Is it a deathtrap?

Wasnt that the T-64?

No, it was technically possible but no one's hands are anywhere near the thing in combat or in any situation that doesn't involve maintenance.

>Russia lost more T34's than all other nations involved in the war combined lost tanks combined
Uh, yeah, yeah it did.

No, the autoloader is not strong enough to do that.

that's the T-72 at CFB Borden, I've touched that thing

Operation Nasr had the Iraqis and their T-62s defeat Iranian M60s and Chieftains. It was due to a variety of factors but interestingly the engagement was was the opposite of how Europe was predicted to be if WW3 kicked off.
In Europe it would likely be the American/Euro-made tanks being dug-in and Soviet-made tanks on a mobile offensive. With Operation Nasr, the dug-in Soviet-made Iraqi tanks (with support from helos) demolished the attacking Iranian force. When Iraq tried to dig-in and be defensive during the 1991 Gulf War, it obviously did not work as well for them.

I don't know how frequently that happened. There is a guard to keep eveyone's limbs out of the path of the autoloader. I would guess it was as likely as someone losing a hand to a breech closing on it while manually loading a shell. Just pay attention and crew members would be fine.

No, combat experience from Chechnya showed it took around 5 hits per penetration and less then one crew loss per penetration. Not amazing but perfectly acceptable for the time. Catastrophic kills that throw the turret are relatively rare, its just that everyone always photographs them when they do happen, the vast majority of hits produce far less results.

Pic related is from Russian examination of losses in Chechnya, shaded areas are where 95% of penetrations occurred. As you can see the frontal armor did its job.

Attached: image4.gif (375x237, 27K)

Chieftain and leo1 are arguably bigger death traps.

I can't believe they never fixed the weakspot near the drivers periscope. The cutout in the frontal armor is the dumbest flaw on the t-64, t-72, t-80 and t-90.

Attached: 1215632573_t_80_53.jpg (726x493, 72K)

Its ok, the driver will take most of the impact.

They fixed it with the objecr 187

Like this user said, the T-72 was a good tank when it was built, in 1972. Its protection was superior to most other tanks out there (the reason the 120mm gun was adopted on the Abrams was that its armor was supposedly able to stop a 105mm round at combat ranges), and its gun at the time could take out any Western tank, as it displayed in the Iran-Iraq War against Iranian Chieftains and M-60's, and against Israeli tanks during the 1982 Lebanon War, where the Israelis lost large armored formations of older tanks to them.

Attached: UN T-72.jpg (2880x1870, 2.78M)

You're talking like the russian were so good with combined arms

Attached: df433af1176a8febff41e02e8f7ddd45.jpg (1000x667, 122K)

There has to be some sort of engineering reason for that. It just seems so odd that they'd purposely make a weakspot that would go straight through the driver and into the ammo rack.

>You're talking like the russian were so good with combined arms
Soviets were.

Attached: Soviet_big_7.jpg (3000x2253, 993K)

UN white manages to make every AFV look great.

Attached: UN BTR-60.jpg (1000x541, 166K)

yeah, white skin really is the best

>They fixed it with the objecr 187
And then never implemented the fix even as they built thousands of t-90 variants.

In theory, they were.
In practice Chechnya was a mess but I suspect you have no idea in what state was the Russian Army in mid 90's.

Attached: 1546635452418.jpg (480x726, 112K)

You're talking like the lowest point the country has been in the last decades is a proper representation of country's abilities. Fuck off, cerrypicking clown.

>There has to be some sort of engineering reason for that. It just seems so odd that they'd purposely make a weakspot that would go straight through the driver and into the ammo rack.
Seems to be common with cold war tanks on both sides, they leave massive weakspots on the front for minor design conveniences, the logic seems to be hey thought no one will aim at specific parts and designs are secret so no one will know it's there anyway. Most of the weakspots are right in the center mass, I'm very skeptical impacts would be evenly distributed across the frontal surface area. Some destroyed tanks in the ukraine looked like enemy gunners were able to aim accurately enough to shoot turret rings.

>Is it a deathtrap?
Absolutely. It's one of the worst MBTs ever designed, only gets credit because it had decent gun and armor for the time.

every decade was the lowest point for ivan you subhuman worshiping faggot

At least it wasn't the T-55
>Get designed as a successor to a highly effective, but flawed tank design
>Improve on design in supposedly every way, making a tank that can survive decades without maintenance
>Only service in native military is as a siege engine: gets taken out by bottles full of oil and rags
>Disappointed with performance, USSR relegates them to second-line duty and sends the rest to goatpeople to job to things that Tigers were eating like candy a decade prior
>Now has a reputation of being tommy-cooker food

It was a pretty decent tank
No it was not designed to be a 1 on 1 match to a leo2, chally or m1.
It was designrd to be a cheap mass produced tank to equip massive formations, alla T34
It was optimized for combat in the central European theater, it's armor and armament allowed it to trade blows with Western tanks
Yes it could destroy western tanks
It filled a role in the soviet deep operations theory.
The soviets upgraded it to keep it competitive against western tanks.

It got a lot of bad rep due to arab incompetence, export models, bad employment doctrine and going head on against the most advanced western equipment.

When the same sandniggers used leo2a4s and m1a1s they also started to have heavy loses against fucking militias.
That shows it's not the tanks but the human material, you can give saudis the most advanced western gear and they still manage to fail at life.

>export models
Let me guess, you think that the Iraqi T-72s were made out of mild steel and fired training ammunition.

No. They used the basic T-72 from when it was released without all the upgrades the Russians had put on it after with the same early ammunition from the 1970s that was designed to kill M60A1s, not Abrams. It wasn't monkey model exports. It was just bottom of the line performance models that had long since been upgraded/replaced even in bankrupt Russia. It'd be like putting Chieftains against Challengers, using cold war penetrators and wondering why suddenly they are dying in droves.

Oh yeah unlike your impartial fact about any other militaries?

Go fuck yourself

the t72 is a good enough tank. Though it tends to lack modern thermal technology and that sort of thing. It can still smash through virtually any modern tank.

if there's a penetration, yes.

in general more internal space = less potential for getting killed

What is up with the asymetrical part on the engine deck?

Probably just random variance.

Attached: Russia_T-72_optic_hit_by_small_arms_fire.jpg (800x546, 92K)