+BladeHD We still use T-55s here in Peru .-.

Acr2051 We have some of them in stockpile too :D

BladeHD Those are our main tank :_:

+Acr2051 Aren't M18 Hellcats still used in Uruguay and Brazil?

Nathan Peterson those arent used, those are on musseums as far as i know. I heard that Paraguay still has M4s and M3A1s in service

the good old BV

why do u need a kettle? it's already so hot inside.

If Russians thought about comfort, they would never won any war they won. Think first how to survive and kill more enemies during a battle. But, you will have a comfort after you have defeated.

+Костя Канадский /K.C./ It hurts crew efficiency.

Russians don't expect a tank to last more than a week in battle, and the crew is expendable. It's just how they fight wars, throw numbers at the enemy and win by attrition. 'Crew comfort' is not a design perimeter.

LOL... we've learned a lot about "emergency evacuation" with the current war.

Yes, as they scream from the pain of slowly burning to death maybe.

Yes, evacuate quickly 200ft into the air, saw that vid..... coming down not looking good 😳....

@allah akbar find -" Russian T72 tank hit by 120mm mortal rounds. One crew luckily survived". 😳Watch it carefully in the end.

The stowage is placed deep inside the tank. If some rounds reach it, the crew will die anyway, no matter the turret blew off or not 😁. Any tanks getting a hit to that extent will turns into furnace. Russian tankers are just more difficult to be identified.

YUP

Ammo cooking off.

I've always wondered what that "flying tank" thing was all about, now it's clear. There was a sprocket wheel embedded high up in a tree. Very impressive what these tanks can do.

These tanks were designed before ATGM's were a thing and we're never intended to provide protection against something that didn't exist.Of course they can't match today's antitank weapons,no tank in existence can actually.They are called antitank for a reason. For it's time it was an awesome tank for tank to tank battle

@@gumelini1 keeping to your own backyard, and minding your business, makes a Tank invulnerable. Invading a neighbor paints a big target on any AFV

nguyen danny You do not realize that these old T-72 were never designed to fight COIN operations. There is a reason Abrams...etc. got sidearmour upgrade(like TUSK), because they kept getting knocked out by RPGs from side, rear, and roof. Conventional MBT(with a few exceptions that were quickly uparmoured) were designed to defeat AT rounds from front, autocannons from side, and HMG from rear. It's fairly obvious that there is very little protection against modern infantry-held AT weapon. Also, there is no shortage of vehicles; 1800 does not mean 1800 T-72(they don't have that many). What got killed most was probably BMP-1, because Syria kept them in stock configurations without very effective anti-infantry main gun(the 73mm low velocity gun is poor).

+nguyen danny Yea but an AK-47 vs an M16 at range is a shit weapon. But then you consider that an AK costs maybe 300 vs 1000 or 800 for an M16 and the fact that you can make many T72s and if you lose a tank that's completely fine for the Soviet doctrine because it's Hydra, you cut off one head, two more shall take its place, then the T72 is a perfectly fine tank.

nguyen danny 2 Armoured divisions that are not wholly armed with T72s, the other armoured vehicle being a BMP-1 that does not have ATGMs, a Republican Guard division and 4 infantry divisions vs 5 coalition armoured divisions comprising of 4 American and 1 British, that have TOW armed Bradleys, an armoured cavalry regiment and also a Field artillery brigade. They had the power to call for 155mm howitzers and MLRS rockets. Tell me about how outnumbered coalition forces were and how they won from speed and accuracy of their tanks when it was the Bradleys and artillery that had the higher kill count.

nguyen danny if you count IFV/tank destroyers + artillery + tanks vs tanks and infantry a real tank vs tank battle, then you're still wrong because there were less Iraqi armour divisions compared to coalition. 2 Iraqi vs 5 coalition. Yes, outnumbered indeed.

nguyen danny I will give you that the Abrams has a longer range for its weapon sights than the T72M but if we discount that, and take the latest iteration T72B3, it really depends on which crew is better. And still the point still stands that tank on tank alone, whoever has the most tanks will probably come out on top.

A Renault FT would be a nightmare. People don't realize how insanely helpless you can be against these things.

Imagine how helpless the Germans felt the first time they saw tanks rolling towards them in WW1, or how helpless American GIs felt during the initial stages of the Ardennse Counter Offensive... tanks today are the modern equivalents of Dragons of myth and legend... completely unstoppable beasts of death and destruction unless you have the right tools, or know how to kill them.

***** For the tanks in Syria the RPG-29 is excellent. Although it was used against modern tanks like the M1A2 Abrams, it has never actually killed anyone within those nor done much damage. The trophy system on some of the modern tanks are pretty nice too, it is supposed to just destroy the incoming missile altogether so you don't even need armour. It also picks up the person who shot the missile and automatically kills them. Think it was the Merkava IV that used it and it stops the most recent RPG-30.

***** That's because we send weapons to these "rebels" (terrorists) in Syria to fight a Russia-backed president.

King Dododo do dodo dodo dododo RPG-29 has already penned the front turret armour of an M1A2, that's why the US banned their sale to the Iraqi army fearing they would be used against them.

Igor says turret not included with purchase.

And the inside of the tank will need a good steam cleaning.

@@oltjonmelissa5454 But is included slightly burned previous owner.

And the ammunition has only been dropped once

@@oltjonmelissa5454 You won the Internetz 9 days ago!

You like flaws?

If you really were an engineer you'd know the ammunition storage would be a massive problem.

It’s a very small tank with thick armor and a very big gun, safe ammunition stowage isn’t really practical unless you want the thing to carry like 10 rounds

those bell-ends who think it's a brilliant idea to have loud music playing. Not seen the whole thing yet but from what you say, it'll ruin a good fucking documentary.

it's modern to to thatn in this dayes :-D

Yes, it makes it very hard to understand for not native English speakers.

It is like the shaking camera and dark interiors of starships - you see/hear less how someone did not finished his work...

JoeDurobot The Chieftain. LOL

Happens to all tanks

@@agentepolaris4914 yes but it happens more so to tanks like t72 that has ammo ready to cook it's own crew

@@agentepolaris4914 not all tanks cooks and frys its own crew.

@Muslimcel true and accurate. However, the Russians either lack the tank killing shoulder-fired missiles or for some reason aren't using them. Needless to say, the life expectancy of a t72 on the Ukrainian side seems to be much higher.

Thats all well and good but the T72 has been used in warfare against competent well trained and well equipped militaries while Western tanks have not. The Abrams is a gas hog that can easily be left stranded without adequate supply lines and is very vulnerable to anything striking down from above. While its french, german and British counterparts have never been produced in significant numbers compared to Soviet/Russian and Chinese made tanks or been tested in serious combat. Id wager that in a full scale war between NATO and Russia/China you would see hundreds of destroyed Abrams/leopards and T72s/T90s. The West is in for a rude awakening in the coming years about the supposed "superiority" of our weaponry.

milo mily only recently

"durability" ? Wow, the rebels are having a field day with their TOWs and what-have-you. Syria is the final tank graveyard for the t72.

kurzackd durability means not ATGM Protection. Any modern anti tank weapon can fuck up any modern tank. Durability means using a tank for a long period of time without maintenance in extreme conditions. This is where T72 is showing his real value. high tech abrams or leo2 would have gave in without field service in such rubble like syria. Check out ANNA-News go-pro t72 videos, youll see what i mean.

Yeah they give a nice show. They blow up and burn really nicely.

Only protection T72 has is the luck if the projectile hits the anti-tank charge laid on top of the armor. If its being shot with a heavier missile, it has no chance at all. Abram's armor plating however is so thick with layers, including such ingredients as Depleted Uranium, that you cant even destroy it on first hit even with a modern anti-tank missile, unless it probably strikes directly on top of the thing. They've driven into huge IED:s and survived with only track's blown off.

This T-72 was manufactured in the Czech Republic.

this is slovak language ....not czech

What??

Make pause at 10:08 then read... Čítaj

cavo64 Nop... It´s Czechoslovakia tank.. :)

Ukrainian Farmers will improvise something to tow it ...

The Soviet T72B with Kontakt-V could go head to head With any Western tank until 1992, so the premise is false.

What a primitive logic. Why do you think tanks should fight one on one? Lets say you have 80 tons of steel, you make one heavy leopard-2, I'm making two T-72. So, why you and me should fight one on one? Shall swarm of wolfs fight with bear one on one? Shall swarm of bees attack one on one? No tank in modern conflict want to fight alone -- it is a fast death for it without support of a lot of adjacent types of millitary. War is not a knight tournament, at all.

@@vyacheslavvorobyov22 i never said they should fight one on one, i said the T-72 was designed to overwhelm the battle field with other T-72 tanks! Tactics are what tactics are! No tanks ever have fought and opposing army on a single level and tanks yes they are tough but still have vulnerabilities that have been exploited over years of warfare!

I'm just a bit shorter than you can you tell me how would you rate the comfort

@@halitozturk7656 perfectly servicable, is the phrase I'd use. I could stretch my legs out all the way (while the turret isn't moving) and i know that our tankers would sneak off and grab a quick nap inside the tanks when no one was looking, so it's not that bad. After multiple hours inside, i imagine it's not that great, but neither is it in most other tanks.

M84 is a compass. T84 is a tank. Only somebody who has no clue what he is talking about can make that mistake.

@@beba2893 no, in yugoslavia, nearly all equipment was designated M-something, especially the domestically produced ones, where M stands for model. Only the outside procured tanks kept their T designation, like T-55 and T-72, but the domestically prosuced were designated as M84 tank, M80 ifv and M60 apc.

"my only really problem was getting through the hatch as they are rather cramped for my shoulder width, but once inside it was fine." ... and now, "THE TANK IS ON FIRE! YOU HAVE LESS THAN 10 SECOND TO GET OUT, THE LAST HALF Of WHICH, "YOU" WILL BE ON FIRE ....." Suddenly , difficulty of gettin in and out during this "Significant Emotional Event" is the most important design feature ,,,, listen to Chieftan: he knows Tanks.

Do you like BBQ 😀

@@2Dracula2bruh

A bit late to your comment, but the T-72 really is the AK-47 of tanks.

@@phipschi4255 Looks like things have moved on somewhat since my comment! Numbers of T72's in the world have been dramatically reduced! Modern AT weapons are making easy meals of them.

yeah someone above you said "The T-72 is still a scary looking tank what a beast" 5 years ago.... I recon he hasn't seen them in action in Ukraine. they are getting destroyed by the javelin. USA USA USA

@@Cris_the_coder Have you seen a Leopard 2 getting hit by a Kronet? Same thing pretty much. Any tank getting hit by these ATGMs are toast.

@Kid Buu back then when there was no Javelin and NLAW this thing was an absolute beast. We should not forget this is a tank from 70‘s

Stop watching ukraines ministry of fakes (yes they have 5000 people working around the clock making fake media to spread). Russian tanks are doing fine from what I have seen. On another note the Ukrainians are getting paid a personal bonus for each Russian tank destroyed. Naturally, there has been the "destruction" of hundreds upon thousands thanks to troops trying to cash in 😂

That's why most Russian tanks you see in Ukraine have been "converted" into convertibles

hope you didnt drive it into ukraine

It is in warthunder

Saw one in 1991 on guard duty Beaumont, Texas it Is Menacing when you see it at night as I did. Some of our shorter guys actually got inside said it was cool but really cramped. I hope to see one agian and actually get inside to see how cramped it really is.

@@Fenncer24 I’m 5”4 and I was cramped inside the driver’s hole. I honestly don’t think a soldier much taller would be able to get in and drive one. The Loader and TC was cramped for me also, but taller people can fit. Everything will be close to you. And if someone is claustrophobic, they won’t be able to operate this tank. But still I love it. It’s a cool looking tank. I was on M1A1 Abrams for 10 years.

@@baghdadwarrior039 the loader is actually the gunner, as all T-72’s have an autoloader system. Which is a main weakness of the tank. The autoloader system requires that the ammunition be mixed openly in the “carousel” in the turret with the crew space. So if the tank is compromised and the ammo is set fire, the crew is almost always killed in a “jack-in-the-box” explosion. Which is why you may find in pictures of Russian destroyed tanks with their turrets “popped” off and laying some distance from the rest of the chassis. The thin side armour and those fuel tanks mentioned in the video have proven these tanks as far less battle worthy as previously thought. This in stark contrast to US M1A(n). You had stated that you had been a tanker for the M1’s. So you understand better on how the M1’s crew is far better protected from ammo cook-offs as the loader takes the round from a blast proof compartment. The T-72 has no such protections, in fact the TC usually has to sit on two small arms ammo crates due to the turrets cramped and poorly designed space. They may look nice, but to a javelin or even smaller NLAW, they’re death traps.

@@MsMrBigglesworth i think by "loader" he meant how much space the autoloader took up, also TMI

@@penapvp2230 I don’t thinks so, as his comments were how cramped those positions in the T-72 were for him. How the “Driver” position was, then the “Loader” and then the “Tank Commander”. Where the “Loader” was actually the “Gunner,” as an autoloader was used. Either way, he is absolutely correct in the lack of room at each position.

Huh?

1970s tanks vs 2010s ATGMs, what do you expect?

@@kevintang5473 The Russians didn't have to invade another country with T-72s, They had the very clear option of not invading and their t-72's would not have to doff their hats.

Now the T72 is obsolete but the modern version of the tank is T90M and that is a good tank still today.

@@geramos109 .. There are very few T90’s in Ukraine. They cannot move them because they are needed elsewhere. Also the T90 is proving just as fragile as T72s.

They only have/had 350 T90s.

Today the T72 is really cooked :D

And how are they fairing in the Ukraine, even worse than in both Gulf wars put together

@@oveidasinclair982 It's almost as if 20+ years has passed and technology has advanced, isn't it?

@@iatsd Well, Javelins were adpoted in 96, so the second gulf war (Iraq war) definitelly had very capable equipment. Maybe the Iraquis (or literally anyone else) just were better than the Russians in tank warfare.

I know thanks alout

Legacy, who are you talking to mate? xd

T-72B3M

+patrick Katalenas "cheap and cheerful" (дешево и сердито))

romasiny lol

+patrick Katalenas but not comfy and dangerous in a fire lol

+patrick Katalenas Well that could be discussed, they also have the most amounts of spies in the world

Cheap and bad. One of the worst tank in the world compared to Western counterparts.

I love how there's an Abrams tank right next to the T-72, LOL! No comparison.

If ur talking about the t72 Its upper plate has 60mm RHA 105mm Textolite 50mm RHA Turret 75-140mm RHA 115mm Quartz core 200-280mm RHA Sides 80mm Lower sides 20mm RHA Rear 20-40mm RHA Hull roof 20-30mm RHA Turret roof 30-45mm RHA I got this from warthunder lol

Sure about it?

Then Ukraine happened 🤣 T 72...Chocolate teapot...

Nah only for BBQ

Useful for Ukrainian BBQ.

The good thing is, 8f you are 8n combat in a T-72 you won't be cramped for very long. The bad news is there is no way to safely land the turret.

Yep...the sentimentalism about the T-72 sure didn't age well at all.

the whole point of a tank is to be a target,they are literally bult to take damage,the term tanking the damage was invented because of it.

@@newguy954 T-72 seem happy to explode.

@@gustavmeyrink_2.0 t-72 are not living beings,they"re machines

@@gustavmeyrink_2.0 So far is doing a great job, freeing Ukraine from it's access to the Black Sea ...

Mr. Wordwide

jandiseq *Czechoslovak

Т-80 and T-64 )

A single troop of latest gen MBT's would wipe out a whole battalion of old T72's out in minutes. A good example of this is the Battle of 73 Easting. In just 23 minutes E-troop, composed of 9 Abrams and a few Bradley APC's, wiped out 50 T72's, 25 APC's, 40 trucks and other vehicles. Also, remember this happened nearly 30 years ago, with today's tanks results would have been even more devastating. Being obsolete doesn't mean it can't be effective in certain situations. If my enemy has nothing and I have a sword I'll likely win the fight, this doesn't make the sword any less obsolete as a battlefield weapon. The T72's situation is similar to a lesser extent.

I would not say obsolete but in tank vs tank battle, t72 doesn't really have good odds against modern armor. But t72 still has a role attacking poorly protected supply convoys and units which do not really have good anti-tank capabilties.

@@sal075_3 the definition of a word is not up for discussion. The T72 is, by definition, obsolete. "obsolete adjective UK /ˈɒbsəliːt/ US not in general use any more, having been replaced by something newer and better or more fashionable" The T72 is not a top of the line MBT anymore. Any modern MBT comparable to Leopard 2a7 will have no problem dealing with multiple T72´s at once in a head on engagement.

@@ItsATrap614 50 T72? Ther record of the 9 tanks is about them destroying 26 tanks in about 20 minutes, on top of that its locally produced T72M (export of older varian lacking both modern sights and better composite armor). Your argument is on the level of saying that Abrams is bad, because the Version lacking modern sights and depleted uranium is performing poorly in SA and Iraq.

@@Jake94cool1 nah mate, you're reading things i didn't write. Yes those were local variant (didnt say they werent did I?). My source for the numbers is "The Fires of Babylon: Eagle troop and the battle of 73 Easting", if you read carefully I wrote Abrams AND supporting vehicles like Bradley etc. I agree though that recent versions of T72, such as T72B1MS or T72B3M are in no way obsolete and can hold their own against any NATO tank. I was referring to older variants, T72A, B and it's export variants.

MGM-51 Shillelagh was fired from a 152mm rifled gun, 105mm rifled tank guns such as the L7, the M68 and the Rh-105 can use the 105mm version of the LAHAT gun-launched anti-tank missile. Smoothbore guns allow a higher velocity for a given projectile and propellant weight and thus better armor-piercing capabilities.

Jesus Nazareth You forget what the Shillelagh was. A really big headache! Modern ammo and tolerances make smoothbore the way to go, with the elimination of the engineering problem of specialized rounds getting ground to bits by the grooves.

Ivan Ivanov Not quite. Smoothbore guns offered higher velocity, gun-launched missiles were a "happy accident" that were developed later. Most T-64 and T-72s produced could not fire them, only certain models with the correct equipment.

The BMP-3 has a rifled 100mm gun, and it fires missiles.

The British love HESH....which needs a rifled barrel

That's why you were weak and surrounding countries using old old tanks Russian out of date weapons.

James Mitchell Sorry? Albania is using WW2 tanks, Macedonia, Bulgaria, Croatia, Hungary and Bosnia use the same tanks... So please, learn before you start saying shit.

James Mitchell + Having old tanks doesn't mean the whole army is weak. We would actually win the Yugoslavian war but USA, NATO and UN ruined that.

please study history of balkan conflicts more. it was not USA, NATO or UN that stopped Serbia.

Actually he is wrong we do not use the T-72, or the T-90, we have our own upgraded tank based on the chassis of the T-72, called the M-84, now most of those older M-84's are being and have been upgraded to the M-84AS which is a very good tank, don't get me wrong it is no match for the newest generation of tanks made by the worlds greatest military powers, like the T-90MS or the Armata, or the newest Leopard or Abrams, but it is certainly more then a match for other smaller countries MBT's especially for the MBT's made by countries that surround us

Matsimus Gaming Mat you should do vide about the t72

NO!

On this tank was Czechoslovakian Tank!

Guys! ITS CZECHOSLOVAKIA

да товарищи это русский танк

Challenger is living in UK and Australia too. He was at second home and go to museum.

blazimus good to know

ludovkyzpodpolania Chyba čoboláku, v ČSSR v Martině Závody ťažkého strojarstva. Moc se nebij do prsou, bez čechů byste tam tak pásli ovce a kozy. Stále ste strašně ublížení a většina z vás znala max Prahu.

pumelo1 Veď dobre. Ale tak ako starší bratia ste nás museli zachrániť pred MAĎARMI ..

@@pumelo1 jaaj ty jebo, na slovensko ste dali vsetku prvovyrobu, aby sme sa vam nemiesali do biznisu, finalizacie a exportu.. tomu sa hovori frajerina, ked nedovolis druhemu dychat a este sa hras na zachrancu kokutku.. ste celu svoju historiu fajcili nemcom tak ste tam mali nejaky ten okukany priemysel a kulturu (tak ako aj za cssr) no, inak je to na tie starocia samostatnosti biida, co sa vlastnej tvorby tyka.. chudak, si uvedom ze sa ako 'cech' mozes naparovat akurat tak oproti krajinam ktore boli starocia v utlaku, a potom hovor ze kto ma mindraky.. to je vidiet aj teraz, za 30 rokov sme sa (aj s problemami ktore nam tu nasadil taticek Havel a Klaus) naucili co je to sa presadit aj bez vas.. proste mnohi ste kokutci taki ako ty (dejte mi lidi ja to udelam), cest vynimkam.. radi by ste zase videli slovakov na dne, aby prisli s prosikom za vami a mohli ste sa citit 'niekto' v tomto svete ktory na vas SERE zvysoka

+VelmiVelkiZrut Why does a Svir matter? It's just less penetration than APFSDS and have you seen how they're guided? You've barely got the angular resolution to even see something beyond the range of the main gun.

Fake Name The actual range of any ATGM is a good deal greater than that of the main cannon, though I agree that the average T-72 optics leave a good deal to be desired. Nevertheless, it pushes the engagement distance out a ways and in modern tank combat, he who fires first generally wins.

VelmiVelkiZrut Did you know that modern tanks can't penetrate each other from the front at normal combat ranges? M829A3 even needs a favorable angle or luck to pen a T-90, and that's the best modern ammunition against the worst front armor. The Svir doesn't have a chance. Every tank is a Tiger II from the front and a Carden-Loyd tankette on the sides. So it helps to shoot the first round, but it's much better to shoot the first round at a favorable angle. Because if you don't have the sides, rear or top you aren't going to accomplish much. So the whole idea is to use surprise and speed to get a favorable angle. A Svir is not the tool for this task. Before it's launched the enemy's LWR is going to be slewing his turret towards the missile and during the 6-17 seconds it takes for the missile to arrive the driver even has time to react. I'm not saying the T-90 isn't excellent. It is. But barrel launched ATGMs are a relic of an era when HEAT was dominant. Now HEAT is at a serious disadvantage compared to APFSDS and modern FCS is pushing the engagement range of the main gun out further and further. A much better, faster, tandem warhead, fire fire and forget, top attack missile might be effective in specific cases, sure. But the Svir is just old, under powered and slow.

+Fake Name russians say the sabot is ok up to 3200 meters on that 90SM variant in promo vid. those arrows actually lose effectiveness at range so youre better off increasing caliber and power so atgms arent needed at all. Caliber increase allows for kornet-like increase in diameter like armata can with 152 mm.

Drive it to Ukraine and you have use it for BBQ

Russia have same problem.

+Gustav Husák in Czechoslovakia ;)

nevtieraj sa... tak isto vela videi o vz.58 hovoria o CZ ako ceskej zbrojovke... tak sa nevtieraj.. kanony, hlavne, "hull" , veža ... všetko bolo vyrobene na Slovensku a to Dubnica, trencin a martin. ;) serus

+Gustav Husák československé tanky ale vz.58 česká :)Dvojitý meter smrdí :D V skrátenom do angličtiny hodia české tanky nakonec :D

+cdgncgn presne tak! Vz. Je vás cesky vynález, ktorý si velmi cením a teším sa mu :D pasová technika sa robila na Slovensku . Kolova v Čechách... Zbytočne sa tu motá :)

Tak jste se neměli od nás odtrhávat :-D

I agree!! Very fine armoured coffin!!

You're missing the point that the Ukrainians are using the same tanks and also the generation before that.

If I'm not placed in here on my funeral, I'm not going.

Mobile crematorium for 3 ,,,

@@JC-XL Tanks are a costly distraction in modern warfare. The USMC ditched them, and for good reason.

Once the turret pops off, you have lots of headroom, but maybe no head anymore.

Maybe they have some Priests from Lend&Lease times left.

No the glacis plate describes the sloped front-most section of the hull of a tank.

***** What I heard from other soviet tanks is, that its supposed to hold water back, when driving thru some deeper rivers. So it would deflect some waves that would otherwise get into the drivers hatch. The seals were often not that good.

***** Thats the name of the sloped front most part of the hull of as tank, when tankies learn Vehicle recognition the v shaped glacis plate was a great recognition feature so no its not just a splash guard.

Wargaming Europe that's a bunch of bollocks. Admit you're just wrong there. T-72 upper glacis is just a flat piece of plate (angled of course).

allmynickhvbeentaken move on son, you're impressing no one

probably never happened sadly

Szarko now i see it's actually export czechoslovak T-72M1.

+Szarko not M1. Id say the oldest T-72 made here. If Im not mistaken, made from 1981-1985, M version, 85-87, M1, 1987-199? M1 are relatively combat worthy compared to previous ones.

+cdgncgn It's still a downgraded export model (for licence production), not the more advanced 80s soviet made B model with ERA.

Szarko ERA was fitted to export versions too, T-72S, the final export version, that did get it as well as guided missile capability was made in USSR or Russia only. Syria did get bricks on M1s as well it seems. Who needs to talk of Soviet versions when they mostly saw no action apart from Chechnya wars. In Georgia there were Russian T-62s while Georgians had T-72B if I recall correctly.

+cdgncgn Some T-72B3 saw action in Ukraine, while syrian T-72s are used extensivly since 2011, which I assume addde recently much to MBT development in Russia.

However some were more equal then others the SU-34 jet has a freaking kitchen behind the cockpit lol

​@@wetlettuce4768 You know what Russians say about their weaponry which lacks comfort for the crew? "You'd better survive the battle in the uncomfortable tank rather than die in a cozy seat with enough space around"))) It is a joke of course yet it has a grain of truth in it.

_> I don't think Soviets had "Crew Comfort"_ This is one of the most idiotic cliches about T-72. For some reason, no one complains about F-16 pilot's seat being cramped, or Ferrari racecar's driver's seat being cramped. But when it comes to T-72 - "Bawww, it's cramped!". Pure idiocy and hypocrisy.

in Soviet Russia, you serve tank, not tank serve you!

​@@Vatman47, yes, but it isnt about T-34 soviet tank with 76mm gun. It was non comfortable and not fire powerful

Almost all modern tanks have ammo stowed among the crew, including Leopard 2, Challenger 2, Leclerc, and Merkava.

it means a certain type of tower attachment. For example, at ambrams, the tower enters the body like a glass. Therefore, it is difficult for her to jump out, and we see few torn-off Abrams towers, but this does not mean that everyone inside survived because of this.) And calling the autoloader is a really bad idea. speaks of your incompetence.

@@TheDrAstrov My incompetence? From someone who either cant spell or cant form a cognitive thought, I am not offended

@@DecidedlyNinja Just because it is a common feature, or more appropriately a lack of feature, does not mean its a good idea. Stowing the bulk of the ammo without it being seperated from the crew is relying entirety too much on the idea that the armor will hold. Every single tank ever put into production has been able to have its armor defeated. The US designers knew this and since 1942 have made their ammo protected in some way be it by wet storage or by entirely seprating it away from the crew to increase survivability for the crews.

@@southronjr1570 you are not well versed in the subject. and like yourself :)

it's ridiculous, irritating and senseless.