally supposed to be produced during peace-time. Im not sure why this changed, probably out of some sort of necessity, but it would explain the lack of ‚common-sense‘ features that you described in the M1 for example
about the "pull security" issue, isn't it fixed by virtue of the USSR ideally pulling more tanks onto an area? (defeating an enemy by statistics), and therefore more eyes on target?
@@kayleeswackyadventures8672 surely it's the opposite if you have a highly advanced vehicle with bells and whistles everywhere compared to a more simple vehicle with less buttons to press.
It may seem limiting to design to the 50% percentile (meaning about 40% of your population won’t really fit). But look it from the Soviet recruitment office, tall guys get a rifle and short guys get a tank. Everything’s fine until the same people design IFVs 😺
We redesigned the breech block so we could utilize higher pressure ammunition, chances are the HP was causing issues with the automatic breech opening.
@@sinisatrlin840 Similar to the Sherman , in that respect . Crew comfort was another matter . Soviet tanks were natoriously bad . Even people today in museums that have restored tanks from all over the world , say Soviet tanks are miserable . Interestingly , British tanks got low marks as well , with German and American being better .
@@tolik5929 They where builded under extreme conditions, same as PPSH factory that was less than a mile from conflict line in Leningrad. There are documentary films about it, today in same conditions nothing would be build. Sherman was great in crew comfort, but was too tall beacouse of radiall engine, it was most reliable tank of WW2, partly beacouse US had parts and men to replace them. German tanks where too heavy for most bridges, tracks where not wide enaugh and many got bogged down. Fuel consumption of Tiger was abysmall, winter start was horrible. German maintenance was nightmare, remove cupola to replace gearbox, and so on. Soviets had great Diesel engine and good cannon, bad gearbox, but better than German. Soviet engine start with compressed air is still in use today, fail safe in Siberian conditions. British did not have good, powerful and simple engine, and did not get good one untill Chally 1,
It is generally accepted that which tank gets the first shot off wins. Key to that is good ergonomics. the fact the soviets lost so many tanks might be explained by that. But when you are a communist what do you care.
When did the Soviets lose so many tanks? Are you talking about ww2? Are you tracking the Soviets never completely designed tanks for tank on tank combat? They still haven’t. The biggest focus is to have a well rounded armored platform designed for quick exploitation and raiding in the opponents rear. In real combat the tanks would have been held back until the focal point of a fight then sent in to kick ass after a breakthrough.
@goforbroke4428 The T34 was the most knocked out tank of the war. The KV tanks were vulnerable dispite good armour and the IS 2 was a bad design as it took too long to reload
@goforbroke4428 They did win. They absolutely won. They were able to produce tanks faster than they were losing them. Their tank's weren't totally useless. They were constantly improving on them. They had good guns and good armor and they were easy to maintain. However they sacrificed capacity of truck manufacturing to make tanks but luckily for them they could get them from the Americans. The Soviet union won the second world War against the Germans with the help of British and Americans. More Germans died on the Eastern front than anywhere else
Ive read quite bit of the book ryans is positve towards the t-72 and sees it as on par for the most part with western tanks of the time like the m1 and leo2
He make’s alotta Incredibly Great lessons But He misses one very important aspect of the Greater Context How America was Logistically and Financially more Advantageous in every regard They could afford to and were allowed to spend and waste more of every currency Space, Money, rounding up, transporting, Trade, materials, Engineers, designers, fuel, ships, trains, tunnels, planes, pallets, tanks, Mileage, supply, replacement, countless doctrines of minor Vanity and Quality Of Life, that other Nations can’t maintain or simplify because It’s frankly overpriced, ETC America simply spend’s bigger and design’s Greater Not alway’s a direct improvement in performance But take for instance: when America make’s Money Pits They make Money Pits When Congress open’s It’s wallet; many see It as bottomless and Will use It as so For Better and-or Worse
Command economies are not renowned for efficiency of resource consumption. If they were saving costs as part of the design such a pursuit would have been abstract as for all they knew the actual production could be a logistical nightmare due to odd decisions in other areas of planning.
Get your 20 % discount until 27th September on the T-72 books and around 10 % on our other books: militaryhistorygroup.com
T-Shirts: everpress.com/mhv
3:14: "anthropological" should be "anthropometric".
I'd be wanting rather more than 20% off a T72 these days. 😉
Thinking about economy class on a commercial airplane as being designed with similar ergonomic principles as a Soviet tank explains a lot, actually . . .
At least you don’t get shot at in economy class flights (mostly)
@@looinrims
Ever fly Spirit or Frontier? 😮
@@GasPipeJimmy Air China on a domestic (within China) flight. 😰
So on commercial flights, if we’re not in Business Class, we’re all basically communist proletariat.
@@looinrims Malaysian Airliner shot by Russians: 💀
I was a US Army tanker in the 80s, and got to climb into a T62. Im 6'1" and was pretty comfortable in the Abrams. In the T62, I couldnt function. It really wasnt made for me
Soviet tanks were meant to be crewed by short kings.
@@robertalaverdov8147 by *narrow/slender* kings, not GI huge wide ass grunts. Height is not a problem in those tanks. Except t-62, loader only.
@@worldoftancraft So, femboys? 🤔
@@50043211 a lot of femboys started out as manlets too
In the Soviet recruiting office, they wouldn't send you to certain troops if you didn't meet certain physical conditions. I've never met a tanker taller than 1.7m (5'5") in my life, and I've seen a lot of them. My buddy, a tank driver, was the shortest guy I had ever met. His height was on the verge of being recognized as a midget.
A little anecdote on this topic. In the former GDR (DDR) small men often get the common nickname "panzerfahrer" (tankdriver) because the NPA (NVA) conscript mostly small men for the tank crews to fit in the soviet tanks.
A former co worker of me became loader on a T-55 for exactly this reason.
The same thing in the USSR
The smaller size of Soviet armored vehicles was not due to ignoring crew comfort, but due to this principal design philosophy: smaller size = less area to cover with armor = better armor for less weight + better mobility due to better power to weight ratio. Additional important consideration was that a smaller size target is harder to hit and easier to conceal.
And you can just use the short people as tank-crews anyway.
@@nebojsag.5871 Yeah, but it's against the FREEDOM for a 4'5” guy to be a paratrooper or Navy SEAL. Because that's what the Army is all about: FREEDOM and DEMOCRACY (doing exactly what your drill sergeant tells you to do).
disregarding the lack of food being lack of height in formative years.
@@osmacar5331 Lack of food in US? Cos in the year 2000: the average height of a U.S. citizen is 5'8".
@@osmacar5331 Then again, Vietnam, Thailand, and the Indochina regions in general very rarely saw famine. But do I need to remind you how tall were the “men in black pajamas who defeated the green giants”?
Anecodtal, but if iirc, the USAF also experimented with the 50th percentile in cockpit designs in the early Cold War years. Turned out, it fit *no one*.
Because how they can oppress the freedom of 7'12 giant of desiring to fight inside a gorgeous combat machine
@@worldoftancraft the emperor protects
@@stariyczedun slava impêratoru čelovêčestva!
And there is a joke from Soviet era here in Finland: Inventor Uspatoff (a joke in itself Us Patent Office...) presented a new barber machine for men to the Central Committee. "It makes every hairdo look exactly the same for every man" he said. But someone from the Committee wondered "what if men have heads of different shapes and sizes?" . Inventor replied "the machine is stronk, so only at first time..."
Im not sure that the punchline was translated correctly, but maybe i just dont get it
@@ranaldbanzac4375Russian humor at times can be difficult to understand. In this case the machine is powerful enough to cut off whatever is in the way of where it thinks hair should be.
The Japanese used Kaiwo Maru, a four masted Barque from 1930 as a training ship for merchant sailors. They replaced her in 1989 with an almost identical ship Kaiwo Maru No. 2. The old ship still exists as a museum and is in such a condition that she could still be used today. The main reason for the replacement was the huge size increase in Japanese men since 1930. 1980s japanese sailors simply were too big to fit her berthing decks.
They started drinking milk.
@@Teh0X Japanese civilian industry and the average income of Japanese civilians was minimal during and prior to WW2. The average Japanese person's education also maxed out at a grade-school level. I would not at all be surprised if issues with malnutrition were rampant.
America's response to the beginning of the great depression of enacting protectionist policies under Hoover did significant damage to Japan's economy and undermined Japan's civilian government but the post war free market system and Japan's focus on industrial development and more specifically tech allowed Japan to import vast amounts of highly affordable food from a market with the ceiling set by the US.
The average man in the UK and US was 5 foot 5 in the 40s 😂
Yes, but they need moar Dakka.
Better nutrition
As I watched this, I was reminded of a video The Chieftain put out a while back where he was addressing the size discrepancy between Western (US, specifically the M60) and Soviet tanks. IF MEMORY SERVES, he indicated that the Soviet tanks were built for an offensive philosophy so they were smaller and crews weren't expected to 'live' in them for days at a time. Western tanks, OTOH, were expected to sit in defensive positions for extended periods, so were larger in order for crews to stay in them for days with some semblance of comfort.
Obviously not Leopard 2, I rather sit in a T-72 than that sardine can😂
Yes, but there were other tradeoffs involved as well. They designed to that 50% mark, but that excluded a lot of potentially good tankers from the ranks.
It made them lower profile and cheaper, and had other advantages, but there were disadvantages too, even under soviet doctrine as envisioned.
The Chieftain is 6'4" which makes him have a few trouble in any none western tank.
@@surters Oh, yes...and he made his height a feature with his 'Oh, bugger!' vehicle exits. 😎
Many times I have cringed a little, watching him struggle.
@@surtersOf all the vehicles on the channel, I believe the ones he didn’t fit at all were the Ford Canadian Military Pattern truck, the Irish BDX armored car, and anything French.
This is from a list of vehicles that includes particularly large and spacious vehicles like the Italian CV-33 tankette, American M22 Locust light tank, Polish TKS tankette, British Universal Carrier, the American 3-Ton M1918 Ford tankette, and the German Hetzer.
Re averages, there was at least one crash of a (small) passenger plane in the US in the 1990s that happened because the average weight used for calculating passenger weight was still based in 1940s Americans and these particular load of passengers was almost twice the weight.
That definately fits the stereotype Americans have abroad.
When I did my Finnish conscription service in 1992, I was in coastal artillery (that really was a thing back then). In the island there were very modern 130 mm guns, but the repurposed T-55 turrets hadn't yet been obsoleted. I've tried operating in one of those, and it's a nightmare. The ideal loader would be 140 cm tall, with arms like an orangutang and the strength of a gorilla.
Tankograd is an excellent resource and is very well written. I enjoy the Author’s work and these interviews a lot. That being said, as someone who has spend hundreds of hours in an Abrams gunners station and also been inside a T-72 equivalent (M-84) I’m gonna have to very strongly disagree on the “minimal ergonomic different” between the two tanks. It’s hard to quantify but 10% seems very generous to the Soviet designs. I assume I’m outside the 50th percentile for a Soviet man at the time the T-72 was designed but the ease of doing a lot of gunnery tasks in even earlier M1s and Leopards compared to the T-72 is night and day.
It’s designed for the average Soviet man that conformed to the armor branches standards. Not the average Soviet man in general.
Are you slender or bulk?
@@worldoftancraft neither? ~5’11/190lbs or ~180cm/82kg
@@pixelsonascreen you're not considering the fact that americans and europeans are in average, much taller than most other countries, seriously, i'm brazilian i'm always horrified about how ya'll are giants dude!
plus it was made in the 70s and people were way shorter back then, they valued having a harder to spot and more compact tank over having one that can fit any soldier comfortably, which i think is pretty fair.
I too greatly enjoy Ryan's writing and look forward to buying this book. However, I also agree that some hands-on experience with a T-72 is important if you're going to write an entire book about it, and hope that Ryan gets invited to look one over.
"50th percentile" is an extremely low target. A more typical design target to suit 'most' people without excessive cost is fitting up to the 70th or 80th percentile (pending on what you actually design and how hard it will limit people).
Designing a tank around the 50th percentile in body size will definitely make it extremely unergonomic for a large part of the population.
Accomodating smaller people is often doable through adjustable chairs and instruments, but it sets a pretty hard limit on how effective taller people will be.
Yeah, I’ve head that before
Just like IQ
It’s 90-110
Not exactly 100
It's fine for Russia due to extreme ethnic diversity. They got ethnic groups dominating particular branches. Asians traditionally crew tanks in Russia.
@@usun_politics1033 It's not just ethnic diversity. I grew up in Canada but live in a heavily Russified part of Ukraine. Despite official stats saying that adult males are about the same height in each country, men, including younger generations, are quite a bit shorter than in Canada, especially if one considers only white Canadians. I would say, on average, the Russian tends to be shorter than the Ukrainian (ethnically speaking, not citizenship -- though that might be because Russians are more Asian, I don't know), and working-class people have a lot more surprisingly short individuals than the rich in the young generation, I guess the effects of uneven poverty and malnutrition in the 1990s-2000s.
@@T33K3SS3LCH3N I think it's meant in a different way.
As mentioned in another comment, the assumption is that e.g. height has a normal distribution.
For the normal distribution, the median and average is equal.
Based on that value, they select the value and assume that left and right of it they can capture a large amount of the population, for example one standard deviation (roughly 2/3 of the population)
@@WangMingGe I imagine it's a wild story of how you started off in Canada to where you are now.
On the British Chieftain and I guess Challenger 1 ( it had the same gun kit ) you would laze the target, track it for around 2 seconds and then press autolay. That would track the target but best to fire asap as tracking goes out the longer you leave it because the target won't hold a constant speed. For static targets you laze then autolay, the elipse that is displayed in your site will move to cover the target and then you fire with the command "firing now" pulling the trigger on the W of now so your commander and get his face away from the sight. For gunnery and D&M training ( Driving and maintenance training ) you would do it in the classroom and practically by actually doing it in the British army, when you got to your regiment you would learn a few "better ways" to do a few jobs but you would also get a lot more experience in actually doing it in the field while on exercise. It's not exactly the same in the field as in the classroom or on the tank park, that experience is what makes a good tankie who can maintain his tank in the field and reduce breakdowns. Unreliable Cheiftains were the early ones ( from what I heard they were really quite bad ) or poorly maintained tanks later on ( I only had one pack lift in 4 years on Cheiftain and that was down to a gunner driving my tank while I did my first range period, I was screaming down the intercom trying to tell him how to drive it properly while engaging targets. He labored the engine in too high a gear for too long and on the next exercise while I was driving it gave up the ghost. That was a damn good engine too.
I recall chieftain having a ranging gun, rather than laser - shows how long ago that was...
@@GARDENER42 We had to get them out from the armory at BATUS and clean them although they were never used and even the port in the turret that they used to poke through was welded over.
@@GARDENER42Chieftain had a ranging gun originally, and upgraded to Tank Laser Sight and Improved Fire Control System down the line with the Ranging 50 cal removed
This little mini series with Ryan A Then has just gotten better and better with each episode.
I love tanks.
I love fighter jets.
But at a height of 6'2, I know that serving in either would not be a comfortable experience.
So if I went into service, my lot would be to be a big, scary footslogger, while my short king bro's man the tanks and the planes.
My company commander in The Basic School (USMC) was probably 6'3" and that guy was a Harrier pilot.
a ukrainian channel called Shawshank redemption on youtube made a great video showing and explaining a captured russian t-72v3 and t-90a, it's incredible how little room they have, and because of a very compact design it lacks ANY sort of room for future upgrades, the scopes are bolted one on top of another instead of replacing them, which reduces the real estate of the crew even further
When talking ergonomics there is imo one more thing to consider that was not mentioned here at all. And that is the amount of crewmen. Western tanks usually have 4, soviet tanks usually 3. Thats one less person to do maintenance, to stand guard etc. Its not a big deal for a short operation, but it multiplies the longer you are living in the tank.
I've been in a fair number of armored vehicles. The only one I have found to be more claustrophobia-inducing than the T-72 is the Jagdpanzer 38 with the T-55 a close runner-up.
Cleaning AKs with Diesel is the most Russian thing I have ever heard of
Nothing wrong with that. Diesel is a great cleaning agent, it lubricates and it's cheap.
I lube my guns with automatic transmission fluid or motor oil. Bar and chain oil works good too. It makes sense.
Isn't Diesel a German invention with German spirit in it?
@@worldoftancraft Yes, the ghosts of Hitler and Bismarck live in it.
It's a hell of a lot healthier than the carbon tet the US issued.
The first person to get off an accurate shot gets to live. That's just how it goes 99% of the time. So whatever it takes to deop a few milliseconds of advantage into an average crew's hands is more than worth it.
Real life battle situations are far away from War Thunder game. The main job of a tank is to fight enemy field fortifications, not the one on one duels.
You're getting ahead of yourself there, friend. First, you have to spot your target. Most Soviet tanks have almost half the frontal profile of their NATO counterparts. They're lower to the ground and much easier to conceal.
Nowadays, with drones that no longer matter but it's a big deal in the 80s.
Tbf it's about 80 percent according to the US Army in the 80s
@@cuongle7990 The Soviets would be on the offensive in the European theater. You can't really charge into western Europe and remain in cover and concealment.
Well if you drastically truncate the training due to time constraints, you should expect the level of training to be less comprehensive.
No doubt Western tank crew training covers the stab issue comprehensively, whereas the training of Ukrainian Leopard crews probably glossed over it (or removed it from the syllabus) during the training.
I am surprised he hasn't been inside a T72. There are multiple museums that have them.
Soviet tanks were designed to strict weight and size requirements. All that we have is a result. Three man crew and so on
they needed to go over bridges in eastern europe. not repeat mistake germany did with heawy cat tanks who couldnt go over bridges got encircled or airbombed becouse couldnt move unless road or firm ground
Thank you Ryan and Bernhard for an excellent discussion. Cheers from NZ🇳🇿.
Man. For not having been in a T72, the author has very clearly done his homework and displays a familiarity in terms and body language that is rare in this context. Great interview and perspective; thank you!
I heard that WWII tanks were built for 5' 5" crew but with a stocky build. This was carried to the T-62. Though this may have just been military scuttlebutt.
One should also keep in mind that people in the USSR were shorter, on average than westerners. I live in Ukraine, though I grew up in Canada. I was a little below average for an adult male in Toronto, but noticeably tall (although not extremely so) here. Don't trust online statistics about population heights....I think a lot of folks, especially men, exaggerate their heights, because there's no way the published numbers are true, at least for these parts of the world. On paper, the average male is basically the same height here as in Canada, but, in reality, there's a several centimetre gap, very noticeable.
@@WangMingGeHad a funny moment attending a big airsoft game with about 2000 players from all over the world.
Met up with some slavic fellows at a respawn zone, I think they were Russians but I can't be sure.
So we were chatting for a bit and I mentioned that i was from Scandinavia. They just replied "Yes, we know"
I asked them what gave it away and they said "You're like a full head taller than everybody else here" 😄
@@WangMingGe when I was in central Russia, I'd say they are about as tall on average as what the stats for Canada show. I am 5'8" and has been since long before finishing high school, on the street an average guy was a couple of inches taller than me, so about 5'10", supposedly the Canadian average. Wonder how this breaks down by region.
Oh, and in Serbia I felt like I have dwarfism. 6'5"ish dudes are more than a daily occurrence. Doesn't have anything to do with anything, just wanted to share because was surprised since it isn't usually in public conversation as a particularly tall country. I'd say an average guy was shorter than in the Netherlands, but I've seen very tall people more often in Belgrade.
No, in russia they specifically filter shorter people to tank crews because of how short they make their tanks
@mr_ThreeEight_1776
Yulp. The tooling was set for making cramped tanks, based upon faulty assumptions that a 50th percentile would mean a generally useful tank. So the recruiting doctrine was lead by the machines, like in interkerfuffel French tanks. Doctrine didn't influence the machines.
DANKE! Für ein weiteres informatives Video. Der Werbungsteil wird allerdings langsam bisschen viel, fühlt sich immer mehr an als ob das immer mehr die Werbekanäle für den Buchladen werden.
Noch geht's und ich schaue gerne zu, aber ich hoffe, ihr habt das im Blick .
Danke! Der Verlag Military History Group ist der Verlag von Christoph (Military Aviation History) und mir :)
@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized Ich weiß, hab da auch schon eingekauft.
Mag euere Videos und Merch wirklich gerne.
Ich hoffe halt es nimmt nicht überhand wie bei vielen TH-camrn, wo der Kanal nur noch existiert, um Zeug zu verkaufen, oder wo es sich zumindest so anfühlt, als ob nur noch Videos erscheinen, zu denen man gleich das passende Buch hat.
Noch ist es nicht so weit und wenn man davon besser leben kann, ist das natürlich auch völlig in Ordnung, ist euer Kanal und euer Geschäftsmodell.
The Soviets had so many men they just chose men that fit into their tanks.
Bigger taller men went into other fields.
While the Soviet tanks being lower to have less profile and thus not being spotted so easily is a good idea back then it stopped being an advantage today due to drones and better aiming systems. It's still a pretty good concept it just aged badly.
as did the russian economy with Krushevs reforms, and Gorbachovs Perestroika that enabled shock therapy under Yeltsin. now, coorporate profit is put over providing services to the people, or protecting it, and thus more modern tank concepts weren’t develop because funding them means less yachts
I had a chance once in my life to sit in a T-72B3 first and Leopard 2A5 perhaps one hour later.
The difference couldn't be more noticeable. I'm 1.78 and I could fit into a T-72, but it was very cramped and performing of any real combat tasks would have been challenging.
In Leopard 2 I had plenty of space and comfort, so much so that any task would be very easy to manage.
Having had the chance to sit in the commander’s and gunner’s stations on a T-72, I have to agree with the general thesis. It’s definitely not designed to be comfortable for a relatively tall person like me, but unlike a BMP-1 it wasn’t uncomfortable. All the controls (at least the ones I could read, my Russian is not especially good) were well laid out and readily accessible. If I were a Russian TC or gunner and actually trained on that particular track, I have no doubt I could effectively fight the tank. And also unlike aforementioned BMP-1, I think I could actually survive it driving over a small bump without losing several teeth or getting a third concussion. Overall, well thought out and a good design. If not for the lack of an independent thermal for the commander, it would definitely be on par with any other mainline MBT.
Mind you, I would never trade my usual mount for a T-72, but that’s mostly because I’ve gotten used to having enough leg- and headroom to move get comfortable and enough space to shove a week’s worth of snacks and energy drinks into various crevices. The CITV and Blue Force tracker are nice, but the latter isn’t strictly necessary except for platoon or company commanders/XO’s vehicles.
I knew someone who had been a USAF pilot flying MiGs and other Soviet aircraft, I believe in the 1970s and 1980s. He said not all had been bought or stolen. Some had crashed and been rebuilt, and had odd placards like "Don't pull over 3G because the right wing is bent 3 degrees."
As for ergonomics ... he said the planes themselves were a joy to fly, and he could always get on the tails of opposing (production, current inventory) USAF planes, but every time he tried to do anything such as arm the (simulated!) missiles, he had to take his hands off the stick or throttle and would lose his weapons lock. They also had old-style gauges, and not in any kind of modern order, so he spent a lot of time scanning instruments instead of looking outside.
He didn't provide any model numbers or names, always talked in generalities.
Considering the thorough reviews of many 60s-70s Soviet jets
No way in Hell the majority of jets He flew were that Good
They have Good maneuverability but most certainly not all of Them
And how Inept were His opponents to consistently lose to a 70s-80s Soviet with 60-70s Tech in anything about an F-16 or above?
Not Your blame to not know this but when He was generalizing
Oh Boy was He generalizing
@@ComfortsSpecter It sounds like you're trying to say he was wrong, without being able to say he was wrong because he actually flew those planes, and you didn't. How do you know his opponents were inept? Because his experience doesn't match your books and video games? Where is your proof that the USAF in the 1970s and 80s was full of inept fighter pilots? Sounds like you are the one generalizing.
That's an anecdote and is colored by the context of the situation and the experiences of that person. The USAF and USN tested IRIST in aircraft in the early 60s and HMD's in the 70s and never fielded them. With the advent of the internet you get unintelligent people writing how the Mig-29 and Su-27 was revolutionary with IRIS-T and HMD's when compared to the US. When in reality the US tested early iterations of those technologies and decided they were not yet matured yet.
@@ComfortsSpecter what he wrote is probably true, this is same thing that I heard and read Polish pilots say about soviet-made jets when they later had comparison with western ones, and experience with joint exercises with various western countries. Soviet jets, although very rough around the edges, with bad instruments and ergonomics, were more maneuverable than western ones (like F4 or Tornado) and well trained pilot would commonly win. But they were inferior in everything else and maneuverability often didn't matter at all when they lost the mock fights before they even detected the western plane, not to even mention entering visual range
From my understanding, some Mig's had crazy acceleration and top speed. Some pilots even refering to them as a rocket ship with wings.
But they had trouble with agility due to going as fast as they did.
From a physics perspective it would make sense (the faster you go the harder it gets to turn), but I can't say for sure if this was true for them since I've never been a jet pilot.
I could listen to this guy say " the panzer " all day. It's his accent 👍👍
Now I know why the US always fail to mention the elephant in the room and why Soviet tanks smell of sardines.
He never sat inside a T-72? Is it that hard to find one that allows you to get in?
I'm 6'2"
Commander's position was barely acceptable.
Gunner's & driver's positions were, quite frankly, awful & severely restricting.
Western Electric were doing studies from the beginning.
In the 20s
Throughout the entire life of the company. Until ATandT was broken up.
...doing things that don't necessarily have a scientific basis...
Saw a foto of a Russian UAZ van with reactive armor blocks glued to the windshield.
Apparently there are Russian ERA block designed for thin-skinned vehicle use, but mounting on glass is perhaps stretching that friendship a tad too far.
@@dj1NM3 Thanks; didn't know that one.
@@dj1NM3 Yes, 4S24
@@dj1NM3Those are pretty much exclusive to the BMP-3 and are prohibitively expensive.
Sticking K-1 on anything that isn’t an MBT is going to get you killed as it just cracks the armor (aluminum BMP) and the explosive force enters the vehicle and explodes your eyeballs… also the fact that ERA doesn’t stop anything it just slows and degrades it enough for the armor of the vehicle to do the rest… if there is no armor to stop it it’s still going to enter the fighting compartment and turn the crew into jelly paste.
@@dj1NM3 these ERA block could have had their explosive taken off, so they are more like emotional support with some extra metal plates inside
The guest is clearly confusing cause and effect. According to him, the poor understanding of energonomics by Soviet engineers led to a cramped little tank. The obvious truth is that the need to develop a small and relatively cheap tank led to cramped conditions and inconvenience, but not the other way around. The developers of the Volkswagen Beetle may have been PhD in energonomics, but given the size and cost of the Beetle, it could only have the energonomicss of a Beetle, not a Rolls-Royce.
I think you misunderstood what he said. He said that they studied ergonomics, but the benefits of a smaller armored vehicle outweighed the benefit of accommodating everyone.
@@saintadolf5639 If I didn't get this guy's idea, it's his fault, not mine.)))
mayby compare cost also ?
One advantage of designing for the 95th percentile is as decades go by nutrition improves and people live longer so you can fit both new taller recruits and older, heavier reservists.
50th percentile assumes your country won't advance nutritionally during the life span of the tank and will never need to call up the reserves. Both assumptions have been proven false.
These days you would have a UX group bugging every tanker with detailed surveys and copious statistics.
1. What are You even talking about
2. If They wanna Die in Excruciating Agony for nothing
Except maybe filling someone else’s Pockets
All You can do is warn Them
Inches mean Everything to Everyone
Either accept It or… You want Me to type It again or like?
@@ComfortsSpecter are u a schizophrenic
Inches are an old British Imperial thing so mean naff all to the Frenchies and so on
@@ComfortsSpecter What are YOU even talking about? Are you sure this is the comment you wanted to respond to, because it doesnt make any sense.
@@darkynelp9777 “…”
“Bruh is so desperate to Hate Me; He’s pretending to not be able to read.”
You know exactly what I asked
My issues with 50th percentile design:
1. If both sexes will use something, their statistics are often bimodally distributed, meaning the majority of one sex is too large and the majority of the other sex is too small, with nobody actually fitting the design correctly.
2. Even if we can assume that the distribution is monomodal, there is often greatly asymmetrical effects from being too large or too small. Being too large is usually much worse if space is a premium, since you simply won't fit in a normal position, although being smaller can have its disadvantages as well, especially if the controls take a lot of strength to use.
I would suggest the better option is to take your percentiles and integrate how effectively they could use the thing, possibly with a weighting exponent based on opportunity costs of how effectively they could use something else instead, them try to maximize the area under this curve.
Modern conflict in Ukraine will be researched decades after to learn about new ways of fighting. No armies other than Russian and Ukrainian has combat experience of fighting equal forces. GWAT was fun but there’s significant differences between fighting guys with 19th century weapons and fighting army with all modern capabilities like air power, anti aircraft systems, electronic warfare and so on
Definitely true. But you have all these Ukrainians being taught by instructors from different NATO countries who never went to any war. And then you get things like Ukrainians asking their German instructors how to deal with minefields - and the German says 'we go around them'. Then they do their summer '23 offensive and face minefields stretching hundreds of kilometers to each side. If the NATO countries were smart they would import lots of Ukrainian veterans as instructors - and better do it now, because if they wait much longer there won't be any left alive.
@@mananaVestaRespectfully, there are areas that Ukrainians would be able to reach us in.
Drone warfare and such, but then there are others that they shouldn’t try.
Combined Arms warfare is one.
Constantly and consistently we’ve seen them send out their tanks alone with no infantry support.
That is a good way to get taken out by an ATGM, a Drone or a some guy with an RPG-29.
Helicopter and Fixed Wing Aircraft is another, as they really haven’t been engaging that many Russian aircraft with their own just due to limitations of the available assets.
While we haven’t been actively fighting LSCO since 1991, we still train for it, and have taken lessons learned from Chechnya, Georgia and even Pre and Post 2022 Ukraine.
@@mananaVesta it’s easy to fight like nato taught if you’re nato. With total air superiority, total weapon superiority and so on. But in reality nato controls intensity of a conflict by controlling supplies. Aa systems? Sure we give them. Next year. Fighters? Sure. Three of them in December next year. Close support aircraft like a10? No
@@andrewdenzov3303 Do you think NATO 'controls the intensity' because they don't want to win? No, it is a combination of lack of resources and fear of open war against Russia with its superior strategic and standoff weapons. But this war was never supposed to be fought out - Russia was supposed to collapse under the sanctions and the confiscation of its foreign reserves. Now that it is fought out NATO is out of ideas and just fumbling along from day to day, with no way to win and no way out (unless the Western leaders admit being totally wrong about everything and doing a 180° turn, which has a snowball's chance in hell of ever happening).
@@PeterMuskrat6968 you should be well aware that even thorough training isn’t real combat. Soldiers will learn how to fight in new circumstances but how much they will pay for it. Combined arms is very good. On paper. How you could implement it when even couple of soldiers or MG nest is a valuable target for 155 mm? You had to gather forces far away from reach of rece drones and striking distance of 155 and MRLS. Than you had to get combat groups to enemy line under constant fire of artillery and drones. Your AirPower would be pretty much grounded by AA systems and such. And even if you succeed they still have nukes to fry up couple millions of people
I mean… if you’re designing a tank for the 50th percentile… that still means that HALF your soldiers are going to be too big to easily fit/operate the vehicle… which, when you really think about it, is an absolutely HUGE percentage of your fighting force that is going to just, inherently, be less capable of fighting in the vehicle.
In Russia it’s considered military vehicles don’t need ergonomics in a similar fashion to how bosses in America don’t think employees should sit while at work…
Hello, my questions for the Asian fellow who is fully armed with all this cold war, tactical and technical knowledge. What was your inspiration to learn all of this? I grew up during the '80s and so it was weekly news or stuff I would read in Newsweek you know but all these grown-ups were doing with tanks and fighter aircraft in Europe, and what was your introduction and fascination with it?
Interesting.
Well, a guy interwieved about a tank which he was never used. I’m pretty sure he ha great insight of its ergonomy… Maybe he left out a few major factors in its ergonomy (like vibration…) but half the SU population at least fit into it…
Two other TH-cam channels have come across it, so is it a T-72 thing?...
With the T-72 why would a part from one country where the T-72 was built not fit onto a T-72 tank from another country?
IE you can not mix and match parts of apparently the same design of tank with other partners that made up the Soviet block/Warsaw Pact?
Could be a quality control issue.
My Grandpa told me story about a project for the government he was part of shortly after WW2. The people in charge decided to swap some parts manufacturing to a factory in Mexico instead of the US to save on cost.
The factory in Mexico was given the same blueprints and specs as the American factory, but some of the parts from the factory in Mexico wouldn't fit when the scientists tried to install them. They threw away so many out of tolerance parts that they lost money despite the cheaper cost. They went back to ordering from the US factory afterward and the problem went away.
There is a slim, small possibility that it a was a "monkey model" export version control that the USSR implemented, so that if there was breakaway nation, that they couldn't loot disabled Soviet tanks for spares when the Red Army rolled in to quell the revolt. Giving each satellite state a slightly different set of blueprints and specs, each would work as a system on their own, but wouldn't quite be compatible with each other.
More likely it was just crappy quality control and lots of hand fettling to get things to fit and (mostly) function.
Different factories making things with varying qualities with different methods.
Factory A in East Germany makes a part that is 1mm off from the blueprint, Factory B in Poland gets it almost spot on with just a 0.1mm difference.
Part A will not fit into the same place as part B.
I would guess the Dutch, and the Vietnamese would not buy the same tank, since there is a considerable height difference.
I have to say I'm a little disappointed to hear that the author of the Definitive Guide has never actually sat in a T-72.
Chieftain easily and comfortable fit in t72. And he is tall lad
He can sit in one comfortably, but can he operate one for a few hours without fatigue
I don't recall him doing so.
@@GARDENER42 it was on one of the museum tours
@@altaccout no vehicle gives you this. Even in your Mercedes s classe you will be tired after hours driving. And in fighting vehicles you should fight and not get comfortable. Will be crew of say m1a2 Les tired after few hours of fighting? Maybe. But who cares if there’s five 72s for one m1a1
@@andrewdenzov3303 There are not five T-72s for one Abrams anymore lol
Will the books be available in E versions?😊
Not planned.
Does Ryan have a twitter account?
Interessant
The 95% percentile rule can get quite annoying on the other end of things hen it gets mixed up with bureaucracy. I can fit into modern fighter cockpits just fine and reach pretty much everything important with little or no trouble but I'm officially a couple of centimetres too short to be a military pilot. Even for cargo/utility aircraft where things are less hectic.
Can the Chieftain fit in to it…..?
Another problem with soviet training was the language barrier between soldiers from different nationalities (for example in east germany a rookie from Kasachstan stoped his tank right on a railroad track, because he could not understand his Russian instructor, resulting in a litteral train wreck)
actually, having all controls "right in front of you" as a gunner is a bad layout. Your eye is on the sights, so things are better if they are to the sides of you. But what does a guy who was a BFV gunner for 3 years know?
Onhand, Offhand and Natural Ergonomics
Very important Concepts
Not literally right in front, the most frequently used controls on the T-72's gunner's station were all on the control handles and the switch for the autoloader was right above his left thumb, so there was no need to break away from the eyepiece ever in an engagement. When fighting in degraded mode the wheel to operate the optical rangefinder could be turned with his thumbs. The most frequently used items were placed closer and to a more visible location. Infrequently used items like the fusebox (turning on/off the turret electrics) were stuffed into a corner behind the night sight.
Battlefield 5 gunner?
@@kurousagi8155 Wouldn’t really call It a Battlefield game but Correctomundo nonetheless!
lol, tell me your only knowledge of the t72 gunners station is from this video without telling me so. Gunners station is quite similar to that of the Bradley.
So I have been in a pt91, a t72m1, all m1 family vehicles, leclerc (while I was in kuwait) and a challenger 2.
The t72/pt91 is the worse for the crew to function and fight in.
The gunner having one fire button for the main gun and the other for the coax means that you could be in a situation where u need to keep u hand on the leftover handle but need to us your control switches or button on the left side.
Meaning u would need to cross ur hands.
That 1.
Then the lack of guards/cage inside the turret means ur limbs can be lost.
I am short 5'4 and yet my legs could be chopped off.
That 2.
3rd. The lack of a heater.
That was one of the 1st things both the cz and polish soldiers notice a huge difference between their tanks and m1a1 and leopards.
4th things on a tank.
Auto loader goes down it hard to load a t72.
5th boresight a t72 family of tanks is really non exist. I used the mbd, string and used a mean with a mbd.
The t72 method is not effective or good.
6th.
Crew size. 3 crews means u pull longer guard duty on the tank. It also means if u lose 1 person u r down to two. For operation, guard, and maintenance. Greatly reducing the effectiveness of the tank.
Stabiztion is not on all the time in t72. Crews can turn them on when they need them. Ppl forget.
Most western tanks have them on whenever the tank is powered on and hydro. So ppl can't forget and u always have it.
Sometime u are surprised and t72 crews will forget to turn it on.
As a tanker with 22 years of army experience and another 5 years as a tank instructor. A lot of easy things are lacking on a t72.
Remember we should judge tanks by it least experience soldiers using them. Not experts. As most will never be experts.
I forgot about l the lack of redundancy on the t72 family of tanks. Again things break.
Abrams is just as useless as a t72 when used by untrained crews. If your point is based on that, no tank is good.
@@goforbroke4428 no my point is it easier for a barely skilled crew to operate a m1 family tank. And still be effective then a t72.
The issues I listed above make operating a t72 harder then a m1, challenger 2 or LeClerc tanks.
It is a lot of lil things.
@@kayleeswackyadventures8672Do you think this has anything to do with soviet plans, to have the T-72 serve the role of ‚mobilisation‘ tank? As far as im aware, it wasnt originally supposed to be produced during peace-time. Im not sure why this changed, probably out of some sort of necessity, but it would explain the lack of ‚common-sense‘ features that you described in the M1 for example
about the "pull security" issue, isn't it fixed by virtue of the USSR ideally pulling more tanks onto an area? (defeating an enemy by statistics), and therefore more eyes on target?
@@kayleeswackyadventures8672 surely it's the opposite if you have a highly advanced vehicle with bells and whistles everywhere compared to a more simple vehicle with less buttons to press.
1.80m is 5' 10 3/4" not "I think over 6 feet"
It may seem limiting to design to the 50% percentile (meaning about 40% of your population won’t really fit). But look it from the Soviet recruitment office, tall guys get a rifle and short guys get a tank.
Everything’s fine until the same people design IFVs 😺
But the loader on abrams do more steps to reload a new round. The breech don’t automatically open after a shot like in leopard
We redesigned the breech block so we could utilize higher pressure ammunition, chances are the HP was causing issues with the automatic breech opening.
苏联：如果可以进一步减少被弹面积，让我把自己塞进行李箱也不是不可以😂😂😂
西方：面多了加水，水多了加面。😅😅😅
In WW2 , the only tank worse for the crew , than a Soviet tank , was a Japanese tank .
Or Italian tanks
Best tank of WW2 was one that had highest crew survival rate. Soviet tanks of late WW2 where not bad in that aspect.
@@sinisatrlin840 Similar to the Sherman , in that respect . Crew comfort was another matter . Soviet tanks were natoriously bad . Even people today in museums that have restored tanks from all over the world , say Soviet tanks are miserable . Interestingly , British tanks got low marks as well , with German and American being better .
@@tolik5929 They where builded under extreme conditions, same as PPSH factory that was less than a mile from conflict line in Leningrad.
There are documentary films about it, today in same conditions nothing would be build.
Sherman was great in crew comfort, but was too tall beacouse of radiall engine, it was most reliable tank of WW2, partly beacouse US had parts and men to replace them.
German tanks where too heavy for most bridges, tracks where not wide enaugh and many got bogged down. Fuel consumption of Tiger was abysmall, winter start was horrible. German maintenance was nightmare, remove cupola to replace gearbox, and so on.
Soviets had great Diesel engine and good cannon, bad gearbox, but better than German.
Soviet engine start with compressed air is still in use today, fail safe in Siberian conditions.
British did not have good, powerful and simple engine, and did not get good one untill Chally 1,
I will write a book about US tanks... I actually NEVER have been i n one, but o ho I can call me an authority abot that... why not
You funny...
How many Abrams tanks have been destroyed by a T-72? How many T-72s have been destroyed by an Abrams tank? Yep, thought so.
Z
It is generally accepted that which tank gets the first shot off wins. Key to that is good ergonomics. the fact the soviets lost so many tanks might be explained by that. But when you are a communist what do you care.
When did the Soviets lose so many tanks? Are you talking about ww2? Are you tracking the Soviets never completely designed tanks for tank on tank combat? They still haven’t. The biggest focus is to have a well rounded armored platform designed for quick exploitation and raiding in the opponents rear. In real combat the tanks would have been held back until the focal point of a fight then sent in to kick ass after a breakthrough.
@goforbroke4428 The T34 was the most knocked out tank of the war. The KV tanks were vulnerable dispite good armour and the IS 2 was a bad design as it took too long to reload
@@aaronwilkinson8963 alright, but they still won. Now present your counter argument.
@goforbroke4428 They did win. They absolutely won. They were able to produce tanks faster than they were losing them. Their tank's weren't totally useless. They were constantly improving on them. They had good guns and good armor and they were easy to maintain. However they sacrificed capacity of truck manufacturing to make tanks but luckily for them they could get them from the Americans. The Soviet union won the second world War against the Germans with the help of British and Americans. More Germans died on the Eastern front than anywhere else
USSR lost so many tanks because this is where the heaviest fighting of the war was. About 80% of Wehrmacht losses were sustained on the Eastern front.
A German that underestimated the Red Army
Who?
Ive read quite bit of the book ryans is positve towards the t-72 and sees it as on par for the most part with western tanks of the time like the m1 and leo2
I hope the book is more interesting than this interview
He make’s alotta Incredibly Great lessons
But He misses one very important aspect of the Greater Context
How America was Logistically and Financially more Advantageous in every regard
They could afford to and were allowed to spend and waste more of every currency
Space, Money, rounding up, transporting, Trade, materials, Engineers, designers, fuel, ships, trains, tunnels, planes, pallets, tanks, Mileage, supply, replacement, countless doctrines of minor Vanity and Quality Of Life, that other Nations can’t maintain or simplify because It’s frankly overpriced, ETC
America simply spend’s bigger and design’s Greater
Not alway’s a direct improvement in performance
But take for instance:
when America make’s Money Pits
They make Money Pits
When Congress open’s It’s wallet; many see It as bottomless and Will use It as so
For Better and-or Worse
Nobody argues with that though? So I have no idea what your comment is aiming at
@@czwarty7878 “…”
“Bruh”
You’re thinking too far past It
His lessons Are Good but more narrow
The video is about egonomics so naturally logistics was not discussed.
@@shaider1982 “…”
Bruh is not paying attention
Command economies are not renowned for efficiency of resource consumption. If they were saving costs as part of the design such a pursuit would have been abstract as for all they knew the actual production could be a logistical nightmare due to odd decisions in other areas of planning.
And yet soviet tanks still suck.