T-72 Posted on March 11, 2023 by PrepHole Contributor Is the T-72 the worst modern tank of all time? How many have been destroyed so far since the Gulf War?
its not the challenger 2, therefore it is not the worst tank ever
visually confirmed are over 1000 lost T-72 in ukraine alone
would firing hundreds of 50 cal rounds from a heavy machine-gun cause no damage whatsoever to a modern tank? like nothing?
It won't so any damage to even world war 1 tanks.
so utterly pointless unless it hits some fragile stuff sticking out
Could take out sensors but won't actually do damage to any critical bits. Even the rear of all tanks have been immune to HMGs since ww2.
I thought the entire point of the BMG was to be able to penetrate armor thickness up to 14mm like what the Mark-types were rocking
It could fuck up the sensors and lens packages enough to put it out of the fight until new ones can be fitted. Thats about it. A tank that let's someone dump 100s of rounds of 50 into it is already dead anyway.
Accurate and Sustained hmm fire Absolutely can still mobility kill a modern tank
How many rounds would it take to detrack a t72/Abrams? Never actually heard any mbt getting mobility killed by machineguns.
there was one case where hmg burst an external fuel tank and started a fire in the engine of an M1
Do tank fuel tanks not have self-sealing liners? I remember reading how WWII planes started to had them after tons of early war planes caught fire/had engine burnout with just a few shots.
sralf sealing tanks don't work against large scale damage that 50 cal and autocannons can inflict, however they are quite effective against smaller fragments and smaller arms like .30 cal. it's part of the reason US stuck with 50s for so long.
anyway, external fuel tanks on vehicles are generally only used outside of combat and are basically large metal barrels without the complications like multi-ply construction and expanding foam inside that self sealing tanks use. they are basically for march so you don't have to refuel as often.
I remember reading how tons of early war t-34s were lost because their external fuel tanks caught fire and the crew ran out to get gunned down. They were supposed to use up external tanks first and most of the time would have been safe inside the tank even after the fire anyway, but lack of training caused them to abandooooone tank.
it is the equivalent of burgers still riding M-60s
several competent armies field variants like poland and azerbaijan. but it's been used in war mostly by retards which gives an otherwise good value piece of equipment a bad name
It would be servicable if the Soviets/Russians didn't bifurcate their tank development between the T-64 and T-72 lineages. They're basically stuck with two incomplete designs and a bunch of old hulls that are halfway upgraded. It's horrible future proofing when you compare to most western designs that are rougly its contemporary. The T-90M was the closest to actually bridging the gap but it still has the 72's shitass drivetrain.
I think the Panzer 68 still has it beat in how poorly-designed its insides are.
moron, every single mbt is guaranteed to be toasted with single hit of apfsds
it is just a game of who's going to shoot first
Abrams and Challenger II have tanked APFSD frontally.
Definitely not the case for Challenger 2. I'm pretty sure it hasn't been hit by any APFSDS round, biggest tank round that hit it was 100mm BK-5 HEAT in Iraq.
And saying "it tanked APFSDS round" doesn't mean anything in the first place. There is a big gap in performance between a 1960s APFSDS round and a modern one