Your unit is offered to go into battle on this junk (t-72b1 and t-64bv).

There are simply no other tanks. Will you take these vehicles, or is it better to go into battle without tanks at all?

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    both tanks are mid 1980s manufacture so the fronts will be proofed against RPGs and most non-tandem warheads, but hopeless against modern kinetic penetrators
    considering the mobility, optics and other problems of T tanks I honestly might just walk.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      OP never said you have to drive them
      Just make dimitri from the special ed class drive it as your mobile shield

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        driver is the one who usually survive, so you should chose wisely, young padawan

  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Our generals chose the T-64BV as their MBT chassis and sold all the T-72s to Arabs. Were they right?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Vice choice. Both vehicles are about the same crap, but if you got the "mother" firm of a certain model, then it makes sense to keep that one. The Soviets were retarded, supporting three different models at once. Leaving just one is a huge step towards optimization and unification.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Is your country Ukraine, if yes then they made the right choice since Malyshev can make and service T-64, if no they made the wrong choice.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I think Malyshev can service pretty much anything at this point.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I don’t remember any other country that would actively operate the T-64. This is almost exclusively Ukrainian thing.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Africa and Russia

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The plan was to adopt the T-80/T-84 as the main tank for Ukraine because Ukraine had the production facilities for the T-80 in it's territories. Sadly, because Ukraine is Russia-tier corrupt and incompetent which meant there were never any funds from the government to modernize Ukraine's military (which was not a concern until the CIA overthrew the Ukraine government in 2014 with the Euromaidan protests).

      The reason for keeping the T-64 over the T-72 is that the T-80 shares lineage with the T-64 (the T-80 started out as an upgraded T-64, similar to the T90 is just an upgraded T-72).

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >which was not a concern until the CIA overthrew the Ukraine government in 2014 with the Euromaidan protests
        back to 4chan

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >until the CIA overthrew the Ukraine government in 2014 with the Euromaidan protests

        Can you please shut the fuck up, you braindead shart?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >T-80 shares lineage with the T-64
        Fuck off back to 4chan, tourist.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Elaborate

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Designed in Kirov plant, made in Kirov plant. All 3 big soviet tank KB's were rivals, it makes no sense saying any of the soviet MBTs designed and made thousand miles apart share the same lineage (besides all of them being soviet MBTs, obviously). The only comparison to T-64 that makes sense is that T-80 was the gucci tank of it's era, and made into service largely due to the fact that USA was also making their own MBT with a turbine engine.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Our generals chose the T-64BV as their MBT chassis and sold all the T-72s to Arabs. Were they right?
      Yes. The T-64 is a better tank than the T-72

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >keep the de facto domestic tank
      >ditch the de facto import tank
      well it made logistical sense, nobody predicted you'd have to rely on a huge influx of donations from the former warsaw pact countries and russia itself to plug gaps in your line rather than new production or repairs

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Gibs me tanks.

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I'll screen the SHIT out of them with infantry and basically use them as direct fire mobile artillery and shitty APCs.

    Not ideal but a helluva lot better than no armor.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This. They have big enough guns to be very effective infantry support.

      Though they are hopelessly outdated for use in a spearhed, they can also be used to soak up fire in an advance if you're feeling especially desperate, but really they are extra firepower for the infantry. Ujrainians also use them to drive forward to chase down retreating Russians. It would be a bad idea if the Russians weren't routing and thus incapable of ambushes and delaying actions.

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Yes, just because it's not perfect in every scenario doesn't mean a 125mm cannon in a highly mobile package isn't extremely useful and would absolutely be better than nothing.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >highy mobile package
      >he doesn't know we sold the engine to a farmer in kyrgystan

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Blyat comrade sold engine? Tovarisch and I sold transmisssion to Gypsy group

  6. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Aren't T-64 actually better than T-72? The former was for Guard units while the latter was mass-production unit for regulars?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Yes, the T-64BV is arguably superior in most aspects compared to the T-72A and T-72B.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Yes, the T-64BV is arguably superior in most aspects compared to the T-72A and T-72B.

      If we talk about the t-72b1 and t-64bv, then the t-64 is slightly weaker armored in the turret, but has better fire control system, more comfortable ergonomics and rcws.
      Speaking in general about the lineup, then yes - with the exception of the t-90, the t-72 is a simple mobilization vehicle for illiterate conscripts from Siberia.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >t-64 is slightly weaker armored in the turret
        But at the same time, it has a denser and more rational placement of reactive armor, so it's a moot point.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >"How could the Iraqis in entrenched T-72 lose that badly at 73 easting"
        >play GHPC
        >Try to use T-72 FCS to hit a moving target
        >Oh

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Yeah GHPC puts things in perspective. I'd choose M60A3 TTS over T-72 any day

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Yeah, it's pretty atrocious

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          The laser rangefinder being off center always makes me laugh, apparently it just drifts with use because of vibrations or something?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It's worse, it's manufacturing tolerances. The unit to unit alignment variation is so bad that the only way to align the LRF do it is post installation. You "zero" your LRF by activating the thing, see where the laser lands (it's not an eye safe laser either), then mark it on the tank's reticle. I lost the document but according to the poles, the reason you adjust the POI on the reticle rather than having adjustment mechanism on the LRF is that the adjustment mechanism they trialed wouldn't keep zero in use, and a mechanism that would costs too much money and was never used on T-72.

            did they really rename their tanks due to the gulf war?

            yes, T-90 was called T-72BU before they renamed it due to T-72 getting a terrible rep in desert storm.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >T-90 was called T-72BU before they renamed it due to T-72 getting a terrible rep in desert storm

  7. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    slat some kornets onto them

  8. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Any tank is better then no tank if you can support it logistically.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      is that a gsh23-2 on the back?

  9. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I could never get in an armoured vehicle, respect to those who do but I hate them. Death traps. I'll be on the top of it

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >calls it a death trap
      >ill just sit on top of it
      How is this better anon?

  10. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    If the enemy is using the T-62, then yes.

  11. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Speaking of the T-64 and T-72...

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      did they really rename their tanks due to the gulf war?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I think it was more Chechnya but basically by the early 90s the T-72s reputation was in the shitter.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Chechnya was when T-80 lost it's position of "category A tank" and Russia decided to standardize on T-72 variants. Grozny is terrible tank country as is, but the T-80 got shit on especially hard because the inexperienced crewmen didn't realize a T-80 at idle used only a bit less fuel than a T-80 on the move. They were supposed to turn off the engine while idling but few people did that, partly because they didn't know the fuel consumption numbers, partly because you don't want to be in urban combat in a tank with your engine off (driver! RPG! reverse! only to find out your engine is off and would need 30 seconds to crank). The T-80 units ended up repeatedly running themselves out of fuel and being operationally useless, not helped by the state of Russian logistics, which were worse in the 90's than it is now if you can believe it.

          The US would run into similar problems with the Abrams in Iraq, used in a role it wasn't designed for. However the US "fixed" the problem by issuing diesel Aux Power Units so the tank can run off that rather than the main engine when doing tank things in urban combat.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            aux isn't diesel? It runs off the turbine.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Abrams has had multiple APUs. The first one was a bustle mounted diesel, the one your listed is the new under armor one.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Posts like these are why are come to PrepHole

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Huh, that's actually informative

  12. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    just utilizing them as simple motorized gun carriages, not tanks. and you'll probably be a lot safer.

  13. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why is T-64 better than T-72 and does it mean T-80>T-90?
    I always thought that the higher the number the better the tech

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      T-72 was originally designed to be the budget version of T-64.

  14. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    remove all the main gun ammunition use it as a mobile pillbox

  15. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Is there a single tank in existence that can withstand a single shot from a Javelin or Nlaw? No? Then what's the point of having any tank at all? I'd just drive around in a highly armored IFV as the role it is supposed to be : transport and support for mechanized infantry.

  16. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    keep them in reserve to ambush enemy armor

  17. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The T-64BV turret ERA looks extremely cool so I pick that.

Your email address will not be published.