T-72 hate thread

So basically every army that's ever studied armored warfare has come to the conclusion that the tank(s) that fire first and hit first will win-most other factors are secondary. This is far easier to do in a Leopard/Abrams/whatever than it is in a soviet tank, mostly coming down to FCS and optics quality, as well as crew comfort.

Disgusting gommie weaponry is dogshit, nonetheless you guys should keep them incase they become your last line of defence against the new russian empire. You never know

It often came down to poor tactics and training rather than the Soviet-designed tanks being inferior. Western tanks were definitely more comfortable to be in, Soviet tanks were a lower profile and thus theoretically harder to hit, in terms of fighting capability (mobility, armor, firepower) there was not some extreme gap.

For a good part of the Cold War the USSR had very good tanks and Warsaw Pact crews were well trained. However those did not see combat.
It was the states in the Middle East and Africa which were fighting and so the combat reputation of those tanks is often associated with those conflicts. Especially the Arab-Israeli conflicts and the 1991 Gulf War where Western tanks tore apart Soviet designs.
To show the other side of things, take Operation Nasr for example: Iraqis with T-62s won a big victory over Iranians in Chieftains and M60s.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Nasr

>b-but muh STRONK Nordic Aryan Russian engineering!

So, if one were to theoretically
>Install blowout panels in bottom of tank, cover top of autoloader carousel with armor panel + sliding door
>Applique composite armor + ERA on front of tank
>Manufacture new ammunition that is up to modern standard
>Convert optics to digital FCS
>Install extra MG for gunner because you know your commander will send you into urban combat

Then they could be made relevant again? Or is it outdated to the point where no upgrades can extend its service life any further?

>Crew comfort
Ah, so then the installation of a fridge for the crew's vodka supply and padded seats should already do the trick?

>I'm kind of curious, why did the T-72 (or any T-series soviet tank for that matter) fare so poorly in battle against western armor?
I don't really think it has, even with no suspension, concrete armor and shooting stainless steel APFSDS training rounds it was still a pretty good speed bump for America in the Iraq war. Even then most of the kills were by hellfire or by TOW fired from IFV which had surrounded the tanks and could fire multiple times into them.

Abrams rarely went toe to toe with T-72.

Late model T-72 with ceramic armor, tungsten APFSDS and good mobility are probably still competitive with Leopards, Leclercs and other western tanks.

>any T-series tank
Where and when? Only major conflicts where Western armor faced Soviet armor in relevant numbers I can recall are Arab-Israeli wars and Iran-Iraq war. In both cases T-series tanks performed adequately, considering other factors (most importantly tactics and crew quality). Israelis even took them into their service and modified them later on.
>T-72
Because T-72s Iraqis used were roughly on the level of T-72A, introduced in 1978 by the Soviets, and faced next generation Western MBTs, which had several important advantages like thermal optics, better penetrators, better armor, and most importantly, and I can't stress this enough, they fought in a desert under the conditions of Coalition air supremacy.
It's important to note that by later half of 80s NATO had a significant technological edge, but still, T-80B/Us, T-72Bs, T-64BVs, these were still competitive.
T-series were far from bad designs. They simply followed a different design philosophy, and were sometimes used badly (like in Chechnya). Reality differs a lot from memes you see spouted here.

You just detailed the T-72BM. T-90 has even faster KEW than Abrams and a much better gun, about the same level of armor, and more mobility.

Absolute CHADS!

Remember though that the T-72 is also intended to be a cheap variant of the T-64 which is a tank from the 60s.

Demil them and sell them to Texans for daily drivers

By the way, vulnerability of carousel ammo has been terribly exaggerated. Yes they tend to blow up more often, but more often doesn't mean every fucking time, or even most of time. Most of tanks knocked out in Grozny for example ate a lot of RPGs from various angles, and most didn't blow up.
Crew-safety wise it's obviously a worse system, but on the other hand it has other advantages. It's simply design philosophy, not some choice made because Soviets were technologically inferior. T-64 was cutting-edge when deployed, ahead of anything NATO had (ignoring projects like MBT-70).

Now T-80 was pure shit because it cost shitload of money and didn't really offer much better performance than T-72B for example, but that's a different story.

>Ah, so then the installation of a fridge for the crew's vodka supply and padded seats should already do the trick?
No, I mean stuff like air conditioning, space to move, and random little things, like having a steering wheel instead of tiller bars that are tiresome to operate.
>has even faster KEW than Abrams and a much better gun
No it doesn't, the 2A46 has an inferior chamber pressure and uses 2-part ammunition. It's more similar in performance to something like the L30 on the Challenger 2.

>space to move, and random little things, like having a steering wheel instead of tiller bars that are tiresome to operate.
T-64/72/80 aren't THAT cramped. T-55 kinda was for commander and gunner (commander had to wrap his legs around gunner for example). Smaller tank is a smaller target. Lower tank, most importantly.
>air conditioning
If you spoke to anyone who rode in M1s they'd tell you AC does shit. Furthermore such stuff is only really necessary in a desert.
All those random little things don't mean they are bad designs. Tanks didn't have AC in 80s. Many Western ones even lacked heating, which is a bit more important in reality.

>>has even faster KEW than Abrams and a much better gun
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/125_mm_smoothbore_ammunition
>3BM69
>2050 m/s

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M829
>M829A3
>1,555 m/s

That's about 1600 feet per second faster than our ammo, please don't have bullshit knee jerk reactions it makes all Americans look bad as a consequence.

By the way they had small fans and ventilation obviously. IIRC T-10 drew cooling air from compartment which also helped things (but was awful for winter conditions, which mattered to Soviets a lot more).
Really this idea that Soviets didn't give a shit about crew comfort is another exaggeration. They just didn't pay too much attention to it, but their tanks weren't some horrible contraptions that broke you.

What really gave NATO tanks the edge were thermal sights in 80s. Everything else is barely relevant in the bigger picture.

Soviets could only provide thermals in late 80s, and only for command versions of T-80Us. Russians caught up only recently (and many of their tanks still lack thermal sights for commanders for example).

Question for you, Hungarianon. Do the people of Hungary long for the days of being united with Austria, or do you like being your own country?
>t. Ignorant American

Wouldn't turning them into farming equipment be better? strip all the armor and give them away if that's possible.

Im 6 7 and i feel cosy in the t72
Its a good tank for a country that cant afford expensive nato stuff
Today its obselete but it was the best tank in the world for a long time
Im not a leopard fan i like armata more

Because it was use by retards that tought diding a hole and making a tank into a pillbox is a good idea
Expprt models are always shit see the export abrams tanks that get destroyed they are also used by morons
But lets hope russian tankers dont meet nato tankers because your tank would be usseles when the ICBMs start flying around

It's normal that a tank gets destroyed in a battle.

The general poor performance of Soviet and Russian tanks thourhg the last 70 years it's normal as well but not acceptable.

>Be manlet
>End up in a giant pressure cooker bomb
When will they learn?

Attached: 1.jpg (1189x669, 207K)

The number is bullshit. Uran alloy become brittle at high velocites and shatter, it's a result of the 'self-sharpening' effect of uran alloy and is the reason railguns are using tungsten alloys for their projectiles.

No one says that, except for the developers of War Thunder. Ruskie tanks are shit
>M-maybe they are poor quality
>But if you zerg rush with thousands of them, they can win a war!
Waste of materials.

Attached: 1567691668866.jpg (2026x1292, 437K)

>Then they could be made relevant again?
Your proposals are fitting the description of PT-17. And You know - such drastic changes, while effective, are extremely costful. Especially if You need to restore tank to the mint condition in the first place. Now, Muscovites aren't refurbishing old and busted T-72B to B3M variant. No, they are pulling shiny new chassis from the war time storage. Meanwhile former combloc states are not only dealing with inferior T-72M (monkey model), but also with tanks severly weathered by years of use and abuse.
What's more, even after all the upgrades - T72 are outdated platform, and even fabled B3 was only meant to be a stopgap before the introduction of Armata. Since You know, You can only slap that much ERA, caged armor and APS before the ancient suspension gives up. Did I mention that, unlike new design, T-72 is extremely vulnerable to land mines? Well, now You know why every single NATO state bordering Federation is training minelaying on a unprecede scale.

Attached: PT-17_main_battle_tank_MSPO_2017_defense_exhibition_Kielce_Poland_925_001.jpg (925x617, 97K)

>T-64/72/80 aren't THAT cramped
I've only had experience with the T-72 but I found it basically impossible to move around in the turret. However, I am 6'1.
I don't trust wiki for info like that, especially considering it's unsourced, and I was mainly responding to the "better gun" part.

>uran
You need to calm the fuck down, it's a simple fact.

Their projectile has a smaller diameter and is shorter, it's much lighter as a consequence. Their caliber is larger and the diameter of their propellant pack is larger, meaning they have more propellant in the gun. If the projectile is lighter and there is more propellant of course it will go faster.

>Personally, I'd cut all of them up for cheap scrap metal
Sell them to americans. I'll take one for $50. That's like 15,000 fornit.

Ask the ruskies to turn them into bmpt terminators for you, they use the t-72 chassis.

Attached: Army2016-197.jpg (1280x853, 211K)

Their gun has similar pressure value to Rheinmetal L/55 120mm, which is superior to Abrams L/40 something. The difference is 6500 bar in theirs and 5100 bar in ours. In fact people have been agitating to put the rheinmetall gun into our tank but some weird breed of American nationalist kept saying our gun is superior simply because its ours. And now we have a shittier gun compared to Russia, fact.

There's some nostalgia towards the Austro-Hungarian Empire, but our overall relationship with the Austrians was rather bumpy. In fact, it was mostly bumpy, but we do feel some nostalgia, since our little marriage ended at the happiest point.
When the Habsburgs inherited the Hungarian throne, most of the nobility quickly got disappointed, since it became clear that they don't have the resources (or just don't want) to liberate Hungary from the Ottomans. After the liberation, the country was treated as a province, rather than a country with a special status (we had a deal about this). Then we had plenty of conflicts, since Vienna wanted to turn Hungary into another Bohemia.
Joseph II. was an autistic retard.
Being together again? Naah, Austrians are easily blinded by their own egos, if they can't be the ones leading they throw a tantrum like a little kid.

I have a t72. Whats the problem? Theyre a blast to drive and its not that bad to maintain

>Their gun has similar pressure value to Rheinmetal L/55 120mm, which is superior to Abrams L/40 something
It does not. I suspect you are getting the 2A82 and the 2A46 confused.
>In fact people have been agitating to put the rheinmetall gun into our tank but some weird breed of American nationalist kept saying our gun is superior simply because its ours.
No. The L55 was trialed in the early-mid 1990s and it was found that a whole new FCS would be needed, along with a new stabilization system, and this was not considered worthwhile.

Take the best 20% mechanically. Keep the next 20-30% for spare parts. Sell/scrap the rest. On the ones you keep take off the turrets and make them into aux vehicles, AA, ARVs, ATGM carriers, Artillery piece towing vehicles. Military engineering vehicles. Armoured vehicle-launched bridge.

Old turrets with good gun systems could if you really had a need be converted into fixed gun emplacements. The Finns converted old T-55 turrets into shore batteries. Hungary is land locked but there might be key points a inexpensive gun system might be useful. I'm not sure how useful those would be.

Attached: tank turret used as emplacement.jpg (273x184, 10K)

This is pretty smart actually. Personally, I'd put the turrets on the romanian border.
Knowing the government, they will sell it to some third world shithole.

>It does not. I suspect you are getting the 2A82 and the 2A46 confused.
fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/ARM/2a46.html
2A46 has 6500bar.

inetres.com/gp/military/cv/weapon/M256.html
M256 has 5100bar.

Again guys I don't know where you got the idea that the Abrams cannon is better than T-90, or that our ammo is better than their ammo, but thats complete nonsense.

Not that user, but two piece munition severely hampers the armor piercing capability, due to shorter penetrator.
Why did You come with idea, that pressure is the most important parameter for a gun?

I'd give them to museums that want them and then sell the rest to collectors and scrappers the rest can be left to the scavs

Attached: Chase_beta_0004.jpg (1920x1200, 486K)

Because it's the only random stat where that Russian tank gun is 'better'.

What other parameter is more important for a cannon barrel than being able to take higher pressure?!

>due to shorter penetrator
Shortness is an issue when the overall size of the armor is thicker than the penetrator is long, which causes reduction in penetration as the penetrator will start to break up as the cavity is going to go off center and create shear stress on the penetrator.
But the penetrators used right now is three feet long, Abrams turret is 2-2.5 feet thick so thats more than long enough to penetrate.

Again, I reiterate, their ammo and gun is much better than ours. Development on our tank weapons has been stalled for a long time due to nationalist fuckwads insisting it is going to be perfect forever.

IIRC they modified carousels for variants they use now, to accomodate longer rounds.
>much better
Is it though? From what I saw their penetrators and American penetrators have similar performance.

>Again, I reiterate, their ammo and gun is much better than ours
All you have are wikipedia links with unsourced information about ammo that won't even work in their most common gun.
>Development on our tank weapons has been stalled for a long time due to nationalist fuckwads insisting it is going to be perfect forever
Meanwhile in reality, the M829A4 just entered service a few years ago.

>gun
It's not about gun, it's about their loading system. And as I told you, they modified it on their newer variants. Why are you pretending this is some insurmountable obstacle?

Using turrets as fixed gun emplacements is almost a wasted though desu. Unless the fortification is so THICC that someone like the US looks at it and fucks off cuz trying to blow it up is to much effort, then it's kinda a meme idea in general. It's a great idea for WWII, but today, in the age of very mobile warfare, it's not worth it imo. Better to have light emplacements backed up by actually hidden tanks. Invest in thermal protection blankets or something for your tanks and have a pre-planned route for them to travel on when they begin firing to keep firing for a bit and then have them clear out and reposition. Anything else is just asking for your expensive investment to get blown to pieces by someone with a big bomb

Attached: 1565072361722.png (446x435, 74K)

American penetrators are better.... out of the rheinmetall L/55 which we refuse to upgrade to because of people like this Saying that Abrams is fucking perfect forever.

(yes you)

Thanks for ensuring our troops have inferior equipment, but at least you can circlejerk online about it.

>t. wehraboo

Wow so all he has are sources and all you have is nothing.

I guess he lost this argument.

>Leopard 2 A7+
shitty purchase, a tank with no APS is a coffin nowadays. but i guess white niggers aka HUNgarians are ok with that

I disagree with both of you actually.

>Wow so all he has are sources and all you have is nothing.
An un-cited wikipedia page like the one you posted is not a source, dumbass.

It's someone else on the internet who agrees with him which is more than you have for your random farts in the night. Seriously you mentioned the new round, do you have a velocity for it? Do you have anything?

Interesting. Like an ex-girlfriend that you parted ways amicably with, but you still thought was crazy.

Nah, let's try polite discussion once
Uh.. accuracy? Now, that does depend of FCS and stabilisation more than gun itself. Also, would You like to provide source for
>Shortness is an issue when the overall size of the armor is thicker than the penetrator is long, which causes reduction in penetration as the penetrator will start to break up as the cavity is going to go off center and create shear stress on the penetrator.
Because that seems to be ignoring the materials and technology factor.
>modified carousels for variants they use
Only Armata and newest T-90S, afaik.

>It's someone else
Uh huh
>Seriously you mentioned the new round, do you have a velocity for it?
Yeah, I'm sure that info is publicly available you retard.
dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2015/pdf/army/2015m829a4.pdf
The DTIC page is the only thing available.

Also, I noticed you used the pressure generated by a round out of use before the Gulf war as evidence for the peak pressure the M256 can sustain in your interes link. Very dishonest.

>t. some actual nigger neighbor with no military

Stockpile them, keep em running
train conscripts on them

I think deep down you agree with me fully.

>give me a source that a straight object has trouble fitting into a curved tunnel
Please tell me you're joking.

Hold on are you claiming I modified the wiki article?

Your link doesn't show anything though, it's just a pamphlet.

Sell them to Poland so they can upgrade them to PT-91's

>Hold on are you claiming I modified the wiki article?
No, I'm stating that the wiki page on 125mm ammunition does not have any sources for the majority of it's information.
The M829A4 has comparable characteristics to its predecessor, the M829A3, in length, weight, and center of gravity
northropgrumman.com/Capabilities/LargeCalAmmunition/Documents/M829A3APFSDST.pdf

I am not joking, but I'd like to see a crossection of such cavity. Do You remember, where have You seen it?

Ok but you realize all Russian rounds going back a long way have been faster and narrower, both qualities that aid penetration right? Even from 1976 they've been shooting stuff at 1,785 m/s while our fastest stuff was 1,675 m/s.

It's not like you really have a way out of this, you'll have to admit eventually we need the L/55 gun.

Attached: this kills the T-series.jpg (4032x1960, 2.71M)

>ben and Jerry's
>only 5 flavors
:/

Two others were named Austin's Meat market and my personal favorite:
>BOOP

Meant for

...

Sorry, real men respect the T-72.

>ITT People realize Abrams needs an update
Thread ended up somewhere OP didn't want it.

>long way have been faster and narrower, both qualities that aid penetration right
Yes, they are also smaller and shorter, compared to NATO ammunition of the same era.
>you'll have to admit eventually we need the L/55 gun
We don't. If we develop a new tank gun beyond the XM360 it should be an ETC piece or much higher caliber. The M256 is fine for handling the threats it faces.

Russian tanks have better systems, such as the system that nullifies the TOW missile's effectiveness by making the wire guided system go off target.

Russian darts are optimized for flat armor, US for angled armor+ heavy ERA. Typically the longer the penetrator the more armor it can go through. The US sabot are longer and have more mass than the Russian darts. Too much velocity has diminishing returns and past a certain point you get shatters. Going to longer barrels you won't see faster velocities, your going to see longer or higher mass projectiles to keep them away from that shatter point. This assumes no changes in metallurgy to create new meme darts which can go faster without shattering.

Syrian president Hafez Al-Assad called it "the best tank in the world".

Luddite jingoist faggot.

>Russian darts are optimized for flat armor, US for angled armor+ heavy ERA
Source?

>Luddite jingoist faggot.
Oh ok, so you have no argument. Nice.

*wheeze*
T-72s are getting knocked out left and right in Syria

Attached: 0.jpg (750x375, 49K)

>Russian tanks have better systems
like thermals they got from france ?
>such as the system
its a fucking infrared lamp

> nullifies the TOW missile's effectiveness by making the wire guided system go off target.

i dazzles "flare" effect at end of tow so operator cannot guide it correctly sadly it only works on idiots as tow got more than one type of optics and experienced crew could and would still guide missile by sight if other means are denied

Your argument is that our deployed equipment shouldn't improve until we meet an enemy or problem we can't handle and a lot of people die, because you consider it a national embarrassment on online imageboards for deployed equipment to improve.

My argument is that our deployed equipment should improve as technology improves, and not wait for a lot of people die.

Ergo - FAGGOT

When both sides of a conflict are using the same kinds of tanks, drawing an overall conclusion based on losses of that type of tank is pretty silly. The conflict has shown that a T-72 can kill another and getting hit with an ATGM is bad news. None of which are exactly surprising revelations.

Look at Russian dart designs, there's a ballistic cap with a hardened core behind it. The core is flatter so it punches through flat surfaces easier. It can have issues with angled plate because the core isn't pointed so it doesn't dig in like the US monobloc (which doesn't give a Fuck about angle and penetration actually increases). US darts could have trouble from spaced armor deflecting the dart (assuming spaced armor + armor is ~1.5-2x the dart length) but I haven't seen any examples of that yet. RU stuff is pretty good for the gun/carousel limitations but they are lacking length as others have stated

No... they aren't. So far they've lost mostly about 300 T-55 and T-62, but the amount of T-72 they have lost is tiny.

This is out of a tank force of 3500 T55/T62 and 1500 T72

6% is not a bad loss rate over 9 years

The Leopard 2 is equally shit.

Have you forgotten how the Turks got rekt by the YPG?

>Your argument is that our deployed equipment shouldn't improve until we meet an enemy or problem we can't handle and a lot of people die,
No, my argument is that the Abrams doesn't need the L/55.
>because you consider it a national embarrassment on online imageboards for deployed equipment to improve
Again, no. The Abrams has been improving- the M1A2C was just put into production ~3 months ago, and as I mentioned earlier it received a new KE round in the past few years. If we wanted to upgun the Abrams the XM360E1 would be a much better choice, but so far it isn't necessary.

>why did the T-72 fare so poorly in battle against western armor?
Old tanks, firing old ammo, used by people of questionable intelligence.

>or any T-series soviet tank for that matter
There's no such thing as a T-series of tank.

Attached: T-72.jpg (1039x1200, 187K)

>There's no such thing as a T-series of tank.
I was waiting for someone else to say it...

>m1a2c
Is an M1A1 with ERA, we're at literally east bloc post collapse tier tank development stage.

Attached: BRAND NEW TANK.jpg (800x522, 149K)

>Is an M1A1 with ERA
Are you just pretending to be retarded to rile me up since you lost?

>Put the tank on top of a hill where everyone can see them, without infantry support and use it as fucking artillery
>ISIS sneaks up on you and disables your tank
>Turkish air force bombs them, to prevent it being captured
>LOL LEO 2 IS BAD
No, turkroaches are just fucking idiots.

Attached: 1558968287014.png (856x846, 85K)

So far I've
>proven t-90 rounds are faster
>proven t-90 gun has higher pressures
And that this is a trend, not a fluke. You said each was impossible so I'm ahead as far as I can tell.

What have you proved?

>even with no suspension, concrete armor and shooting stainless steel APFSDS

I love how with each retelling the excuses get more and more absurd