The T-72 Tank is Ancient. So Why Is It Still the Backbone of Russia's Tank Force?

Russia’s T-72 tank refuses to retire: regardless of being russian T-72 The tank is nearly 50 years ancient, it quiet has a task on the battlefield and will breathe the spine of the Russian Army. It was to overwhelm NATO and the United States by crossing the strategic Fulda Gap in Germany to decisively bombard gracious forces in the course of the Cold War. Now in Russia about 2,000 of the T-72 variants are quiet in service, a lot of them are in storage. The tank was dispersed in circles. 30 nations and earlier than the Soviet collapse about 18,000 have been made. But the principle power of the T-72 is the improve bundle to the fashionable model of the T-72B3. Since its launch in 1973, the T-72 has been up to date over time with dozens of variants to this point. T-72B3 and T-72B3M variants that are actually thought-about a 3rd era tank.
All content on Military TV is presented for educational purposes.
Subscribe Now :
/ @military-tv
/ militarytv.channel
defense-tv.com/

[@airmanfpv964]

Everyone laughs at the old tank until its aimed at you

[@shammiepie]

Why would you think that a tank should fight a single man?

[@JiTiAr35]

@@shammiepie because 1 tank vs 1 man with Javelin is on par.

[@JiTiAr35]

Unless you can't aim at Bayraktars since they're above your head.

[@Eur03]

Cant aim at you if the commader cant see jack

[@ivanbasson982]

Only if you don't have a Javelin handy...

[@minehffd2651]

Moral of the story: A tank is still a tank. Whether it's an old T-55, or a T-72, or the latest T-90. The role needs to be fulfilled for supporting infantry. If you expect every old tank in the world to only encounter the M1A2 SEP v3 variant, you're not very intelligent.

[@Ross72A]

May I add bastards that can't comprehend that Abrams would go down to the ATGM the same way any other tank would

[@orangejjay]

The problem that we've seen with Russia's use of tanks is that they can't be bothered to properly train their crews or practice combined arms. It's pathetic. They're sending out broken equipment and broken soldiers. It's almost like corruption at all levels prevents them from being an effective fighting force.

[@arminiuszmazowszanin2670]

@@orangejjay In russia they think very high (way too high - "2nd army in the world" etc.) of themselfs until that cockyness is putting to a test. (They live in the past of ww2 that they even didnt won just by themselfs.) Then it get nasty. At the beginning of the war the ex russian generals in tv were analizing both sides powers and they were almost mocking ukraine - they were making very optimistic predictions that in "few weeks" war "will be over". They highly underestimated the abilities and power of ukraine. Russia in fact is corrupt to the core and incompetent in all areas - especially in politics and army - everything in russia is corrupt and deluded, overhyped - organization is also not their biggest strength. Mass delusion is major characteristic of this nation. Prime example of how pride lead to fall. Why russia is corrupt? - be cause this is a country ruled by mob - almost everything in there is extortion and corruption. This mobilization is typical russian extortion and slave like enforcement. Free will is almost non existent in russia. When you send slaves to fight for you then you've lost. Slaves doesnt make good fighters especially when they fight for an oppressor for own slave master that is without a doubt a kremlin goverment to regular russian citizens.

[@user-dc9oq2pr6v]

@@arminiuszmazowszanin2670 yea we're so badly trained that you needed to send 75 billion usd to Ukraine to fight us

[@politicallyincorrect4452]

Neither are you from what I can see....

[@N0t_M4linka]

Wouldn't really call it ancient tbh. It is an old tank, indeed. But so are many other tank designs (Leopard 2 [1978~] and the M1 Abrams [1980~] for example). I think the main issue we are seeing with the T-72 is that most nations who are using it are simply incapable of upgrading it to sufficient standards. I am saying "most" because there are successful iterations, such as the latest model M-84 from Serbia which puts T-72B3s to shame. It's all about actually keeping it up to date, not as much about it being "ancient". To just make it clear to anyone who still hasn't gotten my point, just think about it : Are we saying that the Leopard 2 is an ancient design & questioning ourselves why it is still the backbone of many European armies just because older examples like the 2A4 are underperforming in today's environment, or is it still cherished as one of the most capable tanks in the world BECAUSE most of its users do continually upgrade it? It's pretty much the same with the T-72. Don't blame the tank, blame its operating nations & their lack of either interest, funds or even both for it not having the greatest image.

[@rabium5175]

I agree with your points. You have explained it well.

[@haysnairte4]

Well said Gentlemen

[@classicgalactica5879]

The T-72 is junk. Not only did the M1 Abrams crush it in head to head combat in Operation Desert Storm, but old USMC M-60A1s on the verge of retirement absolutely pulverized Iraqi Republican Gaurd T-72s in the battle of Kuwait International Airport. Russian armor is absolute garbage.

[@zokikostadinov7061]

@@classicgalactica5879 in desert storm ..why you dont first check what kind of ammo were having Iraqis ? second even a blind person can see that iraq aint homogenous nation it is fractionated and ppl didnt cared o fight against an enemy which was focused to kill their main enemy ..u are comparing aples to oranges...when Turks first went in Syria against Kurds they lost over 30 Leopard 2 tanks which oin paper sounded rly good and great yet they were destroyed by simple RPGS

[@suasponte8363]

@@zokikostadinov7061 agreed you have to look at the end user!

[@neosky9]

Never underestimate old steels.

[@piirakkaliisa8340]

Or never over hype them. We have seen how well this USSR garbage is doing againts modern warfare

[@robertoaseremo4163]

Because sold to scrapped and cycle

[@robertoaseremo4163]

@@piirakkaliisa8340 Yeah they are sitting docks against the modern Anti tanks weapons such Javellin and NLAW . Since the start of the Russia invasion of Ukraine and the Ukrainian Army have use numbers of modern Anti tank weapons such Javillen and NLAW and for the Ukrainian Army is like testing and firing numbers of Javellin and NLAW against Russian Tanks in Ukraine

[@arduinoguru7233]

@@robertoaseremo4163 Tanks are not designs to be invincible weapon, same goes with M1 Abrams RPG-29 can penetrate it easy.

[@user-dc9oq2pr6v]

@@piirakkaliisa8340 the same 'garbage' that Ukraine keeps begging, also this 'garbage' is killing leopards left and right

[@SMB96]

Dont forget. The T-72 is the most sold tank ever and those things are actually pretty good tanks. The Abrams or Leopard are just overpowered

[@alexanderK2700]

Overpowered and overpriced as hell . Nato tanks are incredible machines but overrated a bit

[@lumberjackagies5158]

In everywar in last 30-40 years, a t55 or a t72 is always present. These tanks are almost omnipotent 😂

[@hrvojegrgic5111]

T-72 is still very much relevant tank in most of the world.

[@rogerwilco5918]

Not the good parts.

[@iliakezevadze4341]

Yup Javelin is effective against most tanks, but not in every situation. Unlike simple RPG it needs more time for aiming, so in city battles it's not the best option. Also top attack doesn't mean that javelin hits from 90 degree exactly top of the tank. So newer tanks with ERA on most of turret have higher chance of survivability. And when it comes to firepower, 125mm gun is killer. Actually nowadays we don't see a lot Tank VS Tank battles and because Ukraine is armed with like 5-6 different kinds of AT missiles it's not easy task for T-72

[@DavidJohnson-hg1mz]

Also, in city battles, a random tank just cruising around isn’t very effective.

[@Achintyanath]

T-72 is 20 years younger than the B-52 bomber

[@kdrapertrucker]

But the B-52 has been upgraded over the years and is still effective. The Russians have never had anything even remotely modern.

[@TheLAGopher]

The B-52 has the flexability in its construction to be effectively used in ways its designers never dreamed of. Its obsolete in its original mission set of dropping gravity bombs over an enemy city with any air defenses,but its highly effective as a missile truck hauling cruise missiles.

[@Achintyanath]

@@kdrapertrucker T-72 tanks have been upgraded with Israeli and Russian technology over the years. You don't hear about it in the West for obvious reasons.

[@jeremybrowand5941]

Lol. At this point I think the B52 may be in service after the last t72 is retired. Bloody things just refuse to be retired.

[@poorpoora]

@@kdrapertrucker They sent a satelite and a man on orbit first didn't they?

[@marcuzinator3784]

"Old, not obsolete" -Terminator

[@MrCouchmen]

Not yet.

[@col.waltervonschonkopf69]

The modernized variants of the T-72 are good enough to be fielded even by modern armies.

[@night7185]

no.

[@scothf1273]

@@night7185 Yes they get the job done.

[@night7185]

@@scothf1273 not against NATO tanks 🤣

[@scothf1273]

@@night7185 Yes they do

[@night7185]

@@scothf1273 1991

[@KondorDCS]

A frigging stone club is ancient....yet if I bash someone's head with it, the person will still die.

[@haysnairte4]

this really made my day lmao

[@richcraw3494]

They have many T-72s in storage. They use because they have a lot of them

[@jttoe3424]

Cheap, easy to maintain, can be upgraded and easy to use. All day t72!

[@Alsayid]

Most important upgrades you can give this tank are modern targeting equipment, night sights, communication, a secondary viewfinder/gun targeting system for the commander, and most important of all: active protection, like a Russian style Trophy. Do all of these things, and the fact that it is at base an old tank will not really matter. But the other thing they need just as much: Better trained crews and commanders.

[@nucleus691]

at that point you just have T90M

[@witmanntheinfinite]

It's not like the Leopard 2 or the Abram are new anyway. Most of them "Iconic" modern MBT has been around since the 70s, Abram is a bit younger start popping up in the 80s.

[@bethcail976]

But the Abrams and Leopard IIs have had huge and important upgrades to meet the standards of the modern battlefield whereas the T-72s are way behind and theres no way Russia is going to get T14s to be mass produced

[@graze1177]

@@bethcail976 cuz the fall of soviet union had happened. They dont have any money and somehow the corrupt generals decides to invade ukraine. Also, had US and UK accepts the soviet union's request to join NATO in 1954 these wars since cold war could've been prevented.

[@bhangrafan4480]

The Abrams tank came in in the early 1980s, so you could say that's ancient too. Really what differences do new technology make? Many aspects can be upgraded, armour, guns, sights etc., and continually are. The 0.5 cal Browning HB MG on the Abrams is still not much different to that used in WW2. Some things don't change that much technologically.

[@bhangrafan4480]

@@tamamalosi What was the date of the most up to date Abrams model? I thought it was pretty old?

[@bhangrafan4480]

@@tamamalosi Thanks

[@barca121980]

Note: In fact, tanks are not used to fight other tanks. Rather, their main task is to penetrate the enemy’s defenses. Therefore, it makes sense to compare their capabilities if we compare the characteristics of speed, maneuverability, transportability, and the ability to withstand anti-tank ambushes. In this regard, the Soviet tank building experience was taken into account. World War II: While the American Abrams tank did not, it is a heavy and purely defensive tank with thick front armor that is completely isolated from the side and rear protrusions on the march. An example of this is the recent cemetery of Saudi tanks that were ambushed by the Houthis, with anti-tank weapons considered somewhat old. In addition, the advantage of Soviet tank models over most Western models is that Soviet tanks are placed on a platform (vehicle) while Western tanks are not, and this factor provides a strategic advantage. In fact, the maneuverability and speed of the T-72 or T-90 tank is the most important thing in penetrating enemy ranks, especially in large numbers The T-72 and T-90 tanks fight in any conditions, according to the American magazine ( National Interest ) As a reminder: The American website specialized in the military field (Military Watch Magazine) said that Russia was not interested in sending modern tanks to Ukraine and relied on old and cheap mechanisms, most notably the Soviet T-72 tank (of its various types) because the military reality indicates that the modern tank will not It alone succeeds in changing the course of any war 🔷Each tank has its advantages and disadvantages, and the Russian tanks have disadvantages and advantages, and the American and Western tanks also have disadvantages and advantages, but the Russian tanks It has a high maneuverability and is much better than the western one while the western one is superior in the level of armor 🔴 They were claiming and promoting that the Turkish marches would change the course of the war, so they broke our heads (bayraktar bayraktar bayraktar) when they actually failed and many of them were shot down. They remained silent and then their sense disappeared and then they came with a cylinder (Javelin Javelin.Javelin Javelin Javelin) when they failed they became ( Rombo, Rombo, Rombo )..hohohoho.😂 A talk that is nothing more than gossip in the context of the media war led by the United States and its affiliates and the Western psychological war against Russia

[@beachboy0505]

Excellent video 📹 Not every tank will see combat. Not every tank will be fired on by drones and javelins. But it is important to have a tank gun firing at the enemy everywhere.

[@lebien4554]

Ancient compared to what? The M1 Abrams is from 1980. Leopard 2 is even older from 1979. You're clueless

[@bradlavassaur8265]

Great video! Very informative. Thank you for sharing. 😊

[@paulpatti1681]

Thankyou for the real commentary.

[@barryobee1544]

They have strength in numbers of reserve tanks, but...do they have strength in numbers of personnel to man the tanks?

[@saratov7803]

There is a full opportunity, the personnel resource is huge because along with the contract army there are conscript soldiers, every guy from the age of 18 is obliged to go through it for a period of 1 year after he is released to the reserve and can be mobilized in case of war, 140 million rape of Russia imagine how many of them have served!?

[@barryobee1544]

Good point!

[@TheLAGopher]

@@saratov7803 Those conscript soliders and reservists can't legally be mobilized by Putin because Russia isn't officially at war with anybody. That's why there was a minor scandal when some conscript troops were deployed to Ukraine and complained about it. Consript soldiers can only serve within Russian borders or those of a friendly state such as Belurus during a time of peace. A "special military operation" is legally still peace time for the Russian military. Only Contract soldiers and mercenaries can legally be in Ukraine.True, the Russians have be accused of pressuring conscript soldiers into "volunteering" for Ukraine service by signing a service contract, but they can't force everyone to do so.

[@jeremybrowand5941]

The strength of their reserve tanks is pretty misleading. They list 12,000+ tanks, but most of those are obsolete units without upgrade packages. A large percentage of them also have had sketchy maintenance and will be difficult to activate. A reservist can probably get the basics of operating a t55 or t62 in a couple months, but that doesn't mean they're going to be capable against modern threats. The conscripts in the Russian military aren't going to be able to just hop into a T72 and be equivalent to a professional in a leopard 2. The conscript training gears more to basic infantry skills than armored fighting vehicles ... so I'm skeptical as to their effectiveness. Also the Russians haven't attempted a large scale reservist call up ... so we don't know how well that's going to go. It's likely to be far slower and less efficient than we're being told by the Russian government.

[@jeremybrowand5941]

@The Tropical Insurgency One of the primary issues with that sentiment is that Russia is in something of a demographic death spiral. Decades of negative population growth are a bitch. Also ... Ukraine was part of the soviet union. That should be a good indication that the resources available to the soviets are not the same as the resources available to Russia. I mean in WW2 the Russians were using Ukrainians to fight the Germans. Now the west is using Ukrainians to fight the Russians. The common theme seems to be that the Ukrainians seem to be a commonly used tool to stop crazy authoritarian dictatorships. Makes me feel bad for Ukraine :(.

[@NickariusSN]

If it kills, why not? It's not that bad, especially with modern modifications

[@Halogamething]

I think the US should’ve kept older Cold War tanks like the Pattons, for either Reserve, Cannon Fodder, or infantry support (even though their old their still a threat)

[@tankeriv]

Its an old tank platform. But its not an old tank. The T72B3M is one of the most modern tanks out there capable of destroying any other tank available that any oponent can field at this moment. As we've recently seen its more than capable of destroying the M1 Abrams and the Leopard 2A6 and the Stritsvagn 122.

[@jamesortiz5388]

This almost word for word to the last video of the T72 tank.

[@antotheshortstack1157]

T-72 can still be upgraded with better sights, era, and fcs

[@your_waifu_hates_you]

T72b2 rogatka comes to mind

[@lexburen5932]

T72B3M

[@btratemylegs.6342]

I mean, this is why Russia has 12000 tanks and the us has 4000

[@oldsarj]

The vast majority of the Russian tanks are rusting hulks. We know because we can see them from orbit. Russia started the invasion with more-or-less 2300-2700 useable tanks. At the rate the Ukrainians are killing, capturing or stealing them, Russia will have run out of tanks by the end of the year with no capacity to bring in the hulks in storage. Putin really did't think this through.

[@btratemylegs.6342]

@@oldsarj Russia has 12000 operational tanks, they have like 20000 rusting away

[@classicgalactica5879]

Russian tanks are junk.

[@mattbanco4406]

It’s not even a bad tank they just utilized it badly in the beginning of the war but they’ve actually improved I haven’t seen that many videos of Russian tanks getting destroyed as I have been in the early stages of the conflict in fact I’ve actually seen an increase in Ukrainian tanks get destroyed on video.

[@robertodemonte4251]

Even the T62 refuses to retire...we wait to see the T34.

[@premsk127]

Yep Just T-34 enough to destroy Ukraine.

[@TOMAS-lh4er]

They are already shipping T-62 to Ukraine !!

[@robertodemonte4251]

@@TOMAS-lh4er They are scraping the bottom of the barrel.

[@TOMAS-lh4er]

@@robertodemonte4251 They have alot of T72 in storage but they need them for the home army, so the garbage is sent to Ukraine ,

[@robertodemonte4251]

@@TOMAS-lh4er I understand...but they are fighting a war, they should use the best they have.

[@louislamboley9167]

There are many of them around and cheaper to upgrade than build new. A lot of a good thing is better than a few exceptional. Seems there's an inverse relationship of better equals more cost maintenance and breakdowns.

[@kylelemire6049]

Was very ahead of it's time..

[@terryfreeman1018]

Very fast an d very informative.

[@benyomovod6904]

It works with close to no electronic devices, will take part in turret throwing contests

[@suasponte8363]

Probably the same reason we use the B-52

[@TheLAGopher]

The B-52 is still being used because it could be adapted to a different mission set then what it was designed for. That seems to be the reverse of what Russia wants to do with its tanks.

[@suasponte8363]

@@TheLAGopher the T72 has been upgraded over the years as has the B-52. One is still a tank and the other a long range bomber. I do get your comment on the skill set.....had the pleasure of using their new ones a few times.

[@markavons3400]

Its an upgraded tank and a proven design,whose flaws and strengths are well known. Better than a new Tank with 'teething problems' like the chieftain or early T80s especially it means you've got five or six times more Tanks. The T72 was largely meant as a mobilisation/war tank ie a tank that could be churned out in the thousands for peanuts and crewed/fixed by village idiots.The T80 and T64 were meant to take on western tanks,the T72 with its antiquated gunnery system never was

[@CorePathway]

Who knew of turret-popping back in the 70’s?

[@nolategame6367]

​​@@CorePathwayhe turret popping makes for an impressive show, but i don't get why people make it out to be the only thing to focus on. the fact is, the design has this necessity of being both small and crewed by idiots, as by soviet necessity. So they go for autoloader, which can be put in places where a loader might not fit due to cramped space, and they have to put the ammo somewhere. So they put it on the floor below the turret, where it's the least likely to get shot at, since they don't have the space in the tank to put in a complete separate ammo compartment. Funnily enough, even the Leclerc has some ammo storage on the tank floor, whilst its main ammo compartment is what created its immense turret bustle. You could argue that this more exposed ammo with a blowout panel is safer than keeping it all below deck, but do you now see the weighing of priorities?

[@hubertpearson9454]

Because the tanks were built after everyone Involved had to make money 💰. So they are made of cheap materials and now we know that.

[@KishoreKumar-by8js]

A tank is Better then NO tank.. even if it is a T-34

[@alexusmc2384]

Well the T72a and b is kinda ancient but not the newer ones

[@lilletrille8998]

Strenght in numbers sounds good, unless you are a russian tank crew....

[@TeroristulPasnic]

The armor of T72 b3 resists of ATGM shoot from 500 m so it is ok! For that reason the russian still using it!

[@Eur03]

You do know atgm's penetration isnt affected on range right?

[@jeremybrowand5941]

I mean ... if an ATGM directly impacts some contact 5 reactive armor that's probably true. Otherwise no. The actual armor hasn't really changed significantly since the 80s.

[@CanadianOverdose]

It's the same age as the M1 Abrams. It's not age that determines relevancy of military equipment.

[@vivekkaushik9508]

I liked the OG audio. Who else agrees with me?

[@Ellyna7.62x39]

nope so boring

[@Southerly93]

It would be like if the US stuck with an improved M60 tank instead of creating a new generation of tank for the modern era like the Abrams

[@nikitatrusov4028]

Lol Abrams is modern tank? You serious, it is old tank, t72 and Abrams is just modified old tanks and nothing more

[@Southerly93]

@@nikitatrusov4028 Abrams has no cross capability with the m60 because it was a totally new design based on the XM1. It's leap forward in design makes it the gold standard of capability even decades later.

[@nikitatrusov4028]

@@Southerly93 bruh, and the same for T tank models, they are easy to modify, use and service. Anyway, T90 and Abrams will blow up, because tanks now can't withstand artillery bombardment or airstrike

[@IceAxe1940]

The M60 is more comparable to the T-62, all T-72s of all variants blow M60s out of the water.

[@Southerly93]

@@IceAxe1940 That moment you find out the M60A3 is better than T-72 in all but power to weight because of the russian pervasive "good enough" approach to upgrading their vehicles and pervasive corruption making sure worthwhile upgrades reach as few tanks as possible

[@eliasziad7864]

It is only a little older than the abrams...

[@rogerwilco5918]

Yes, but the upgrades on the Abrams put it leaps and bounds ahead. No need to reinvent the wheel.

[@barca121980]

during World War II and on the Eastern Front, the Russians were terrified for some time when the Tiger and Panther tanks entered service, as the German tank was an engineering miracle at the time, but it was complex in manufacturing, expensive, and of large size, and it was capable of destroying 8 Soviet T-34 tanks before It was destroyed, but for every German Tiger tank the Russians produced 12 T-34 tanks, as they were simple in design, low in cost, and very fast and difficult to hit, and the Russians won the war in the end. The size and speed of the T-72 or T-90 are much more important than the armor and firepower of Western tanks Despite the technology and power that American and Western tanks carry in general, they have not actually been tested in any wars. Other than that they have succeeded in overcoming harsh natural factors, they have not been tested against more advanced weapons and have not participated in battles against powerfully armed armies (the Taliban movement or the Iraqi army). (With years of siege or ISIS) they are absolutely no equal or a standard to judge its strength and capabilities Many Abrams tanks were destroyed by the RPG-7 anti-tank grenade launcher Where the side was even pierced by a PG-7V shell (This is one of the oldest types of shells.) Chemical energy shells are also sufficient to penetrate the side armor The Iraq war revealed weaknesses The front armor of the Abrams tank has good defense against anti-tank weapons used by the Iraqis However, these expectations were false, as it was subject to destruction even by missile launchers from the sixties of the last century. The tank is vulnerable to destruction from the top of the roof, on the sides and at the back 🔴Some reported cases : 30 mm armor-piercing shells penetrated the tank from behind The left and right sides were damaged by a rocket-propelled grenade strike (damage from RPG shots) Recording cases of losses due to anti-tank mines A strike in the tower resulted in the death of one of the crew members The engine showed slightly reduced capabilities The tank was completely destroyed by a bomb explosion from within and by two Maverick missile strikes The tank was destroyed by hits from below and a hit on the side with an RPG After the official end of Operation (Iraq War), the loss of tanks not only did not decrease, but increased as a result of the main tanks and infantry fighting vehicles being hit by anti-mines and rocket-propelled grenades that were used by the Iraqi resistance in ambushes on the patrolling roads of the American forces 🔷For example, in 2003, 40 kilometers from Baghdad, to the northeast of the city, an Abrams tank belonging to the 4th Mechanized Division was destroyed by an improvised bomb consisting of several artillery shells. As a result of the tank’s explosion, the turret flew at a distance of 30 meters It remains that the T-72 or T-90 tank is superior to the Abrams and Western tanks in gun range and tank range. Its small size provides it with great maneuverability Abrams tanks and Western tanks in general are good for countries like the Gulf states that possess enormous oil wealth

[@marcelogonzalez8547]

Ancient in comparison to what? M1 Abrams came out just 7 years later and no one would call it ancient, and yes, both tanks have recently updated versions.

[@marcelogonzalez8547]

@baileyboy73 baileyboy73What does that have to do with the pice of fish?

[@haysnairte4]

@baileyboy73 baileyboy73 well well well, look at that :D

[@datupangurraider7812]

Like it design😃

[@nickmail7604]

They weren't very good in the early seventies when they were new,and with a inexperienced crew they are more dangerous to the people in them. There are a lot of one armed turret crew that can testify to how good the auto load system is.

[@keegan773]

Javelin, NLAW……..💀💀💀💀

[@alexusmc2384]

Stugna is the one with more kills most javelin kills were just apc's.

[@dumbworld4653]

India operates 2000+ of these tin cans Now army is in deep stress after rus-ukr war 🤣🤣

[@Ellyna7.62x39]

india should buy leopard,anrams instead this cheap old junk that fucking wasting more money and life

[@Bababoy6969]

Didint america lose like 22k himvees in afghanistan? And almost all nato countries operater that tin can

[@blackmantis3130]

What's funny? Every tank can be taken by smart anti tank weapons or drones.

[@jonathanmarak5226]

@@Bababoy6969 didn't russia lost 20,000 soldiers in Afghanistan. Money is more important than people in russia

[@jonathanmarak5226]

@@blackmantis3130 no, Abram tank destroyed thousands t72 in Iraq war

[@EpicThe112]

The mistake was this it was in 1982 Lebanon war where the 105mm M111 Hetz DM23 penetrate the T72 front armor

[@allgood6760]

Thanks for this 👍🇳🇿

[@ricodredd7449]

At 2:51, 3:20 we see a T-72 AV. Thx 'your waifu hates you'

[@newguy954]

don't expect this channel to use good sources,the video is dumbed down for regular people who has never seen a different tank other than a m1 abrams,hell a movie i saw had used fake t-72 with a manual loader.

[@your_waifu_hates_you]

Those tankd looks like t72av

[@your_waifu_hates_you]

Your welcome ^_^

[@yaboyed5779]

Aren’t there older tank still in service?

[@nolategame6367]

Wouldn't even beat the record, i reckon. Yugo kept some hellcats up until the end of its existence iirc, and T55 are still around being used as indirect fire support or a poor man's MBT

[@felipe-vibor]

Russia took to Ukraine what they think is sufficient for an operation, not a war. In case NATO gets further involved, Russia will respond with their best and in kind

[@briangatt2956]

As long as they don't drive them on the main road in single file like they did before.

[@ChandranPrema123]

@@briangatt2956 yup and if US keeps funding terrorists in name of Democracy and Freedom we get Biden

[@felipe-vibor]

@Russell Bond well, why not put troops on the ground? Better still why is Russia gaining territory each end day ?

[@Thor_Asgard_]

the only thing that Russia has, which the West cant easily beat is nukes... And the west has them 2

[@narcisoramos5949]

Operation or War ,they are the same thing ,to kill people and flatten all standing structures so as to say ,*Russia is a greater power to reckon with!*The devil rides again in Putin's head,,,

[@mattbanco4406]

The M1 Abrams is from 1980 same with leopards challenger mid 80s The name of the tank is literally refurbishment it’s just an empty steel hole that you put new equipment in every so often to upgrade the tank what do you think the M1 Abrams upgrades are it’s the same chassis numbers from the 1980s they just keep upgrading them and calling them new variant it’s cheaper to upgrade a tank hull than completely build a new one. People need to get past the stigma it’s shitty if it’s old. Majority of modern tanks are Cold War tanks that have been refurbished with new equipment

[@Rastek19]

They don't have the budget to upgrade into a better tank, corruption is one hell of a drug

[@DavidJohnson-hg1mz]

They were believed to have 2000? How many do they have now?

[@angelopugliese6034]

Jiffy Pop tank. It pops when you cook it. 🍿

[@Ninelon]

how about M1 Abrams? it's almost the same age

[@chost-059]

Probably made way too many and have the idea they could just keep upgrading them despite their out dated desing

[@mohdamiruddinsulaiman1383]

If it works it works. Age does not matter

[@paulcoverdale8312]

Simple. There were so many made after ww2 that you now have an excess of stock!!!! The t72 also makes for a great T91p pressure cooker!!! For drones an man pads. Your welcome Paul 17.16 gmt Uk cheers

[@rocketchicken5421]

You seem to have so much left to read. It's time to get started.

[@davidmurphy563]

Oh, this is 3 weeks old. Make a new one on the T62.

[@AlexanderSchreiber]

At 3:56, why does this video show the ammunition hoist system of a battle ship turret while talking about the autoloader? That has _nothing_ to do with how the russian autoloaders work ...

[@mhlangamlungisi5108]

Ancient compared to which one that is called modern. Abrams tank.developed in 1972. Challenger 2 developed in the mid 1980s

[@4TheRecord]

Don't worry, T62 is going to take it's place soon ;)

[@djkinetic2020]

Ukraine is still using T62 lol

[@Achintyanath]

T-62 is 10 years younger than the B-52 Stratofortress bomber used by US Air Force.

[@SnakierElm62]

Well, to be fair the Abrams is pretty old

[@yuanxinwang8219]

Right… the T-72b3 isn’t built in 2010 or anything

[@bourbon2605]

I mean if it works it works. Hell if I see a T-72 aiming its big fuck off gun too me I'll be scared shitless lol

[@samuelweir5985]

Yeah, you'll also be scared if you see someone aiming an ancient flintlock rifle at you because those can kill, too. But if you're out on a modern battlefield, do you really want to be armed with a flintlock rifle?

[@CKD-ZOV]

Because T72 can hunt Gamechanger Abrems and Leopards. Also one T72 hunt 6 Ukraine armoured convoy including Leopard 2 and Bradleys.

[@Skiddle1275]

M1 Abrams was designed during 1960-1970s, isnt that ancient?

[@codfusilli5879]

Why nobody named a band "The T-72's"? The B-52's were a successful band! 😁

[@piirakkaliisa8340]

Best thing about this tank is that it is the ultimate party tank. Tickle it from above and it loses its hat like a bottle of champagne

[@beejees8978]

Still too many in service. Expensive to utilize.

[@tannerdenny5430]

A panzer I would wreck downtown if it was set loose with 3 or 4 hooligans inside.

[@vulcan8288]

Leopard 2 is so ancient why they still use it😂

[@sinekonata]

It's doing pretty well in Ukraine. Why are people questioning proven armour? Are people taking ghost of kiev type nonsense seriously?

[@haysnairte4]

@baileyboy73 baileyboy73 oh it's you again! ^_^ I wonder...

[@jeremybrowand5941]

Doing well? I mean I guess it depends on what scale you're using. I wouldn't describe losing 500+ T72s as doing well, but I guess that's better than losing T90s. So they could be doing worse.

[@jeremybrowand5941]

@baileyboy73 baileyboy73 I don't know how many of those are t72s. Most certainly, but they've lost a number of 64s and 80s. Safe to use conservative numbers.

[@sinekonata]

@baileyboy73 baileyboy73 How many t72s has ukraine lost according to you terrible liars here?

[@jonathanmarak5226]

Yeah doing well... russian are getting cooked inside a tanks

[@lip124]

I would not want to be in this coffin.

[@suriyaventhan3928]

the abrams is also an ancient tank

[@jonathanmarak5226]

Yes but it destroyed thousands t72

[@suriyaventhan3928]

@@jonathanmarak5226 the "lion of Babylon" supplied to iraq and a few middle eastern countries lacked thermal imaging and elctro optical range finders. The Iraqis thought it was the artillery when the American invaded with abrams and they had no hydraulic actuation for the turret. That doesn't mean you will have good luck with an actual russian army.

[@jonathanmarak5226]

@@suriyaventhan3928 that's why russians are getting cooked inside t72 tank

[@suriyaventhan3928]

@@jonathanmarak5226 The russian tanks are no different than german leopards getting cooked in syria (used by the turkish sdf). In reality no tank is industructable against a mordern army. The abrams are no different either.

[@jonathanmarak5226]

@@suriyaventhan3928 that's why Abram tank destroyed 2,000 Soviet tanks in Iraq war. You are dumb if you think russian tank is strong?

[@robertoaseremo4163]

Russia have numbers of Tank and than his counterpart US and NATO have . But the problem with the Russia they don't have proper and adequate storage facilities for these Old Soviet Era Tanks . Because Don't have enough financial support and since after the Collapse of the USSR in 1991 . Unlike the US have the proper and adequate facility storage for their numbers of Tanks and because they have logistic support to allocate and upgrade numbers of these Tanks on their inventory

[@ronchum5178]

It's evolved from the t-62, not the t-64.

[@TheLAGopher]

The T-80 is considered an evolution from the T-64.

[@ronchum5178]

@@TheLAGopher we're talking about the t-72 here.

[@ArreatPLvro]

And again now mistakes. T72 Ural came into service in 1973, in non soviet Russia even later (Ukraine got them in 76) T-72 was not developed from T-64. It was straight evolution of t-55, especially engine.

[@lexburen5932]

all russian Tanks originate from the T34

[@hulagu3068]

Some claim during the gulf war if the iraqis had abrams tanks and the americans the t-72 tanks the americans still would've won do to superior training tactics and logistics.

[@marcgatto9675]

Because it works?

[@bobmoto3528]

Where’s all the info on losses thanks to Abrams tanks in Iraq and how vulnerable they are to antitank missiles in ever theater of war they have been deployed. And that the turret popped off with great big explosions.

[@classicgalactica5879]

BS. No U.S. operated Abrams has ever been lost to an antitank missile, other than one which was hit in the engine compartment, nor did any Abrams pop it's turret. It's ammunition is kept behind blow out panels in the rear of the turret, with none stored in the hull. Ammunition stored in the hull of a tank is what causes a tank to pop it's turret after being hit. Keep right on indulging in your rich fantasy life, however.

[@bobmoto3528]

@@classicgalactica5879 Your comprehension is poor. I stated. Losses accrued to, not loses accrued by.

[@jonathanmarak5226]

Well thousands t72 got eliminated by Abram tank.

[@angelopugliese6034]

A total of 23 Abrams tanks have been destroyed. Seven by friendly fire, two disabled tanks were intentionally destroyed to prevent them from getting into enemy hands and fourteen by direct combat with the enemy. Russia lost more tanks in the first hour of the invasion.

[@bobmoto3528]

@@angelopugliese6034 No losses because of T-72.

[@Knight_Kin]

I know the Abrams is similar age but it's been thoroughly updated with advanced tech many times. T-72s have too but they don't have the kind of tech the Abrams packs.

[@Insert-Retarded-Reply-Here]

There was actually a T-72 upgrade called T-72B2 rogatka, which would have made it at least on par with the M1A2. It had relikt ERA, improved engine, vastly superior fire control to its predecessors, improved visibility and thermal imaging, etc. The rather trashy T-72B3 that we see today was chosen instead because the Russian Ministry of Defense determined that upgrading all the T-72s to the T-72B2 Rogatka would be far too expensive, especially at the time when Russia was still recovering from the financial crisis of the 90s.

[@alexanderK2700]

​@@Insert-Retarded-Reply-HereT72B3 has all the advanced perks of the T72B2 rogatka except the thermal camo net and the RELIKT ERA i don't know if the commander sight was replaced with something better

[@thomasw695]

Russia should of just kept to t80s and made more t90m

[@rayrecker1095]

What do you want them to do with more than 10k t72 And they're making more t90m now

[@thomasw695]

@@rayrecker1095 scrap and reuse

[@rayrecker1095]

@@thomasw695 actually they're partially doing it Tos 1 was actually a t72 And the teminator 2 and 3 also

[@globalcitizen8321]

T80 is a much complicate design. So choosing the T72 line was a wise decision. T90 started as an evolution of T72 BU.

[@oldsarj]

They can't. The T90 requires numerous microprocessors that are under embargo. That's why the factory that makes them and the T14 is shut down.

[@Szarko32c]

M1 is ancient 40 yrs tank... Leopard 2 is older than M1...

[@DunOpondo]

Old tanks with their inefficiencies messing up the latest NATO leopards tanks 😂

[@diesel_man99]

It's nothing special but it gets the job done.

[@TheSiimh]

Slow down the speed you read this text.

[@michaelmulto8013]

It's obsolete already, and no matched against modern anti tank weapons

[@jameskhoune2858]

@Michael Multo Like any other tank, modern anti tank are suppose to kill tanks so most tank probably won’t have a great chance against them so the T72 just have to adapt to modern combat.

[@millugaming133]

Enough to crush a man into salad lol

[@michaelmulto8013]

T72 is already obsolete since after the cold war it's no match against modern anti tank missile

[@Rickoshay]

"Because comrade Russian soldiers are expendable like our tanks" - General Stalinski.

[@Bababoy6969]

?

[@Khmer1496]

Stalinski? XD

[@WhoopityDoo]

Because Russia has thousands laying around from the Soviet Union and it's cheaper to modernize rather than build an all new platform. There, saved you 10 minutes of your time.

[@andrewmackay1350]

because they dont have any others to use