Is the T72 a good tank?

File: tonks.webm (1MB, 854x480px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 854x480px

an adequate tool for its intended purpose

By the standards of 1975, yes.

It was amazing in 1972

File: t-72.26446sfsfr.jpg (491KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

491KB, 1280x960px

>>32333083
Is the AK-47 a good rifle?

I mean, it's not top notch, but it can do its intended job.

>>32333134
>>32333356
/thread

One of the first modern MBT's, and it's managed to stay relevant far longer than many of its contemporaries with upgrades. It's not a world beater anymore, but for a tinpot dictator on a budget its the go to choice.

>all these fags living in the past

No its outdated as fuck and would get stomped against any modern armor. its only good for killing shitty arabs who cant fight and even then they get blown up alot

>>32333378
you'd sure as fuck rather have one than not have one

File: BJQhtRN.jpg (687KB, 2001x2800px) Image search: [Google]

687KB, 2001x2800px

>>32333134
>>32333356
>>32333366
These niggas get it

>>32333378
This nigga is trying to start shit.

The rest of the posts I can almost guarentee will devolve into "muh abrahams" "muh armata"
"muh blowout panels" "muh separate crew compartments"

It's nice to see honest answers in the first few posts.

It was a piece of shit up until the T-72B1 but everything after that is alright. B3 is a good tank for cost/effectiveness ratio and the T-90 (which is just a further upgraded T-72B) has at least one formidable variation.

Abrams > t72

>>32333447
T72 is objectively superior.

It was well designed for its late Cold War purpose. It's; low cost, relatively small size & light weight combined with a powerful gun and adequate NBC protection would have been formidable in a Warsaw Pact offensive.

Updated with modern optics and ERA, it is still good enough that crew training, logistics and combined arms effectiveness will be a more decisive factor than the quality tank itself in a modern conventional war against its Western peers.

File: 6169070_f496[1].jpg (20KB, 496x206px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 496x206px

>>32333083
>best tank
no
>good enough tank to get the job done
depending on the version, and what you are up against... yes

>MFW it's a beautiful tank

>>32333083
pound for pound the best tank on the planet

anyone who disagrees is simply uneducated or misinformed, there's nothing else to it

>>32333421

B3 is a hack job. The new gunners sight is in such location that it's impossible to use for extended perioids of time because it strains the gunners back. So most gunners just use the old primary sight which is still left on as a backup.

>>32333447
Even considering costs? Even in original production Costs you could make up to 6 T72 for one M1 Abrams. You can buy one now for like 50000 dollars even now.

>>32333676
Orginal production t-72s could not touch an modern m1.

>>32333682
Lies.

File: TR-85M1 2.jpg (235KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

235KB, 1024x768px

>>32333083
it is way ahead of it time and more modern then many tank like pic related

>>32333515
hey oddball they havent got you in that nut house again have they?