It's 80 mm of steel at 60 degrees IIRC, don't quote me on the angle. Some of the upper glacis' composite sticks down behind the lower plate but not much, and you're not getting full width even on the part covered. Look up some images. Because of its low position on the tank the Soviets decided it was an acceptable risk, but given the K-1 they're throwing on there these days it's likely not as low risk as envisioned.
he meant autoloader still in use in 2023, how new are you?
OP post talks about design you illiterate morons
by that logic revolvers are trash because they couldn't figure out full auto in 18th century
get your arguments straight or fuck off
Kinda yes but China hasn't had access to modern Soviet tanks for most the Cold War. They only got their hands on a T-62 by fishing it out of a lake after it fell in. After the cold war they had a chance to study the T-72 but imho it's not really the same lineage.
Once =/= All the time. Not even a Chang, that would be like saying the Osprey is a completely unusable death trap because it had a few crashes early on when its one of the safest aircraft in use today. Gotta be objective Anon
logistically its better that a tank is hit, destroyed and all occupants dead than a damaged tank that the enemy could use and injured soldiers that need care and will never fight again
Not even the worse Soviet tank to make it to operational stage, though I suppose the T-35 killed less of its crews by virtue of breaking down before they could get into combat to be shredded through its paper-thin armor.
Objective fact: Britain was the most significant tank R&D NATO country, despite making the most questionable design decisions with engines. >first MBT (Centurion) >two-plane stabilisers >APDS >reclined driver seat >chobham composite armour >L7 105mm >pioneered use of 120mm >pioneered use of LRF >Commander Hunter-killer
Modern NATO MBTs are essentially beholden to british tank development.
They're good min-max mass-warfare tanks for a cold-war context, they just dont translate well to modern warfare outside of ease of deployability, due to poor situational awareness and already barebones fcs which has barely been upgraded, as well as poor inherent surviveability in a world where ATGMs and APFSDS is super effective, as the small size makes uparmourng difficult, and the cariousel autoloader makes crew surviveability unlikely. The T-72 is also significantly worse than the T-64/T-80 so its not entirely fair to lump them together. But in the 1970s, they're pretty good, especially the T-64, the armour really is designed to defeat APDS and early APFSDS, and its an all or nothing approach, either the armour works or the tank blows up, and the armour really did work at one point, up until maybe 1979/1980 the Chieftain is the only NATO MBT capable of frontally penetrating the T-64's ufp. Plus there werent as many long range and powerful man-portable ATGMs floating around, or the optics and positioning devices (drones, thermal sights), and they werent intended to engage in the kind of pace of low intensity, high engagement range, low-target saturation, air dominated warfare that occurs today, where maximum use can be made of ATGMs. So it cant be the worst vehicle if it was actually good in its intended context, and still somewhat gets by today, it has some armour and a gun for a low weight. Now the arjun on the other hand....
>up until maybe 1979/1980 the Chieftain is the only NATO MBT capable of frontally penetrating the T-64's ufp.
Which admittedly is a bit problematic since the T-64's 125mm gun was also capable of punching through the Chieftain frontally despite it being the most heavily armored NATO tank at the time.
T-64 and T-72 certaily wasn't future proofed, but NATO fighting a shit load of them in the mid 70's would have been messy.
Anon don't get too far ahead of yourself here. >Are T-72 lineage tanks terrible?
YES. OBJECTIVELY. UNDISPUTABLY. >Are they the worst VEHICLE ever?
That's a really tough competition. I mean, really. Have you seen every other Russian tank?! Every chinese tank?!
Other Anons already pointed out the soviet superheavies. But even counting shit that was made industrially, the T-34 is right there and somehow even shitter! And don't get me started on the ones they stuck a flamethrower on for no reason. Or the Tsar tank, or the fucking Armata. And hey, why stop at tanks?! Vehicle is a much wider category. One that includes the unicycle! Or, yknow, the Lada. The newest version of which coincidentally has as many working wheels too. It also features no seatbelt, or airbag, and a faultry break hose. Yknow, a great combo for Russia's winding, icy roads!
The T-72 is a 3/10 at best, sure. And the turdies should be forever shamed for it. But holy fuck is there so much worse shit out there. I mean, Russia's made so many vehicles that make the Italian ww2 tanquette line look positively competent in comparison!
whats wrong with t-64 :((
Objective fact : OP is a moron.
T-64 and T-80 are fine.
T-72 and T-90 are the retarded low budget off-shoots.
>T-64 and T-80 are fine.
*penetrates lower frontal armor with a 30mm autocannon*
heh, nothing personnel
no composite armor on the lower front hull?
although it looks pretty steeply angled in any case
It's 80 mm of steel at 60 degrees IIRC, don't quote me on the angle. Some of the upper glacis' composite sticks down behind the lower plate but not much, and you're not getting full width even on the part covered. Look up some images. Because of its low position on the tank the Soviets decided it was an acceptable risk, but given the K-1 they're throwing on there these days it's likely not as low risk as envisioned.
>Carousel autoloader in 2023
It's shit, anon. Do not pass go.
Which is a shame, because they are some genuinely badass looking tanks
autoloader in 2023
it wasn't designed in 2023 dipshit
He’s saying that tanks using a carousel autoloader in [the current year] is bad.
OP post talks about design you illiterate morons
by that logic revolvers are trash because they couldn't figure out full auto in 18th century
get your arguments straight or fuck off
>ad-hominem
>no punctuation
Dismissed. Acquire acumen before further perusing, forthwith.
>get your arguments straight
>proceeds to strawman
Done. OP didn’t even have an argument. He just said “[tank] is bad, don’t argue with me”.
he meant autoloader still in use in 2023, how new are you?
nice road in pic related to get NLAWd
>tfw the Yatagan was never mass produced
The F35 fans biggest cope. Also 72 is much better than 64 and they have a lot of differences
>The F35 fans biggest cope
Misc tourist doesn't even know that F35 is a jet.
Lol lmao even
The F35 is a lady with big boobs I researched it on the internet
Can't be an objective fact because we've never seen the entire lineage of Chinese tanks in combat.
aren't they all based on Russian tanks too? I would love to see how a Chinese knockoff of a shitty Russian tank performs.
Kinda yes but China hasn't had access to modern Soviet tanks for most the Cold War. They only got their hands on a T-62 by fishing it out of a lake after it fell in. After the cold war they had a chance to study the T-72 but imho it's not really the same lineage.
Type 88's did well in Sudan against T-72's.
Plus they dropped the Carrousell with the ZTQ-15.
>X did well against Y
is such a retarded thing to say
You asked how they're comparable to each other and i gave you an example.
Are those the same that got their rollers regularly fall off during tank biathlons?
Once =/= All the time. Not even a Chang, that would be like saying the Osprey is a completely unusable death trap because it had a few crashes early on when its one of the safest aircraft in use today. Gotta be objective Anon
You just posted a t-72 with a body kit, and it has a carrousel so that one's a tosser.
You're wrong. Name another series of tanks that is better at killing vatniks?
T-34
autoloaderfobia is bigotry
>muh carousel and cookoff
logistically its better that a tank is hit, destroyed and all occupants dead than a damaged tank that the enemy could use and injured soldiers that need care and will never fight again
>nagger tier logic
I hear the Russians are looking for a new tank designer though.
There are much, much worse vehicles than the T-64 and T-72
Worse than the Ford Pinto or FSO Polonez?
Not even the worse Soviet tank to make it to operational stage, though I suppose the T-35 killed less of its crews by virtue of breaking down before they could get into combat to be shredded through its paper-thin armor.
.t >notanks
Objective fact: Britain was the most significant tank R&D NATO country, despite making the most questionable design decisions with engines.
>first MBT (Centurion)
>two-plane stabilisers
>APDS
>reclined driver seat
>chobham composite armour
>L7 105mm
>pioneered use of 120mm
>pioneered use of LRF
>Commander Hunter-killer
Modern NATO MBTs are essentially beholden to british tank development.
They're good min-max mass-warfare tanks for a cold-war context, they just dont translate well to modern warfare outside of ease of deployability, due to poor situational awareness and already barebones fcs which has barely been upgraded, as well as poor inherent surviveability in a world where ATGMs and APFSDS is super effective, as the small size makes uparmourng difficult, and the cariousel autoloader makes crew surviveability unlikely. The T-72 is also significantly worse than the T-64/T-80 so its not entirely fair to lump them together. But in the 1970s, they're pretty good, especially the T-64, the armour really is designed to defeat APDS and early APFSDS, and its an all or nothing approach, either the armour works or the tank blows up, and the armour really did work at one point, up until maybe 1979/1980 the Chieftain is the only NATO MBT capable of frontally penetrating the T-64's ufp. Plus there werent as many long range and powerful man-portable ATGMs floating around, or the optics and positioning devices (drones, thermal sights), and they werent intended to engage in the kind of pace of low intensity, high engagement range, low-target saturation, air dominated warfare that occurs today, where maximum use can be made of ATGMs. So it cant be the worst vehicle if it was actually good in its intended context, and still somewhat gets by today, it has some armour and a gun for a low weight. Now the arjun on the other hand....
>up until maybe 1979/1980 the Chieftain is the only NATO MBT capable of frontally penetrating the T-64's ufp.
Which admittedly is a bit problematic since the T-64's 125mm gun was also capable of punching through the Chieftain frontally despite it being the most heavily armored NATO tank at the time.
T-64 and T-72 certaily wasn't future proofed, but NATO fighting a shit load of them in the mid 70's would have been messy.
T72 was made as a mass production MBT to roll into West Germany. They expected some ATGMs which is why they have ERA, but everyone else just went lol.
Anon don't get too far ahead of yourself here.
>Are T-72 lineage tanks terrible?
YES. OBJECTIVELY. UNDISPUTABLY.
>Are they the worst VEHICLE ever?
That's a really tough competition. I mean, really. Have you seen every other Russian tank?! Every chinese tank?!
Other Anons already pointed out the soviet superheavies. But even counting shit that was made industrially, the T-34 is right there and somehow even shitter! And don't get me started on the ones they stuck a flamethrower on for no reason. Or the Tsar tank, or the fucking Armata. And hey, why stop at tanks?! Vehicle is a much wider category. One that includes the unicycle! Or, yknow, the Lada. The newest version of which coincidentally has as many working wheels too. It also features no seatbelt, or airbag, and a faultry break hose. Yknow, a great combo for Russia's winding, icy roads!
The T-72 is a 3/10 at best, sure. And the turdies should be forever shamed for it. But holy fuck is there so much worse shit out there. I mean, Russia's made so many vehicles that make the Italian ww2 tanquette line look positively competent in comparison!