The T-72 History No One Told You About
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 25 ก.ย. 2024
- The T-72 is one of the most loved and most hated tanks I’ve probably ever seen. Some people say it’s a lean mean killer machine and some people say it’s a piece of crap death trap. But regardless of your opinion, the history of the T-72 is quite interesting. And besides from what I could find on the Wikipedia page about this tank, there’s a lot more to the history of this tank than you might know about. For example, as you might have seen in the thumbnail, it has a lot to do with the T-62 tank, or at least a better version of the T-62.
Regardless, hello and welcome, and enjoy this video.
The T-72, even the Ural version without any laser rangemeter or turret composite cheeks, was still a peer to, if not superior to non-thermal sight equipped Western contemporaries. Chiefly, the stabilizer on the T-72 is superior to 70s Western tanks.
The problem with T-72, and basically every Soviet postwar armor was that thermal sights made small size obsolete. In fact, the ammunition dense, small Soviet tanks became a liability when faced with thermal imagers.
A larger tank with protected blowout ammo compartments, spall liner, and less densely populated turret compartment has a notable chance of surviving penetrating hits without crew injuries, aside from being very likely to spot and engage the opponent (and cook their densely packed tank loaded with sensitive propellant) before the opponent can spot and engage them.
Basically, Soviet tank design philosophy fell victim to circumstance (thermal sight proliferation) and economic-technological stagnation courtesy of Brezhnev. There's no way the USSR could replace their fleet to one-up the Abrams and Leo 2 in the 1980s after what Brezhnev done to the nation.
From the 1950s to 1970s, Soviet MBTs were superior in protection, projectiles, and fire control. It was constantly inferior in gun elevation-depression and reverse speed. The problem was Soviet armor was stuck in the 70s. The West, meanwhile, had the opposite problem. They were operating with late 50s technology while trying to chase the best new thing until they managed to mass produce that in the 80s. History being what it is, the West sat on disruptive 80s technology while the Post soviet bloc was on mass fielded 70s tech by the time the defense industry was gutted by the end of the first Cold War, hence why Soviet Armor gets a bad reputation.
I'm beginning to think that people overstate the importance of thermal imagers, although I would love to be proven wrong. The Soviets, who relied on conscripted, massed firepower rather than low-level tactical ability to win their fights, deemed their 80s era thermal sight, the "Agava", too complex and too unnecessary to put on their tanks as, even up to the mid 90s, thermal imagers were not present on every single American vehicle and barely any European ones.
As far as I'm aware, the real game-changers were the Abrams and the fact that America, knowing that it would be heavily outmatched by the sheer mass of Soviet armour, invested heavily in top-attack munitions and close cooperation between land and air forces, resulting in the plethora of these weapon we have today - TOW-II, Hellfire, Maverick and eventually Javelin. The AirLand Battle doctrine came from this school of thought as well.
When they finally came out with the Abrams after about 40 years of being completely outmatched, it did indeed have an organic thermal sight, but the real trump-card was its digitized fire control system, which ensured that it could fire and target the next vehicle in a matter of seconds and with laser-accuracy, and its impenetrable turret armor. In other words, it was the perfect tank to use in defensive positions against massed targets.
Then again, the tank that was intended to counter the Abrams, Object 477 "Molot", had an organic thermal sight as well. So I guess I could be wrong. The whole thing is fascinating, regardless, and I still think that the T-72 is the greatest tank ever made.
@@Firespectrum122war also dosent occur in a vacum and desin was dinfrent the avrage battle range of a war in europe was estimated to be 1500m well with in spotting range of the soviet tanks even if a abrams got of a first shot there were other t-72 or t-80s near by to return fire. secondly the soviets were superiour in firepower to the abrams with the and had better armour specificaly the t-72b and t-80u and t-80bv the t-72b and the t-80u (im not to knowlageable on the t-64 or it 80s vararents) could take a frontal hit from the abrams and survive witch post war tests by the us showed basicaly giving away the abrams location not super importan but the commander corrdination in the tank was much better in the t-72 then the abrams the abrams lacked a turret override and had a very poor sight himself that lacked even night vision. only at night whould i say thermals whould drsticaly change combat soviet night vison just whould not compete. Third like everyone says soviet tanks were better some ways the nato tanks in other. The ussr secondly had a upper hand in air defense artilyary electronic warfare conteventinal crusie missles, numbers by a lot, more stockpiled ammo a vastly large pool of trained resversits to call apoun and a much stronger military industiral complex i highly doubt 1 advantage by nato armour is enough to sueriouly change the tide of a conventinal war.
@@historyisawesome6399 You're repeating exactly what I've been saying in arguments I've had in the past, just with atrocious grammar.
@@Firespectrum122 i failed third grade spelling lol
@@historyisawesome6399 No worries man, but I have to ask for the sake of my own curiosity: were you drunk? :p
"mix"
I would rather say that it's roughly BASED on the T-64 and T-62, rather than that it IS a mix of them.
Well take a T-62, slap some T-64 on top of it, add some extra stuff and boom you got a T-72 😂
Soviet Tank design from the T-54 to the T-90 are really just incremental improvements over time but still the general same tank conceptually. Increase the wide/size, add an extra set or road wheels, autoloader, different type of auto loder, list goes on and on. They're not what I'd call "New" Tanks from a design standpoint.
Abrams for example is almost nothing like the M60 that came before it. It was a radically different vehicle from the ground up.
I make this argument with modern Russian aircraft design. With the Su-27 through Su-57 being modifications of an already existing airframe. New "Number" assigned but still generally speaking the same aircraft, rather than a new aircraft designed from the ground up. You can see it when you put a Su-27 from the top and compare it to the Su-57 it's there and pretty blatant at that.
This is something you can not do with the F-15 or F-22, despite the F-22 designed to replace the F-15. F-22 was designed from the ground up as a new aircraft, not just a modification of an existing aircraft.
That's an incredibly surface level take. It's like saying every tank ever is just modified Mark 1.
The problem with designing things from the ground up is that you have to build the whole production chain from the ground up as well. Which is no easy (nor cheap) task, especially if your new vehicle/aircraft is incompatible with components from older designs or is radically different from them. T-64 is the textbook example of that - it required specific parts tailor made for it, which were only produced on Kharkov Industrial Plant, kneecapping it's wider adoption for more than a decade. In contrast, basing your design on something you already have isn't the same as just upgrading the old techs, it's just not as drastic of a change (but a change nonetheless). More importantly it allows your production to gradually shift to new machines without creating a decade or two long vacuum when you can't produce shit.
I'm not familiar with american tanks, but I doubt M60 and Abrams are as radically different as you claim. But even if it is, wasn't M60 just basically M48 with different gun? There's nothing wrong with developing new design from scratch, but there's also nothing wrong with using old ones as baseline.
I hope Gaijin adds the original T-72 Ural model to the game, sets it to 9.0 BR, and also lowers the T-64A BR to 9.0, to be a complete lineup together. There is no way that T-64A is as good as T-72A and shares the same BR currently.
Hey Bobi, are you planning on making a video on the MTLB in the future?
Loving the channel
Hey, thanks! I wasn't planning to, but I can make one in the future!
If i remember correctly from a Red Effect or cone arc video, the T-72 autoloader was stressed tested and i didnt have any failure up to 16,000 or 60,000 rounds.
the T72 is the Sherman of today. in the future it will be appreciated the same way Sherman is today.
Hell Nuh 😂😂
No it definitely won’t. It’s a piece of shit, the Sherman wasn’t.
In scale of proliferation, maybe. In terms of combat merit - it was competitive in the 70s (better than non-thermal sight steel-only Western tanks like Leo1, AMX30, M60 Without TTS), and outclassed since the 80s.
The Sherman saw more proliferation with original and export user, and was objectively more survivable relative to its contemporaries.
T-72 fares poorly upon penetration due to poor propellant chemistry, and the minimal ground clearance for the AZ autoloader made it vulnerable to landmines, and subsequent spall-induced catastrophic kills.
I'd say the best T-72 is the T-72M4CZ. Effective protection, dual channel thermals, automatic transmission with competitive reverse speed. Storing spare ammo externally in bins will mean the only vulnerability left is the AZ ground clearance issue.
Except the sherman is/was reliable,can't say the same about the t-72 or any soviet tank for that matter.
I like this channel
Thanks!
Cant believe how few subscribers you have! The quality of this video was amazing.
Thanks, I really appreciate it :)
Very good story telling
Really enjoyed it
Altho the Voice was bit off lets say
It sounded like a AI ever so slightly
Could be that I am tired,regardless
Awesome Video.
Hey I just saw your comment. Thank you!
The voice isn't AI. It's my real voice. But I know it sounds weird because I changed the speed a little bit. But I won't do that again because it sounds really weird
Out of topic, Why russian t series tank have bad reverse speed?
I think it’s mainly a doctrinal choice as Soviet commanders envisioned a fast and aggressive assault across Europe to overwhelm the west. For this, they made tanks that went fast and had good frontal armor
not that much space in the engine comparment, leading to a small transmission and the infamus poor reverse speed.
Such a task was not included in the technical specifications, and since the tank was supposed to weight approximately the same as the T-62 with the possibility of further modernization, any opportunity was used to save weight and internal space
They decided to sacrifice the speed for a lot of torque, which allows their tanks to easly get unstuck from difficult terrain or pull other tanks in reverse. Other than that, it just the engine compartment has limited space and it another cost cut.
they have a planet gear, which is very cost effective but gives bad reverse speed. also gives a small space for the gear box (look at the difference beteween leopard1 and T72 in the engine and gearbox size.) It gave t72 a way lower weight.
U should do a video about the "Burlak" turret that was to be mounted onto T-72 , T-80s and T-90s
Only T-80s
Great vid!
Thank you!
T-72 has nothing to do with T-62. It is simplified and more reliable version of T-64.
Incorrect. The Object 172 (1968) was, yes, whilst built on the basis of the T-64 (according to the 1968 decree by the VS), the actual Object 172 (1970 to 1972) projects were based on the Object 167M
I just hate that all Russian tanks have terrible reverse speed and bad gun depression! Is it possible for them to replace the engine by any chance?
Issue is in transmission, not the engine. It is possible, but as far as I can tell isn't deemed necessary, so resources go to improving armor, ERA, FCS and optics, as well as EW things
I really wonder why changing the reverse speed somehow isn't a far bigger priority given how much armor russia is losing
@@h.c5750 reverse speed won't help against drones
@@h.c5750 It is a big issue even in War Thunder 🥲. I think the soldiers on the ground have already pointed this problem out. It makes it difficult for the tank to reposition or retreat in case they need to.
@@Янус_Ырт No. But it helps when they are fighting in an urban environment
good stuff
Thanks!
Are you using AI to change your Voice up ? It sounds very odd
I puted his voice through audiocity and mixer and yeah...he is. Its alright? I guess at least he sound somewhat human
Yeah, it's my real voice talking but I put it through an AI to make my voice clearer, because I don't have this professional type of microphone yet. If you watch my first ever video, you'll see how shit the sound was then. The AI makes it a lot better. But I think the reason this video particularly sounds so weird is because I sped up the recording later on.
t-80 in 1972?
I meant later on, in comparison with all three main battle tanks, the T-64, the T-72, and the T-80.
Good info, bad video.
@@BIGM-gg9ln Okay. Would you mind explaining why it‘s a bad video?
i greatly enjoy your videos, when it comes to future videos on soviet and Russian AFV's, this blog is a great recourse thesovietarmourblog.blogspot.com/2015/05/t-72-soviet-progeny.html
@@amygdala9857 Thanks!
That‘s actually where I get a lot of my infos from 😂