Is the Soviet T-72 tank still good for modern warfare?
2024 ж. 24 Мам.
1 452 Рет қаралды
Hello and welcome,
In the past few years we've seen a lot of T-72 tanks get shredded into pieces on the battlefield. Hence why many people started asking themselves if the Soviet T-72 tank is even good in today's modern warfare.
In today's video we're gonna answer that question. I'm gonna try to be unbiased but still rather positive.
Enjoy :)
- Bobi
I have experience working on T-72 tanks for a tank museum in Australia. Compared to other tanks, they were quite difficult to work on due to their compact design. Every available space was filled, making it extremely challenging to access certain areas. In the field, it was nearly impossible to fix any issues with these tanks, and it was often easier to abandon them and obtain a replacement. These tanks were built quickly and designed for swift deployment, rather than easy maintenance.
That‘s interesting because usually I hear (and until now thought myself) that the T-72 and other Soviet/Russian tanks in general are easy to maintain. It‘s interesting you say that.
@@bobiandtankshey says that because he an aussie working on soviet tanks in a museum. Ask real mechanics how to maintain these, this guy doesnt even have to get tanks running, just display worthy
pretty much its an AK47 in terms of tanks
It‘s hard not to think about an AK when thinking about the T-72 and the T-54 😂
@@bobiandtanks for real
That would be t-55
That actually sums it up nicely
The T range of Russian tanks are in my opinion, what tanks are all about.
That's a matter of opinion but still a valid point. Russian tanks put more focus on reliability, quantity as well as making their tanks low-profile and hard to spot and hit. On the other hand, the crew survivability is a lot better in Western tanks.
@@bobiandtanks I see your point about survivability for the crew, but western tanks have gone from being the best in the world to being only good at saving the crews, which is a good thing, but not what a tank is about. Western tanks are expensive, high maintenance show pieces, where even the home countries find it difficult keeping their fleet of tanks running.
@@happymonkey7068 Yeah in the combat sense you‘re right. Western tanks haven‘t proven themselves to be better in combat than Russian. I once saw a video of a Russian soldier saying Western tanks are just for show while Russian tanks are real war machines.
@@bobiandtanks Don't suppose he was asked which he would rather be in, during engagements?
Considering the most successful tank in the Ukraine war right now is a Russian T-72 with a massive sheet metal barn over it... Yeah, I think it's fine. All tanks, T-72/90, Abrams, and Leopard, are getting destroyed right now by tiny $1000 FPV drones with an RPG head or mortar round as payload.
Yeah that‘s true. All tanks will face the threat of drones and imo quickly need to find a counter to that. Regular air defenses such as the Russian Pantsir or Tanguska can‘t do much against drones because their 30mm cannons aren‘t very effective against drones. At the same time, using even the smallest and cheapest anti-air missiles to get those drones down would be overkill and just a waste of money and resources. So all militaries must find a reliable and sustainable solution to the new drone threat.
The T72 is an old platform. But the T73B3M is a modern and advanced tank that is capable of successfully engaging and destroying any tank available to date.
sure lol
Its the cheapest way russia could have modernised theyre tank fleet
Its the cheapest way russia could have modernised theyre tank fleet
The T-72 is not a bad tank in the way many people think. It was never the goal of the soviets to ensure crew survivability and easy maintenance. It was part of the soviet doctrine, that many tanks would be lost due to mechanical failures or enemy fire. But the important thing is that it was cheap to produce and therefore was available in high numbers. This made it possible to sustain combat operations even if it meant taking high losses. And while the protection and maintenance were below average it still had a lot of firepower and exellent mobility (as long as you don't reverse). Regarding all these aspects the T-72 was a great tank when used correctly. But since its creation warfare has changed and protection and maintenance have become more important. While not well suited for modern combat it can still be used for various support roles.
Yeah this makes sense. When looking at the actual goals the Soviets set for the T-72, it achieves pretty much all of them. I‘m not sure about the maintenance part tho. I hear different things about it. Some people say it was very hard to maintain and some say easy maintenance was one of the requirements.
@@bobiandtanks it used simpler parts which were easier and cheaper to replace and thus made maintenance less of a problem. But since the parts were of lower quality they broke a lot more than on other tanks. This meant that it was a lot more common for bigger mechanical errors to occur, which couldn't be repaired in the field.
@@Janus_M Ohhh okay thanks this brings a lot more clarity. Thanks
@@bobiandtanks No problem! Continue your videos! I really like your videos since they often mention interesting or overlooked topics.
@@Janus_M Thank you so much! I really appreciate it. Such comments make my day
A bullet is a bullet, it's gonna hurt real bad no matter how much it cost to make.
T72: Cons: -Low crew survivability due to how the internal design is. -Bad comfort. Pros: -Small tank, this means that you need much less material to produce it, with this also making your price much more lower when compared to your rivals. -Reliability and simplicity in terms of mechanics. -Easy to train new crews on it. -Easy to modernize or modify. Best tank possible to full scale wars.
You‘re mostly right. What I‘d add to low crew survivability is this: If the tank is penetrated, it will most likely do a lot of damage. Either it will unalive a crew member or worst case (if it hits the ammo carousel) the tank will completely blow up. If the tank fails, it fails catastrophically.
@@bobiandtanks the news has been going on about a captured leopard tank but whats interesting about it is that it had some modern shells still in it, the propellent inside those shells are "insensitive" which just means they're much less likely to combust when hit. So maybe if they could reverse engineer the formula for it somehow we might not see so many flying turrets
@@10aerkhembileg84 Hmm I don‘t know too much about tank shells but this might be true and happen in the near future. But for Soviet and Russian tanks after the T-64 (that was when they introduced the autoloader which came with the ammo carousel storage) it‘s mostly the carousel storage which is a very easy and effective target when facing the sides of the T-72. It probably also depends on the post-penetration damage of the ammo used against the T-72. Making Russian ammo more insensitive would likely cause less turrets blasting into the orbit but from my pov it would also require significant changes in where and how the ammo is stored. I don‘t think the Russians would do it. New ammo would be more likely then.
In the modern battlefield where $500 drones destroyed the heaviest and most expensive tanks with ease, the t72 is dollar for dollar, the greatest tank in the modern battlefield.
Most of the T-series tanks are outdated for modern combat, I've heard people say that they are poorly designed because of how easily it can be destroyed because of the autoloader and ammorack etc. But they are not poorly designed, they are just outdated. Yes drones in the Russo-Ukraine war have proven to be very effective to easily immobilize or destroy tanks but with all biases aside, a crew has a better chance of surviving in a modern tank than compared to an old cheap outdated tank.
The T-72 isn‘t necessarily outdated as there are many modernized versions of it. In this video I was primarly speaking about the first rather early and basic models of the T-72. When it comes to crew survivability you‘re definitely right. Soviet and Russian tanks in general aren‘t very pro survivability and not very forgiving of mistakes either because, as you said, the carousel ammo storage can easily be hit from the sides and cause an ammo rack and shredd everyone and everything into pieces. But on the other hand, Soviet and Russian tanks are arguably better warmachines as they are lower profile, smaller and therefore harder to see, hit, and destroy in the first place. They’re also more reliable and cost efficient. Modern Western tanks yet have to prove themselves on the modern battleground against other modern tanks. Tho until now, they haven‘t been doing too well in Ukraine. On top of that they‘re harder to maintain and expensive as hell (props to the tax payer)
@@bobiandtanks Yup I completely agree with everything you said, tanks from both sides cannot show their true potential due to those kamikaze drones.
@@thiefsleef6752 Drones are ruining it for them. It‘s like when driving a car. You want to step on the gas and accelerate but some shitty car in front if you drives slower than the speed limit and ruins it for you. Maybe not the best comparison but I think you get what I mean 😂
@@bobiandtanks I agree, these kamikaze drones just make tanks useless. A single strike to a tanks tracks is an easy mobility kill and then the real pain is to evacuate the tank especially when the tank is in an open area. Not to mention these drones are also brutal towards infantry, the amount of videos I’ve seen showing defenceless soldiers getting easily maimed is just insane and in my opinion it should be illegal to use drones because no military in the world has standard issued electronic warfare weaponry to combat those drones. Russia would perform better if these drones didn’t exist
@@thiefsleef6752 Well, drones have been a weapon of war for years before the war in Ukraine. In Afghanistan plenty of them were used against the Taliban and Al Qaeda. The thing with those in Ukraine is just that they‘re cheaply built with anything the soldiers can find to use. The fact that they’re cheap and easy to build is also what allows them to use them in great quantities. It‘s just overwhelming for everyone there. But tbh I don‘t think they will be banned from war because they‘re still a legitimate weapon of war. Not a very nice and forgiving one tho. But still. I think it will be the responsibility of armies around the world to build new air defense systems specifically designed to counter those drones. Russia has developed the 2S38 which theoretically would be perfect for the job but I haven‘t seen or heard of them being used in Ukraine. Gonna make a video about them next.
Short answer is Yes. Long answer is that the conflict in Ukraine proved that tank on tank action would be pretty rare in combat due to the advent of drones and missiles.... Tanks are used more as direct fire support or as assault gun platform... In other words, having complicated and expensive tanks are not really useful since they would not be able to leverage their better specs due to limited use. The T-72, on the other hand, is cheap and easily mass produced.
Short answer: no. Long answer: f&ck no.
😂 Could argue that haha
Очень познавательное видео, спасибо!
Большое спасибо! Я ценю это.
Fun fact about Leopards: for every one lost on battlefield, 2 are lost outside of it due to malfunctions and breakdowns, and nobody can repair them, so they are being sent back to Europe, countries like Lithuania, where, again, nobody can repair them because nobody has the parts. There are 2 kinds of survivability. One is being able to take an RPG to the face and not die, and the other one is being able to actually appear on the battlefield. And the T-72 is unmatched in the second kind of survivability.
If what you said about the Leopard is true, then I‘m definitely shocked about the numbers. I do know that modern Western tanks are less reliable and much harder to maintain and repair than Russian tanks but this number is actually shocking.
Fun fact. The T72 was designed as an offensive weapon. The Leopard 2 was designed as a defensive weapon. The Leopard 2 was used as an offensive weapon in the Ukraine. It failed miserably. The T72 was used as an offensive and a defensive weapon in the Ukraine. It succeeded in every aspect.
That‘s an interesting comparison. Just shows the T-72‘s reliability. Western tanks yet have to prove themselves on the modern battlefield.
Weird I was watching a documentary about an East German tank commanders experience in the t-72 and he said they primarliy used the tanks in a defencive roll in dug up positions hiding theyre autoloader in a ditch. Maybe they'r doctrine was different than the soviets
@@10aerkhembileg84 That‘s interesting. Yeah I also think East Germany‘s doctrine was different that the Soviet Union‘s.
@@10aerkhembileg84 The tanks are made that low to make them small targets. The idea was to flood the enemy with numerous tanks that where fast and difficult to hit. Had a high rate of fire. That's why they have an autoloader and a poor reverse speed.
"Still good" ? Are you suggesting that it ever was good for modern warfare? Never was, never will.
Arguably. You can use even the worst tanks for something in war. Russis is using T-54/55 as Artillery support.
Cheap kamakazie drones have made every tank in Ukraine an easy target.
That‘s true. And that is a threat which every major military needs to find a countermeasure for
Considering that you are unlikely to actually be engaging another truly modern tank... But if you did have to the T72 would quickly show its age. At the end of the day stats on paper mean very little when some Russian general or politician uses the money for modern armor plating or whatever on building his new dacha. You have to actually get all this stuff to the battlefield intact. Which is another reason the T-72 is proving valueable. They actually exist. The parts for them actually exist. They actually mostly do what they are claimed to do. A working tank from the 70s is obviously better than a non-working or non-existent modern tank
Yeah that‘s true. Russian and Soviet tanks work and are very reliable and easy to maintain as well as cost efficient. Modern Western tanks first of all yet have to prove themselves on the modern battlefield (which hasn‘t been going too well in Ukraine) and they‘re also harder to maintain and very very expensive.
ahahahahhaha love the orc propaganda. I bet all the crews whos tank turrets fly into orbit agree with you on how "safe" the Trash 72 is.
Did I say the T-72 is safe? If so then this might be a mistake because Soviet and Russian tanks in general are not safe for their crews. They are good war machines, but yet not very forgiving of mistakes. One hit in the carousel ammo storage will shredd the T-72 into pieces as well as its crew. Could you tell me where I said that the T-72 is safe for the crew? Not trying to be provocative.