Why the Russian Army T-72 Tank is Worse Than You Think

Thanks for watching everyone. Compare news coverage from diverse sources around the world on a transparent platform driven by data. Try Ground News today: ground.news/task

To be fair to the T-72, it’s unlikely that nearly any modern tank without APS could survive a top attack ATGM like the NLAW or Javelin. The only big difference is that a Western tank crew has a better chance of surviving while T-72 operators are almost guaranteed to be cremated due to the ammo storage.

The T72, a tank that is designed to be used with several hundred at a time is currently being used in penny packets with 10 per battalion. The British gave up on that as an operating method by 1917.

I was a tank turret mechanic in 1991 during the Gulf War. I talked to some US tank crew members after the fighting was over who actually went inside an abandoned Iraqi T 72 tank. One glaring weakness they noticed was the poor fire control system compared to the M 1 tank.

Actually, T-64 was a more advanced vehicle equipped with the best technology of the time and therefore more expensive. The whole reliability issue was resolved to the best of their ability in the many different versions of the tank. Ukranians keep driving around in T-64 to this day and nobody complains. T-72 was supposed to be a cheaper, war-time version of T-64 designed to be produced during WW3. This is why the main production center for T-72 is in Ural Mountains region while the main plant for T-64 was in Kharkiv.

The T-72 wasn’t originally intended as a replacement for the T-64. The T-64 was supposed to be the main Soviet tank. The T-72 was built to be a cheaper alternative that could be built in bulk both for export and to bulk up the tank numbers. But because the T-64 was pretty much a barracks queen the T-72 became the default main Soviet tank so they had to keep upgrading it to try to keep it relevant. Then when the T-80 and T-90 also didn’t work out so well it wound up getting upgraded even more. Which didn’t help it all that much as it is a 1960s design trying to be run by unskilled conscripts.

if someone is interested in T72 - this is a simpler and cheaper version of T64. 64 has a better control system, suspension and survivability while t 72 is easier to maintain and manufacture. T64 stood together with T80 on the border with NATO and T72 went to the reserve. After the collapse of the union, Ukraine received 64 because the plant in Kharkiv and Russia 72 for the same reason but in Tagyl

I've never been a Tank Company Commander, but having talked with a couple you realize that they won't go far without their supply line. And they're super focused on fuel. Overwhelming numbers with this tank might be a detriment. But I'm sure a concentrated attack would be devastating by this kind of a force. It's just as described in the doctrine, quick and decisive blow through the weak point.

The USSR was afraid of USA invasion, they developed military hardware with this in mind. Road bridges were built to collapse under the weight of heavy American tanks. Soviet tanks were therefore required to be lightweight. This severely limited the capability of Soviet tanks, but gave a theoretical tactical advantage if faced with a US invasion. (Soviet tank can cross bridge, US tank cannot). Their military planners never seriously considered a Soviet attack on USA, so they developed a defensive asset.

Tank from year 1972 being destroyed by missiles from 2020 seems quite reasonable to me.

The T-64 wasn't bad or anything like that. The problem was that it was too expensive to produce for all units. Thats why the T-72 was created.

The Leopard 2 was also designed to be used by a conscript army. Conscript armies can very well execute sophisticated tactics and manouvres, its just a matter of training.

I too was Infantry. A long time ago now. Even then, we knew that the T-72 wasn't as tough of a tank as it looked. This was back in the day of the DRAGON II and when the AT-4 was new. It's mobility was good and their doctrine of use in numbers made it a bigger threat... Individually they were vulnerable.

The T-72 like most soviet tanks, has the major flaw of not valuing the most important asset in the tank, its crew. Good tank crews are more important for armored combat than good tanks. by allowing the ammo to be exposed in the crew compartment, they accept the loss of the entire crew for any penetration. As Russia continues to lose tanks in Ukraine, even if they replace the tanks, they won't be able to replace the crews. NATO tanks like the M1 are designed to keep crews alive even when damaged, which means crews can learn from mistakes, and be confident in advancing in combat, knowing they won't all be killed if they are hit once in the side.

In the beginning of 2022 I had a talk with Russian veterans, they have served in the 70s and 80s and in different military districts: some were from ГСВГ- Группа Советских Войск в Германии (forces stationed in the East Germany), some were from Black sea fleet (Odessa city one of them said), one of them served in Afghanistan. They were from various branches: one tanker (mechanic-driver of T-62), several infantrymen, RPG team member, and so on I was mainly asking about their stories and so on. In the end, I asked what do they think about current army's state, and they all replied "shit". One of them said: "the army died with the state, what they have now is a fucking shadow of what it once was". Also it is very interesting to note that all what they mentioned as especially shitty turned out to be true. They mentioned: training, vehicles, food (supplies), medical teams, connection between groups, absence of sights, and so on. I wander what happened to them. It's a tragedy that brother countries are fighting.

That price difference really explains why Russia has the largest quantity of tanks in the world by a wide margin. They went for numbers and every other consideration was secondary. One big advantage is that it's mobile though, if it had proper infantry support and was used carefully to minimise it's weaknesses it would do better, along with logistics issues that prevent the supply trucks from moving across country to keep up with the tanks, they're reduced to trundling slowly along road routes into ATGM ambushes, rather than their original intent to strike deep and quick and encircle.

The T-72 was obsolete in 1991. Our Abrams rolled through them so fast the Iraqis thought it was aircraft.

You spend 500k on a tank, you get 500k problems. Soviet-era equipment was considered to be disposable, as are their soldiers. You make a lot of tanks you don't really intend to have to do much maintainance on, 'cause their crews are likely to be dead even if they knew how to maintain them in the first place. Conscripts are cannon fodder, so they made a cannon fodder tank. Tank gets penetrated, the crew likely dies. Next cheap tank up, comrades!

The T64 was ridiculously good for its time, and expensive, so good infact that whilst the Soviet Union was exporting thousands of tanks to every despot and third world dictator with roubles they NEVER exported the T64. The 72 was to make up the numbers (i.e. lots of numbers), cheaper and more easily available. One of the reasons I think the T72 has done so badly is a mixture of poor training/tactics and also the simple reason that those tactics are soviet - are known and also that it simply IS the T72 - it is what all the NLAWs and Javelins were specifically designed to take out. Simply time has moved on and the T72 is pretty much (albiet with some upgrades) stayed the same. You're absolutely correct that a lack of communciations, conscripts/lack of training and corruption will also have played into it all falling apart. To be fair too put an M60 up against a T64 or even a T72 and it's not looking so bad...

Cappy, great video. Other flaws that I see with their tactics, is failure to embrace air/land battle doctrine. Think about it, the Battalion Tactical Group is like mini brigade. Yet their tactics are sluggish and at best uncoordinated. You have 10 tanks and 8 cannons, not mention Infantry and engineers. Yet their Field artillery sets up like it is in WWII still. Armor tactics are less than stellar as no one has the mentality to get out of a kill zone once the trap is sprung. The lack of a good NCO Corp to push their soldier further hampers their overall effectiveness IMHO.