vatniks will defend this

>>32824658
He's a big tovarish

>>32824666

No he's not he's 5'8'' its just a bad small tank

Pretty decent bang for your buck back in the seventies, wasn't it?

>>32824666
For you mr Devil

Nothing wrong with tank decadent american.

>>32824658
They sure will, before selling you 8 and giving you 2 for a bonus.
Its like Billy Mays was selling those things for the last 30 years in every language on the planet.

>>32824658
It was created to kill M-60s and be cheap so that you could have a lot of them. It did that pretty well.

Is it shit against anything modern?
Yes. Yes it is.

>>32824658
Was, and still is the best tank in the world.

>>32824872
cheap isn't a thing in command economies

>>32825873
Yes it is. Man hours, equipment hours, and the calculated costs thereof for materials are all factors even in a command economy. If for the same effort (and work hours are a zero sum game) you can get 2 T-72 instead of 1 T-64, that's cheaper and more cost effective.

>>32824872
Cheap? Yes.
Easy to use? Yes.
Has potential of upgrades? Yes.
Good against anything modern? Fuck no.
Protects you from anything worse than a rifle? No.


However i say the peak of checznology in the MODERNA upgrade, and it looks like it is from a sci-fi movie and it looks ridiculously sex, so i love it. NOTHING looks better than a MODERNA up-close.

File: 1024px-T-72M4_CZ-Lesany-3.jpg (158KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 1024x768px

>>32825928