How to destroy a T-72 - Leopard 2 Gunner Interview
A former Leopard 2A6 gunners explains how to destroy and engage T-72s and T-80s. We talk about different variants, where to aim, strength and weaknesses. The most dangerous Russian/Soviet Tank etc.
DISCLAIMER: I was invited by the Deutsche Panzermuseum in 2018, 2019, 2020 & 2023.
/ daspanzermuseum
Tobias' Channel: / @tank_insight2011
Cover Image: T-72B3, by Vitaly V. Kuzmin
www.vitalykuzmin.net/Military...
Cover Design by vonKickass
»» GET OUR BOOKS ««
» Stukabook - Doctrine of the German Dive-Bomber - stukabook.com
» The Assault Platoon of the Grenadier-Company November 1944 (StG 44) - sturmzug.com
» Army Regulation Medium Panzer Company 1941 - www.hdv470-7.com
» Achtung Panzer? Zur Panzerwaffe der Wehrmacht - panzerkonferenz.de
»» SUPPORT MHV ««
» patreon - see videos early (adfree) - / mhv
» subscribe star - www.subscribestar.com/mhv
» paypal donation - paypal.me/mhvis
» KZhead Membership - / @militaryhistoryvisual...
»» MERCHANDISE ««
» teespring - teespring.com/stores/military...
»» SOURCES ««
our brains
00:00 Intro
00:15 T-72 M1 & modern T-72s
02:04 How to engage a T-72
04:19 The Leopard 2A6
04:56 Call for Leopard 2A6 and 2A7
06:15 Autoloader drawback: rod length limited
06:39 The most dangerous Enemy?
07:50 T-80B, T-80BV, T-80U
09:02 Combat: Keep firing
09:42 Hold on...
#t72tank #leopard2a6 #tankcombat
»» GET OUR BOOKS «« » Stukabook - Doctrine of the German Dive-Bomber - stukabook.com » The Assault Platoon of the Grenadier-Company November 1944 (StG 44) - sturmzug.com » Panzer: Army Regulation Medium Panzer Company 1941 - www.hdv470-7.com » IS-2 Stalin's Warhammer - www.is-2tank.com » StuG: Ausbildung, Einsatz und Führung der StuG Batterie - stug-hdv.de » Achtung Panzer? Zur Panzerwaffe der Wehrmacht - panzerkonferenz.de » Panzerkonferenz Video - pzkonf.de
most important part The material not same T-72 and T-80 ( laymens do not know this ) T-80 3x50mm SHA= Semi Hard Steel 400BHN example normal armor made tanks 200-250BHN and Tungsten Alloy 600-650BHN not matter what material because very different This is why often use thin about 10-20mm HHA=Hard steel armor 500-600BHN what can break the APFSDS nose
How to kill a T72? Well, apparently you simply yell, "Javelin" at a T72 and it explodes in fear.
*Waiting for war thunder experts comments*
Plot twist soon...
Careful, with how often military documents are leaked, they may actually be qualified.
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualizedLower glacis
To be fair, they’ve probably read classified manuals on both vehicles lol
Do not forget Russian tanks bias in the game
Gunner was very knowledgeable and professional. Thank you.
Glad you enjoyed it!
The gunner was Brainwashed to kingdomcome, his training is basically: Tank aim at tank, tank goes boom, enemy stupid enemy is orcs Go back home and eat sausage neo con boy
Panzertruppe, all Tankers and Tankists practice killing their own kind.
9:06 Until the turret flies of. Savage analysis, but pretty fitting.
It is a handy way to confirm a kill. Visible confirmation made easy !
I am always impressed by your skills in English to discuss highly technical information in a second language.
The A5 didn't have the L55 gun, it had the L44. It was only the A6 variant that was up-gunned. And on the Leo 1 vs. T-72: the Bundeswehr conducted firing trials with 105 and 120mm APFSDS and HEAT vs. the T-72. And 105 APFSDS was found to be lacking. That's why the Leo 1s were retired. Some material about these trials is available online.
I’m sure he knows all of that already, yknow, being a tanker 😂 regardless the 105 was still capable of penning soviet vehicles, all depends on ammo
I mean, Leopard's 105mm APFSDS scratched the armour plate of the PT-91 after ERAWA "brick" blew off.
@@HanSolo__ When and where?
Yes,the A5 had the L44,the A6 the L55, the A7 the Panzerkanone 120mm HE and the A7V has the L55A1 as Guns for the Leo2. The development of 105mm Ammo didnt stopped when Germany phased out the Leopard 1. Especially other countries like Taiwan are using more modern Ammotypes that are capable of penetrating T-72. The benefits of the 105mm is even that you have multiple countries who developed such ammunition and made them available on the Market.
@nobodyisbest Were you a Leopard gunner? I don't think so, opinion discarded.
So basically you can destroy t-72 by shooting it with another tank
Literally can do that with any tanks
No spoilers!
You just spoiled the whole video, damn it.
It do be like that.
@@kanestalin7246 Have fun trying with one of those older MG tanks or tankettes.
I've lived away from my dear Germany for a long time, but my Germanicity is returning rapidly hearing TWO Germans say veHIkle, just makes me happy❤
*every War Thunder player: just aim for the lower plate*
-Plate- Lower glaces.
@@FoxBoyWithBushyTailAndEars *glacis
Doesn't work, russian ammo racks having been exploding for the last year or so in WT
Or in squad the top left era block next to the driver port. had some armchair “TC” rage and mald cause I told him I know where to shoot the tank.
@@masonicratfuel tank absorbs DM53 and turns driver yellow
I've never played a Bethesda game. I just know that the games they produce have given MHV an inexhaustible supply of jokes over the years.
They charge full price for the beta they call a finished product.
@@notownself And they have been doing that since the 90s at least!
I played Wolfensten, the new one. Not bad at all.
You're not missing anything by avoiding them. The only one I would recommend that's exclusively from them is The Elder Scrolls III; Morrowind. Elder Scrolls IV; Oblivion is also good, the character models just look hilarious.
@@HMSConqueror Yeah. It is not a bad game. But is not made by Beth. Just published by them. (And even if Beths games are buggy, I actually like a lot of them.)
Greetings from Hungary! Our armed forces recently got Leopard2A4s and A7s. This May, I had the chance to talk to our tank crew members and asked them about their opinion regarding the 2A4's firepower.(We were yet to have the A7s at that time.) One conversation was very typical. After exchanging the formalities, the conversation went like this: ME -What is your opinion or what are your experiences with the armour-piercing arrow round [or as you'd call it APFSDS]? Him -In one word, coffin nail. It went through the hard target like hot knife through butter. ME -What was the hard target? (Although I didn't specify it, he understood instantly what I tried to ask.) Him -T-72M1 from the front, 2,5 km distance. [We only have one T-72M1 equipped with ERA, for whatever reason, of course that one couldn't be the target.]
Good news: the crews can also save on funeral costs with a totally free cremation. i.e. The Leopards seem to burn very nicely if the videos from Ukraine are anything to go by
Fact: drone coming and kill every modern tanks no matter what: example look, search STRV122 this better than leo same turret armor Leopard and better hull armor but no matter 120mph drones catch easy and kill :/ no safe i call the tanks: *Piece of metal coffin*
@@paulbaumer8210 quick lets look at those crews from the T90M oh wait we can't they're literally atomized, and we have actual footage of that unlike you zigger.
Haven't you seen any of the T-series tanks cooking off? Did you russians call them that because their turrets fly so high? @@paulbaumer8210
@@paulbaumer8210 Crew survivability is still waaay ahead of the T series tanks. Besides who cares how it burns if the crew can escape?
As a fellow gunner, I can largely confirm what my Kamerad had to say. We don't aim at weakspots - you measure the distance with your EMES, preferably directly before the shot (more modern Russian tanks have laser warning systems), *yell out* (that's important so the loader knows the cannon will now do a thing - wouldn't want him to have his arm or leg somewhere problematic), take the shot. Also, yes, we only fought against T-72s and T-80s in simulators. At 9:15, he starts talking about the difference between "bekämpft" and "zerstört" (actually, it's more commonly "vernichtet" in German Army lingo). "Bekämpft" means nothing more than "engaged", which means that the status of the shot-at enemy vehicle is unclear, whereas "zerstört" means "destroyed" - the target was clearly destroyed as an explosion was visible or the vehicle starts to smoke. "Vernichtet", in the same vein as "zerstört", means "annihilated", but can also mean "destroyed". It's merely a more colorful expression that has established itself as standard army lingo. Another gunner specialty is to know in what order to destroy targets if there are multiple. It's a relatively logical thing - flanking tanks at the edges of your field of view have priority, tanks that are closer have higher priority than those further away. BMPs/IFVs in general are assumed to be equipped with ATGMs, meaning they take priority, moving targets have less priority than positioned targets. It should also be noted that this gunner had way above average knowledge of Russian/Soviet MBTs - we do receive some rather basic training in identifying enemy tanks, but it's by far not as extensive as what he talks about. What's way more important is to differentiate between types of vehicles: Armored car vs. truck vs. APC vs. IFV vs. tank, to determine what ammo should be chosen to fight them.
Cool. Thanks for providing these details.
You are talking about the Bekämpfungssystematik. That would be a Topic for its own. From the Outside to the Inside, from Close to far and from dangerous to less Dangerous.
The aiming for weakpoints is a computer game thing. Besides aiming in the middle of the target increases hit chances, in training it was also said that, that the ring between hull and turret cannot be armored and will always get a penetration and be a kill shot... so while aiming for weakpoints is a computer game thing and we never actually aimed for or even bothered to identify weakpoints, we kinda always aim for the ultimate weakpoint of every tank with a turret. 8)
Nice ammount of Info, thank you. Question: you said gunners selected the targets, didn't the commander assign targets for gunners? And if not, then what is the commander's role during a fire fight? Lets say you know there are 3 tanks sitting still, already identified. What does the commander do in that situation?
@@Deimnos This is completely depending on the Situation. Normally the Commander also has to use his Radio, order the Driver where to drive and overwatch the fire of his neighbor Tank. The Gunner is also trained in which Order he has to engage Targets. So often the Gunner spots the Target, reports it to the Commander and the Commander just says yes and the Gunner fires the Gun. It is possible that the Commander sees a Target first or he has a Target in sight with a higher priority, then he either orders the Gunner to engage it or he engages it himself with his Gun Controls. In special Situations like a Duel Situation in under 1000 Meter for example in a City it is possible that the Gunner fires himself directly without telling the Commander to avoid loosing the Duel in just seconds. There is never a single way to do all Situations. Every Situation, every Terrain needs a special adaptation of the Combat to it.
"until the turret pops off" It's ever so polite to incorporate a turkey-timer on your tanks.
Vielen Dank, meine Herren. Sehr informativ! Thank you gentlemen. Very informative!
Well. Lots of information there. I appreciate it. Thank you again.
My pleasure!
Interesting interview. I am suprised nobody walked through the shot and I am glad there was no rain on that day, because that makes for "fun" audio challanges :) From Memory I would say the Leopard 2 usesers decided on the two upgrade programms in the late 90s. Then they did Nr.2 first confusingly, which was a protection upgrade. The longer gun came later.
Most of the recording took place before the visitors hours, we planned that all the "inside" shots etc. for the opening hours.
as you mentioned Leo 1A5, just few hours ago, I saw some short vid, how after long time tank against tank battle appeared... And I was looking at it, it was shown from inside the turret of the UA tank ( and they like to "mirror" the view ) I saw horizontal sliding breechblock on the gun. So lookslike your Leo 1A5 has first tank kill, sadly, the video quality was so bad, that I really cannt recognise the type of the enemy tank...
"Aim for the centre of seen mass". Longer barrel + more propellant (higher breech pressure) = Increased muzzle velocity and results in higher KE when the APFSDS round hits the target.
I was honestly expecting like a stupid inferior Russian engineering joke or bias or something but am glad there isn't. Sincerely appreciate it
Its foolish to underestimate your enemy. The "modern" T-Series of Tanks since the T-64B were treated very seriously. Especially the T-80 Series was seen as a comparable opponent to the Leopard since it was more mobile compared to the T-64. In our trainingsscenarios and simulatorsessions it was made us clear that this Tanks are not to joke with.
@@tank_insight2011I agree man, just it's hard to find any content or people that just simply state pro NATO everything or whatever y'know what I mean. From a T72b3m or T64bv, are still capable of today, T72b3m even more so, even upgraded with CITV as of late too
Thanks guys, very informative. So really, gunner thinking has not changed much since WW2. Aim at the centre of mass to ensure a hit. If it moves, shoot it and if it doesn't move shoot it again to make sure. I'm talking about the man and not the machine. I'm also across modern kit and don't need to be educated about the latest sights, etc. I'm talking about something much deeper.
"Always aim center mass for highest hit probability" Oh yeah, so deep.
3 days ago a modern leopard 2 was destroyed by the old Russian t-72 with a direct hit. Which was video recorded. What an irony to see it after this video
You don’t understand irony, do you?
Thank you gentlemen, for an excellent video.
Our pleasure!
Very informative and useful, we never know when a draft might come so knowing this in advance will prove worthy.
Currently there is two videos showing direct Leo2 VS T-72 engagement. In the first a T-72 survives a hit from Leo2. In the second Leo2 doesn't really survive a direct hit from T-72:)
Very useful info.Thank you!
Similar to what an Abrams gunner said in another interview. Basically shoot center mass and keep shooting until it's dead. Doesn't matter what variant - always the same procedure.
aim at the middle, quite interesting info. Keep shooting until it stops, shoot everything else that still moves, keep shooting until it explodes. Sounds legit :D
what i think is most important is what round you use because stuff like dm53 and m829 will just tear through the t-72's UFP at least without armour packages and while i don't know the actual effectiveness of kontakt 5 and relict they sure as hell aren't as effective IRL as they are in WT.
Not to forget that dm53 is an outdated ammo. Modern dm is way more effective
I read somewhere how in some obscure war the t72 were getting hit in the front and the dart would leave out the back of the tank while on paper it sbouldnt even pen the UFP xD
Cool video idea
4:48 Leopard 1 105mm projectile can penetrate upper frontal armor of T-72A or T-72M. Good to know. At what range though? Only mentioning because Ukraine will be getting a lot of Leopard 1s.
Dm33 or newer will but t72a is used very less
that is a total contradiction of what I heard the chieftain saying , something along the lines of (NATO found out that the 105 mm was not reliable penetrating the front of the t72 after they got their hands of a t72 only the vehicles armed with 120mm could go through reliably)
105mm DM23/M111 APFSDS from around 1978 could penetrate it and the Soviets found this out in the early 1980s, so they welded an additional 16mm steel plate to the upper frontal armor, which was enough to stop the round, but the later 105mm DM33 APFSDS from around 1984 could penetrate it even with the added armor.
@@DOGosaurus_rex soviet union found out that dm23 or m111(israel) was able to pen ufp of t72a at close range, thats why they added 16mm plate on t72a, then they developed t72b which will stop any coold war 105mm at any range and if kontakt 5 is added in late cold war it can stop any 120mm pre 2000s
@@DOGosaurus_rex the gunner didn't state the range. If the 105 mm could only penetrate at less than 500 or 800m, I imagine Western militaries would consider that unacceptable.
Canada received a few T-72’s from the Bundeswehr following German reunification. We had one on display at Canadian Forces Base Borden, Armoured Museum. The curator who gave our class a guided tour had an interesting tale to tell, that some of the newer Soviet tanks adopted the American innovation of using depleted uranium as part of its armour, but that Soviet depleted uranium wasn’t completely depleted. He suggested that any soldiers that served on them were likely to have several times the safe exposure levels to radiation that most people would experience. Can Military History Visualized make some inquiries as to whether this was actually true, and if so, how widespread or severe was this?
I don't believe soviets used DU inserts in their tanks. I could be mistaken, of course, but I'm pretty confident.
This is definitely a fake and i will explain it to you and give you the reason. Depleted uranium was never used in a reactor, it is the residue that occurs when natural uranium is enriched. Natural uranium consists mainly of the two isotopes Uranium 238 and Uranium 235. The percentage share is 99,27 % Uranium 238 and 0,72 % Uranium 235. The latter one is fissile and thus the valuable uranium. For usage in a reactor its percentage share is enriched to about 4 % and to about over 90 % for nuclear weapons. And if you enrich an isotope, then you have more of the unusable uranium 238 on the waste side. That's why this waste is also called depleted uranium. But both uranium isotopes are radioactive. The half-life of both is so long that it practically doesn't matter which one you have more of. And since both are alpha emitters, the radiation does not penetrate the skin. Uranium can only cause damage if you inhale dust into your lungs or if the uranium enters the body in another way. This can happen, for example, if the tank is hit. But it doesn't matter at all how high the degree of depletion is. If you really take it seriously, the half-life of uranium 235 is slightly shorter. This means that a certain amount of material has more decays per unit of time, but because the half-life is still huge, there are so few decays that it practically doesn't matter. So if you want to completely protect yourself from uranium radiation, then you shouldn't put it in a tank at all. It doesn’t matter whether it is natural uranium or depleted uranium and how depleted it is, it is still radioactive uranium.
@@OpenGL4ever I’m sorry, but you aren’t making as convincing a case that the old Soviets wouldn’t use depleted uranium as part of their armour in their tanks. But thank you for the information. Is there any information as to how serious a problem depleted uranium munitions create, in particular if they hit armour that also includes depleted uranium?
@@MyLateralThawts I didn't say that. I was referring to your two sentences: "but that Soviet depleted uranium wasn’t completely depleted. He suggested that any soldiers that served on them were likely to have several times the safe exposure levels to radiation that most people would experience" And I explained that by using science. That's why this story is a fairy tale story. Destroyed by science. A hit creates dust and, in the case of armor with depleted uranium, radioactive uranium dust, which can if inhaled cause great damage to the body due to alpha radiation. Whether the uranium is depleted, natural uranium or enriched makes practically no big difference. And that is also the reason why we in Germany do not use depleted uranium in our Leopard 2 or use such ammunition.
@@OpenGL4ever wouldn't alpha rads still pen eyes and other orifices? NEVER open your mouth in the tank?
Informative video about Soviets tanks designed
Do the PT-91 Twartdy! It's weird because it is similar to T-72M1 but has different dimensions. It also has different armour plate thicknesses used. I mean it was deeply modernized during the 90s. At the NATO training grounds, PT-91 plays the role of the Russian enemy tank (The Bad Guy.) It can shoot with fairly modern ammo. It does not lack mobility like the T-72M/M1 does. Plus, it has reverse gear.
The latest versions have improved composite armor on the frontal plates supplied from germany, the polish designed ERAWA armor blocks fit tighter together without the 15mm gaps that the russian ERA blocks have so their protection is improved and the -2 version has better effects on dispersing the HEAT jet and disrupting APFSDS projectiles, won't detonate if hit with burning napalm or autocannon rounds up to 30mm, or close proximity shell splinters or mine explosions (that is to say, mines which don't employ a explosively formed self forging jet like HEAT rounds do).
PT91 was made on T-72M and T-72M1, so what diferences? What kind of ammo Poland developed and used? Never readed about some..
@@DOMINIK99013 No it wasn't. PT-91s are not rebuilt T-72s. They're a Polish domestically produced and designed variation that used the T-72M (which they had previously license produced) as a starting design, with as many locally sourced components as possible. They're heavier with thicker/better armor, better ERA, better engine, fire control, transmission, stabilizers, fire suppression, optics, etc. About the only thing they kept was the 125mm gun and autoloader and the machineguns. The Twardy modernization version improved things further.
-Who are you? -I'm Leo2 gunner. - So, how you are going to destroy T-72b3 ??? - I will use fpv-drone.
Thanks for doing these in English
If I remember right, Denmark just finished updating all its Leo2 to the A7 variant
Nice Starfield reference, didn't expect that 😄
😁 I talked to him before and he mentioned that aim in the middle, then I watched the Starfield video where the guy made that ship and I knew that in a few weeks I would be standing in front of tanks with him, luckily I remembered.
what surprised me in a tank museum is that t-72 was much bigger than i imagined. its not very tall but it is a big tank and it carries a big metal gun as big as a flagpole. And Centurion that looks smaller than average in world of wanks was huge in size. And artillery pieces are even larger. Bandkanon is simply massive. But then there are tanks that are extremely tiny like Panzer 1. T-38 that russia used in the winter war is just 1.6 meters tall so I imagine this to be the most crampy tank ever built.
Yeah, I was quite surprised to see how big the Panzer IV and T-34 were "this time", I mean I have seen them before in the same museum.
Centurion was a mid 1940’s design whilst the T72 a late 60’s. I worked with a guy who drove centurions in Korea and said that the captured T34’s he encountered were woefully inadequate by then… similar leaps have happened every couple of decades or where there’s been a leap in technology.
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized T-34/85 was pretty large compared to how I imagined it after hearing people on tv and on the internet saying how crampy it was. Likewise was Hetzer a lot bigger than I imagined after seeing Chieftains video about it. I imagine 4 persons could actually fit very well into that tank now - altough I haven't seen the inside of any of those tanks. Sherman firefly is tall like a tower - and with a tank commander looking out from the turret you would probably have your head head like 3.5 meters above the ground. Leopard1 was just about the same size as I imagined it to be, but the gun still looks large and menacing despite its old age.
I thought it was interesting to see the T-62 next to the T-72 in the german tank museum, because the T-72 appears to be less tall. Which shoes the advantage of nit having a loader that has to have room to stand up. Putting things next to each other is often quite usefull and interesting.
@@Sabelzahnmowe sadly the T-72 is empty inside in the DPM :(
How to destroy a T72 with a leopard2: Hit the vehicle anywhere.
You should do a video on how effective T55 and T62 tanks will be in the Ukraine.
High pressure rounds = higher velocity rounds? Okay, video answers that. Yeap, makes sense.
Title should be: "How Starfield can trick real tank gunners."
Will we have a video on how not to run over mines?
1. Leave box of vodka bottles next to road. 2. Have artillery ready to aim for vodka bottles. 3. Enjoy.
Insett video of M1113 hitting a T72. But was the T72 a M60 killer?
Can't wait to see vatniki copium™ on this one
To be honest, I've yet to see anyones tanks do well. After watching Ukraine's offensive I think our tanks suck and the Russian tanks suck. Lol.
Soviet armor effectiveness is frequently overrated. While the later T mods switched to composites, the telling factor is that the overall weight of the vehicle (and thickness of the armor) did not appreciably increase. Compare to the M1A2, which went from 55t to 70t when the armor was improved.
How to destroy a T-72: 1.) Have an enemy employing T-72 or any related family of tanks. 2.) Breathe in their general direction.
You must be a joker at the parties
@@biggerdickus I can tell that your screen name is ironic... Or a "personal preference"...
From the media which I distrust a lot it does seem the Leopard is vulnerable. I worked for the British Ministry of Defence for almost 40 years and helped with the design and testing of Challenger 1. Of course, all the establishments and designers are now thrown away. I understand you are building Challenger 3. I do hope you make a better job of it than the 'value added Challenger 2' which was 'modified' as to be almost useless at one point.
I expect with the L55 you can shoot the T72 anywhere within effective range and thats pretty much all she wrote.
Any chance we can get the other side's perspective on armored warfare? Whether it be ATGM gunners, T-90, T-72 etc.
Mos of them are dead, so...
@@MrBejkovecI’m so laughing out loud.
Then how do UA tanks continue to take hits every day, just like RU tanks? I was asking a legit question, why shouldn't we hear both sides to history.@@MrBejkovec
Why?
@@MrBejkovec And Russian army stop exist aperently. Why so much autism?
I guess in combat it would be very hard to distinguish between soviet tank types, let alone their subvariants.
But you likely know from reconaissance and military intelligence which units are in front of you, how they are equipped and thus what types you might encounter and which not. This all the more applies in the drone-era.
Both sides are painting white markings on their tanks for a reason, because identifying friend from foe is difficult. And just seeing a siluette of an enemy tank from far away is not easy for identification - hence the talk that every german tank is a tiger (even if it is a panzer4 whos siluette looks a bit similiar).
@@MrPeperoni79 so if your drones would show you a tank driving at you, would you A) look for the space between the road wheels and the position of the exhaust to figure out what type it is (leaving out the subvariants for simplicity) or B) just shoot at that damm thing
@@comentedonakeyboard Do not reduce it to the drone example. As said, in most cases you will now what combat vehicles are in your vicinity. But still, I would not even shoot at that damn thing, I would also just pop its turret off ;).
@@MrPeperoni79 do you know what an actual combatant in an actual combat knows? Or (and i asume this Option) do you just asume that they would know?
I wish someone could make a video about Leopard 1A3CAN turned into Leopard C2 MEXAS.
My man literally said "left click on it"
The not having turn around to retreat is one reason all the leopards, even Leo 1s, challengers and abrams tanks will be game changers for ukraine. They can shoot on the move while reversing with their front armor facing the russians. And this is also why the S-tanks worked for Sweden's doctrine during the cold war, most tanks in the 60s and 70s really COULDN"T fire accurately on the move and had to stop to shoot anyway, and the S-tanks 105mm gun had a significantly longer barrel 62 caliber barrel than the 52 caliber one on Centurions, Leo1, the original M1, AMX-30, M60s, etc. and also the S-tank could drive at 37mph forwards or reverse
Keep in mind that tank duels are not the primary task of battle tanks because of the rare situations where two tanks actually have a face of. It is far more common to have the tanks shoot at trenches/position/infantry (like a mobile armored artillery). This means that only talking about the hypothetical outcome of tank duels is not that meaningful when you want to display a specific tank as "gamechanger". It is also about their capability to withstand artillery, their reliability, the probability of their crews surviving etc.
Will be? Have you been in a coma for the past 6 months?
S-tanks didn’t have gun stabilisation to shoot on the move. Berge believed it would impossible within the tank’s service life (30 years) when he designed them, so they shot multiple auto-loader, rifled rounds from emplaced cover by design, which reinforced the need for a defensive fixed-line doctrine. He was wrong about the timeline & quality of Western gun stabilisers, but he made some excellent choices, based on that error to protect the tank & crew. Like many tanks its a series of design choices that either meet a doctrine or end up defining it.
@@MsZeeZed Except stabilizing the entire tank when the gun is fixed to the hull is much like trying to NBC seal an ocillating turret. If you throw enough money at the problem you can probably come up with a solution but without that its basically pointless to even try (though Austria sadly DID waste money attempting the later).
Now we need a guide how to destroy Leopard, apart from drones
The guide is the same. Lase it and sent it.
just take an rpg 7, and make sure you find some where high that you can at the leopard about 45 degree down ward and profit.
We danes used the A7 when i was in aafghanistan to guard the highground. i have first han witness of some pretty cool stories.
Having an autoloader seems to be a huge advantage, from having a human loader for the main gun. The T - 72 and the T - 90 will be able to fire rounds more rapidly than any version of the Leopard, apparently to me. I haven't heard of the Leopard having any special armour, like the mentioned Russian tanks. Perhaps, overall, the Indian Army could consider having Russian tanks as an advantage over having any NATO tank. Perhaps, the western tanks could consider having an autoloader, and the Russians could try to store ammunition in the tank more safely, so that the turret doesn't blow off and the crew of the tank can survive in most scenarios if the armour is penetrated, and all the ammunition doesn't blow up.
"Welcome to hell, wild kitty" (с)RPG-7
Starfield? What is this a crossover episode?
Very interesting, but do look into the camera during an Interview.
Nein!
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized So WHO are you taliking to? To the Tank?!🤣
Good to know. Good to know 😏...
"...not up to modern standards..." But in its day!... Back when all U.S. tanks had a 105mm gun, I was working on division staff for Intelligence (G2) when I was stunned to read a report classified Secret that our guns could not penetrate the front armor of the new T72 . During a briefing for tank company commanders in the division, I gave them a History lesson about the German Panther and the need to change our tactics to hit them from the side. Previously the saying was, "If you can see it; you can hit it. If you can hit it; you can kill it." P.S. The man said, "...change position after every shot..." They will be next to you if you do that; relocating takes a long longer then people think if the enemy is in a full-on charge. Get a kill, THEN move. With the 105mm and a human loader, we could get off a shot every 1ricochet we could spot and adjust from. A shot that went too high was a wasted shot; almost impossible to track.
How to destroy a T-72: Step one: Don't blown up by a landmine
War thunder players: My time has come!
What about T90?
Although it’s not the total picture open source info from Ukraine shows many more armour losses to land mines and drone supported MANPADS or artillery than any tank v tank encounters.
How to destroy a drone with a tank, would be a more relevant topic.
add a vehicle mounted air defence system with a directed energy weapon to the tank
@@Gaehhn What tank has that? did that even exist?
@@othertipo The technology exists and is small enough to fit, not sure if it's implemented somewhere already, but I'm certain some militaries are at least doing trials. For example the Skyranger from Rheinmetall has a 30mm Autocannon, but theoretically you could probably just use the laser turret and radar on a MBT to defeat drones.
in combat youd shoot until the turret flies off... so... once?
We see many examples of tanks being destroyed by artillery but are many tanks destroyed by other tanks?,
How to destroy a T-72 by shooting at it
You shoot and take out its breach, then he have to repair for 30 secs and you use that to push him and side shoot him😂
Ez clap
so what did germany do with all of those ussr weapons it acquired when reunifacation happened?
Some where used for a short while, Mig 29, BMP, I think even the T-72. Other stuff was sold, here I talk about the way some of the BMP-1s went: kzhead.info/sun/h9aGlL6joYianYU/bejne.html
Aim for the driver's periscope if you have the opportunity. Thankfully it's right smack center mass when facing off from front aspect. Low hull side shots = Kerbal Space Program for the poor bastards on the wrong end.
Sneeze on the carousel and the turret will fly to space
✌
It’d be more interesting if you made a how-to for the Abrams, Challenger, and Leopard series. To watch a T-72 blow up, you just had to go on liveleak (May that site rest in peace). We always hear about how bad Russian tanks are; maybe you could analyze western technology in a critical light?
dont matter which tank, most of the time tanks who shoots first wins, this applies to every war espically ukraine. So i ask what is being done to ensure tanks have a higher chance of shooting before their opponent tank? surely counter mesures against drones will increase with time, and thermals depend on the enviroment for usage.
In Ukraine its mostly Soviet tanks vs Soviet tanks.
@@Paciat Still with big diference with armor and ammo.
Yep, it mostly comes down to who spots the other guy first.
Who *hits* first wins.
@@DOMINIK99013 I very much doubt that there is a big difference with armor and ammo of Russian and Ukrainian tanks. Physics is physics, no matter what the weapon salesman and propaganda man tells you. Apart from electronics that were upgraded anyway tanks (western included) didnt change much since the collapse of the Soviet Union.
mobility vs mines - no answer...
tldr: just shoot it in the center untill it explodes, man
Imagine so many on both sides right now are uttering "AY BLYAAAT" as their last words.
I'm just baffled that all the newer tanks in the Russian arsenal are essentially the same thing with different gadgets 😂😂😂
If it aint broke...
It's the same deal for their airforce su-27's became su-33/35.
@@artificialintelligence8328I’ve seen quite a few broken idk man
Innovation is expensive after all, i heard that's why they use the german ww2 tiger-engine with a slapped-on turbo in their "new" t14 armata XD
Center Mass.
I think he emphasizes always aiming at the center of a T80 to blow up the weak point of this Russian tank which is the auto-loading system. I'm sure he would say differently if he were to hit an Abrams, Ariete or Leclerc. Interestingly, he respects and fears even non-latest generation tanks.
"Aim for center of mass" and "aim for center of silhouette" are both incorrect. Gunners aim for the center of the "visible part" of the target. And it's not to hit any weak spots, but to get the highest probability of actually hitting ANY part of the target. With even a 105mm explosive shell, you are bound to break something important no matter where the shot lands.
It would be similar - you are taught to aim at the largest part of the tank, to minimize risk of missing it altogether.
Even an old tank is something that can kill you if u ignore it
Leclerc is one of the safest vehicles. The autoloader door which closes after every reload is like 10cm squared. Also has a blow out panel. So generally speaking it's very unlikely for the door to be open to the ammo. Also if it is it's much smaller than Abrams.
How to destroy a Leopard? a M1A1 abrams?
Is there any specific reason to shoot dead center, instead of trying to aim for weak spots? Infantry is trained to aim at center mass because really any hit will incapacitate a soldier, but for tanks taking a second to not hit the upper plate or the turret at a bad angle is faster than cycling rounds, no?
Get your shot in first. Simples.
Теоретики...
The t72 was made to be easy ( and cheap) to mass produce and relatively small and agile, and it has achieved those two things. The problem is that its issues basically negate those advantages. Most t72 variants have kinda crap sensor packages in comparison to NATO tanks. Plus, its only agile going forwards, since its reverse speed is trash (at least for most variants) and its also not super accurate while moving (unlike the leopard, which is famous for being accurate even while moving). This means you got a small and agile take that cant tank advantage of those features because its cant see its enemies before they see it, cant shoot at them while moving, and cant take advantage of cover that well because it cant reverse if its crew's life depended on it.
Only that it's NOT agile^^
Hi from Russia ! You talking about duel situation, what is really rare today... Drones, mines, RPG, artillery, helicopters\ bombers is gonna take care about your leopards ( or our T series) before they can have a chance to face each other. In normal fight - army vs army, not army vs africa peasants. Tank role today is closer to infantry support - analogue stug 3 or ISU-152 t in WW2.
Minefields works in a confied battlespace i guess but not if the enemy can walk around them. And mines are only useful if you have someone that can fire on the people trying to clear the minefield - but if the enemy have artillery or air power to kill off all defenders then the minefield becomes pretty worthless. I don't think RPGs are effective against modern western tanks.. Challangers have many dozens of hits so I think more powerful anti-tank weapons are needed. And I consider attack helicopters a relic of the past that is dying out. Its too vulnerable to ground fire and cannot carry as much bombload or fly fast like aircrafts. Russias small number of helicopters did have some effect last summer, but on the other hand do I believe this problem is easily solveable by just putting som mid-range SAMs mounted on some Humvees to protect an armored column. Using air power to knock out tanks is hard. And especially if your airforce suck, like the russian one. I mean two of the newest bombers in the russian air force - SU-34 - tried to fly extremely low and close to a target to drop russias new gliding bombs on a target in Belgorod but all bombs failed to hit their target and half of the bombs failed to explode. This is the result of russias best. And something tells me that this is not a very effective way of fighting. I used to think that SU34 must have been a good plane unlike the old A10. But given their pathethic performance in Ukraine with high losses I think I would prefer the old crappy A10 over it after all. If not for anything else so then for the better armament. This russian piece of crap usually can only drop dumb bombs, because they have runned low on guided bombs. But not only are the dud rate on russian bombs extremely high and the precision with badly trained pilots not that high - I also think it is stupid to risk an expensive new plane and pilots for flying low altitude and get exposed to manpads. Furthermore do I think it is idiotic to have a two engined plane with all ground maintance that entails - especially if you are just going to risk those expensive planes in missions with high risks and tiny rewards. I will however agree with you that tanks mainly are not fighting other tanks - and that was also the case back in WW2. Rommel did not want to waste his few tanks fighting tank duels in the desert. He rather used them to drive up to the Brits and fire a few shots and then retreat - and then the British tanks followed the retreating enemy into a trap. And suddenly they stood in an open field and got targeted by 88mm anti-tank guns and got blown into pieces and the British tanks with their tiny guns could not shot far enough to hit the powerful german guns that massacred them from far away. And today armies still prefer to not risk their expensive tanks in duels and rather use cheap weapons to destroy enemy tanks. Ambushes is the preferred way of war, but its not always possible to achieve surprise attacks so then are other metods of destroying tanks needed. And sometimes must an area be conquered quickly with brute force and then are tanks needed. As you say are they useful as infantry support as infantry - especially low quality troops - needs tanks and artillery support to be succesful in their attacks and for fighting morale not to fall apart and the men panicing and start fleeing as soon as the enemy starts firing. However true combined arms warfare is a skill needed to make all weapon systems to work at full effect, and few armies have this capability today.
@@nattygsbord buddy, where did you pick up this crap about shitty air force, pilots and so on... from Western propaganda?
2022: Western tanks are a game changer. They are designed to resist Soviet weapons. 2023: Anyone else remember what an unexploded Leopard look like?
You won't see T72, you will die in minefields
Explains why you don't see Russian tanks when 4 times as many have been lost. Mines are barely keeping that conscripted 'army' in the field.
Weak spot is practically irrelevant when it comes to killing tanks. Modern composite armor is completely useless at stopping a hypervelocity arrow made of high-density metal. Said heavy metal arrow is simpler and cheaper to mass produce that shaped-charge shell anyway because it is literally just a comically large inert arrow. "Aim center mass and pull the trigger" is the simplest and consistently effective way to kill a modern tank with kinetic sabot shell.
Its weakness is bullets
Just hit, dont miss...u don't get a second chance ...😮
2a6 can probably kill a t72 by shooting it anywhere
can someone show this to gaijin pls
the thing about leopard 1s with 105mm being able to penetrate t72a frontally is kinda not true the armor was made to stop nato 105mm but when the israeli made improved 105mm apfsds projectiles were able to knock out t72s frontally they up-armored them with additional i think it was 17mm applique armor that was able to stop it
But then there were even new 105mm Rounds that are used for example by Taiwan.
@@tank_insight2011 yeah thats why the soviets added the extra applique armor to stop the new 105mm ammunition
@@obayalharbi82 and yet Russia deployed T-72A with added ERA in Ukraine. Also T-80BV should not be a Problem for current DM63 in the 105mm Gun fired from a Leo1A5.
@@tank_insight2011 okay so for russia deploying t72a in ukraine makes sense, ukraines most numerous tank in their arsenal is the t64bv, which is much closer to the t72a in capabilities, and for dm63 that round is a 120mm apfsds fired by the rheinmetall 120mm gun (l/44 or l/55) not by 105mm guns
@@tank_insight2011 also t80bv is literally just a t80b with kontakt 1 era (which does not offer protection from kinetic energy munitions) which is from 1978, so yeah of course its gonna be easy for a modern round
35k USD for a Lancet
That’s for: How to destroy any tank
or one SMArt 155 (~ 60k) for a T90M
SSCB and Russian strategy is "number" and "production rate". T72 is cheap to produce. You will get f'ed in a Leopard 2A6 or in a 2A7V if they manage to flank you and we saw a lot of dead T90M and Leopard 2A6's in Ukraine frontline. It depends on crew. That's why soft and hardkill APS will use a lot in future.