Inside the T-72! - Soviet MBT

แชร์
ฝัง
  • เผยแพร่เมื่อ 16 ต.ค. 2024

ความคิดเห็น • 23

  • @xX_Yaman_Xx
    @xX_Yaman_Xx 2 ปีที่แล้ว +4

    worth the freaking wait, loved the video. nice details, cant wait for more

  • @Irish37
    @Irish37 ปีที่แล้ว +6

    I still can't get over the incredibly easy access to tank information in videos like this. I was a tank crewman in the first Gulf War in 1991. The ground war ended before my unit could be sent to the front. But soon after the cease-fire, they began bringing captured Iraqi armor back to the rear area where my unit was stationed. We got to look at and inspect a BMP-1 and a T-72. Naturally, those of use with cameras took pictures of the tank's interior, finally getting a good look at the autoloader carousel that we had heard so much about. The next day, we were accosted by MP's who confiscated our cameras and film, insisting that the pictures were of 'classified subjects'. None of us could figure out what that was supposed to mean. There wasn't anything about that era's Soviet tank technology that wasn't already known by the people who needed to know it. And there was no harm in having rank-and-file American tankers know it, either. I think some MP's just didn't have anything better to do at the moment. Anyway, one of my buddies managed to smuggle a pic of the T-72's interior out of Saudi Arabia and back home. But it was nearly impossible to make out what the image was. So it was all for nothing. Anyway,. I've been a tank video enthusiast for decades now, and it's good to see things like this.

  • @xAlouette
    @xAlouette 2 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    Great video. Very in-depth! :D

  • @FrancesZuzolo
    @FrancesZuzolo 2 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    love Dan's commentary and he probably got a kick seeing a 6'2" guy fit into that tank lol

    • @mister-v-3086
      @mister-v-3086 ปีที่แล้ว

      He might Still be giggling, every time he thinks of it... I probably would.

  • @Nostadad
    @Nostadad 2 ปีที่แล้ว +6

    How to say that? IT IS FREAKING COOL! 😎

  • @AlexO8762
    @AlexO8762 2 ปีที่แล้ว +5

    That's one hell of a beautiful mess of a tank.

    • @zackoroni6483
      @zackoroni6483  2 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      Great way to describe it lol

  • @igortheyakutian
    @igortheyakutian หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    Keep in mind this tank was created to be operated by 18-years-olds and when you are 18-years-old you dont give a shit about crampiness. You are young, agile and can do anything

  • @KaiserHabsburg
    @KaiserHabsburg หลายเดือนก่อน

    iv seen people crawl from the drivers hatch to the turret in the T-72. You can do it. He has a lot of complaints about things that don't exist. Plus the fact that he doesn't explain that this was 1970 armour not a more modern t72s armour (which was impervious to nato rounds till the 90s)

  • @vasanth7
    @vasanth7 ปีที่แล้ว

    Even though most of the time the people working there have no clue what they're talking about, I can still appreciate the hard work it takes to keep these tanks preserved at museums open to the public.

    • @zackoroni6483
      @zackoroni6483  ปีที่แล้ว

      Was there anything said in this video you think is incorrect?

    • @vasanth7
      @vasanth7 ปีที่แล้ว +6

      @@zackoroni6483 Yes.
      1. "Gun needs to be center and horizontal for the autoloader to load" - The gun only needs to elevate to the loading angle; loading can be done with the turret facing any direction in terms of azimuth.
      2. "The gun had to leave target" - The gunner's sight is independently stabilized in the vertical plane, so when the gun elevates to its loading position, the gunner's sight is still on the target and the gun will still point to the target in azimuth. Its also noteworthy that both the Leopard 2 and Challenger tanks also elevate their gun to reload - they employ and automatic 'loader's block' which elevates the gun for the loader to have an easier time ramming in a new round.
      3. "The autoloader is 'slow'" - not really true, the autoloader can load a projectile in 5-6 seconds which is similar to comparative and modern Western tanks with human loaders. However, if the gunner selects a different ammo type, the carousel must rotate all the way around to a shell of that ammo type, this can take a few extra seconds as the carousel can only rotate in one direction.
      4. "Losing an arm in the autoloader" - I don't know who invented this myth, but unless the gunner and commander high-five each other during the autoloading cycle, your arms will be nowhere near the path of any moving parts of the autoloader barring pure negligence. The gunner will have both hands on the main turret control and the commander will have his on his cupola handgrips.
      5. "Having a 3 man crew is worse than a 4 man and autoloaders caused this great tragedy" - Is it slightly more convenient to have a 4th crewmember go grab you lunch when you're cleaning the barrel or tensioning the track? Probably, yes. But what about the benefits of needing less people to man the same amount of tanks? Why not go back to using the bow machine gunner and get a 5th crew member along for the ride? A two crewmember turret with each man sharing their respective halves of the turret to themselves improves ergonomics in the realm of legroom, something many a M60 gunner can tell you about. It also allows each crewmember to have their own hatch. The gunner can open his hatch and stretch his legs on a long march which no Western tank can boast aside from the M60A2.
      The general aversion to the autoloader is quite a strange thing for me. I'm not sure why people don't like it when its just the natural progression of the advancements of tanks. We used to have to input range manually but the laser rangefinder and ballistic computer did away with that. The driver used to have to change gears manually but the automatic transmission did away with that. The admonishment of the T-64/72/80 autoloaders probably started when the NATO responses to these tanks had to forego any form of autoloading to make a tank in response to the new Soviet threat. The Abrams prototypes had an autoloader planned, but it never came to fruition because of the ballooning budget of the tank. The MBT-70 program also had an autoloader but that project was cancelled entirely. I wonder what these people will think when they find out that the Abrams X and KF-51 are both planned to have autoloaders and 3 man crews...

    • @nucleus691
      @nucleus691 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@vasanth7 Autoloaders generally get a lot of hate from us westerners/NATO military nerds but they are probably the future due to increasing size and weight of projectiles as well as future turrets mostlikely being entirely unmanned.

    • @vasanth7
      @vasanth7 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@nucleus691 They don't know how to do anything. By God, they are a world of slugs.

    • @theobvious1958
      @theobvious1958 9 หลายเดือนก่อน

      @@vasanth7 Don't forget the extra eyeballs that loaders bring, i'm pretty sure SEEING the enemy is ALWAYS a necessary condition BEFORE engaging the enemy

  • @mister-v-3086
    @mister-v-3086 ปีที่แล้ว

    One thing you've confirmed here, is something I read long ago: Soviet tanks were not known for their creature comforts.
    On a side note....is each tank going to get its own Music?? Pz IV got the Panzerlied, this one gets the PATTON Theme.
    {If so, I rather like the idea.}

  • @tonk5242
    @tonk5242 ปีที่แล้ว

    If wondering they manage to get it from the russian government
    The military captured it in Iraq rather than buyin it
    Its True I seen one on fort hood but they have been planning it to move to a museum out of Fort Hood however there been arguments moving the tanks outside the military base because they been put there for a long time, The argument campaign is that I called "move or dont move"

  • @otoi3628
    @otoi3628 ปีที่แล้ว

    驚到函担躯。

  • @gone547
    @gone547 ปีที่แล้ว

    Who would want to be locked up inside this grenade with a Javelin flying around?