Is the T-72 still a viable MBT in today's battlefield?

Yep. Updated armor, modified autoloader and day/night sight puts B3 at least on par with A4, the bulk of NATO armor in Europe. With the advent of remote control modules, fully unmanned T-72s will stay in active service for decades to come.

>>34530763
Yeah viable to kill Wessies with

>>34530817
>puts B3 at least on par with A4
>A4 that is inferior to T72A
lol

>>34530763
Depends on what is being fired at it and what accessories you put on it.
Its a good tank. It was meant to be a zerg tank but that war never happened.
If you really need a tank and fast, its perfect and it will be there.

>>34530763
I really love this tank, it screams USSR, it gives the urge to invade Afghanistan.

>>34530847
It gives me the urge to try out the Seven days to rive Rhine plan.

>>34530763
Yup. It is well equipped to go toe to toe with the Bradley.

>>34530869
Didn't it have the dubious distinction of being KILLED by Bradley's?

>>34530896
Ah, yes.

>>34530847
Most of the tanks used in Afghanistan were T-62's.

>>34530906
>>34530896
>>34530869
I kek'd.

>>34530817
>T-72s will stay in active service for decades to come
>implying it won't be in service for centuries

>>34530896
tbf, so has most soviet equipment

>>34530763
Yes it's called the T-90

>>34531476
kek. and true

damn ruskis had such a good designs but couldn't built them in numbers because of their shitty economy

>>34530763
Russia tries to claim that the B3 update makes it viable but no seriously believes that it would be anything more than a speed bump when faced with later Leo2s and M1A2.

>>34530817
it will be active until 40k

>>34530896
They didn't have electric traverse in that engagement. Source: my friend herded prisoners at 73 Eastings and they complained they couldn't crank hard enough to engage the Bradley.

>>34531830
>They didn't have electric traverse in that engagement
Why?

Situation depending yes. The most modern version with ERA and APS, I'd say it'd go toe to toe with the M1A1, Leo2, Chally, etc. as long as it was crewed by competent soldiers and not buttfuck-stupid Arabs that bail out when facing rifle fire.

A plain-jane vintage T72, on the other hand.....well, a .50 with SLAP-T would probably punch through the top, as for proper AT, it's toast. Of course, it's all about the motion of the ocean not the size of the ship, eh? If a T72 managed to get the drop on and M1 and shoot it in the ass end, that M1 is probably in rough shape.

>>34531923
because they were using a model that was obsolete even then

>>34531830
>>34531923
Actually I might as well give the whole exchange as I remember it:
>friend has to ferry Iraqis around in his Bradley because too many are surrendering
>one of the passengers can speak English
>says that for most of the battle he was physically unable to see the Americans shooting at his unit, but then a Bradley came up close
>it was at a really awkward angle though, and they couldn't traverse fast enough (he made cranking motions at this point) to kill it
>friend asks how they ended up in such a state
>dude gets super worked up about the question and they start talking about the Afrikakorps instead--there was a picture of Rommel in the compartment and all the Iraqis had been staring at it for a while in concern

>>34531961
>The most modern version with ERA and APS, I'd say it'd go toe to toe with the M1A1
Wrong you dumbass
M1A1 is on par with T72B 1989 at best

>>34531988
In a mass Fulda Gap-type engagement in broad daylight with good atmospheric conditions....if the Soviets nuked allied lines first the T72B might have a chance.

In reality, have fun fighting beyond 2 km, at night, or in shitty weather. Also I hope the crew's arms aren't tired cuz they're gonna have to wheel that turret around awful fast, given the M1A1 has a higher top speed as well as (lol) electric turret traverse.

Seriously, go fuck yourself. The later variants are certainly capable machines that stand up to modern Western armor and the T90 is likely a stone cold killer, but to pretend that the early models are anything but cheap AFVs for zerg rushing NATO defenses is just sad.

>>34531961
>.50 with SLAP-T would probably punch through the top
idiot

>>34531981

T72 original model had an auto loader and motorized turret and elevation controls.

Someone is spouting forth bullshit.

>>34532144
at a reasonably close range, yes, it does stand a chance of punching through the top, as long as you make sure all your shots are hitting in the same-ish place.

>>34530763
Its easy and cheap to field several of them, which definitively is better than no tanks. Faced against modern western tanks, they're usually regarded as inferior.

File: born_2_bully.png (25KB, 810x323px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 810x323px

>>34530763
you still see T-55s putting around Syria, older tank destroyers also make occasional appearances elsewhere. When combat doesn't directly involve first world nations almost anything is on the table, you could probably make an FT viable as long as your quarry was poor and incompetent.

>>34532164
you gotta be a special kind of stupid to believe that .50 cal SLAP-T could penetrate a turret rated 380mm RHA(MINIMUM).

>>34532294
>380mm
>top armor

Either you speak some subhuman language that makes you mix up TOP and FRONT or you are legally retarded.

>>34532381
kek, why bring up the TOP armor - how is that even relevant? Every tank's top armor sucks ass, because there isn't really any armor there. Except the Stridsvagn 122.

>>34532443
>kek, why bring up the TOP armor - how is that even relevant?
what is CAS, anon?

>>34532475
>CAS
>.50 cal
pick one

>>34532443
>kek, why bring up the TOP armor
It is a bit stupid but not as stupid as insulting a dude when it is you who don't understand the question.
What is relevant is that tons of helicopters have 20mm or .50 guns that could arguably in situations end up on top of a tank. In those cases you'd be sorry if all you had above you was rated for 7.62 and arty fragments.

>>34532443
there's this thing called urban warfare my dude, riflemen and crew-served like to hide in buildings, which are often tall

File: 1499567293736.jpg (193KB, 762x785px) Image search: [Google]

193KB, 762x785px

>>34531981
I literally saw the history channel episode about this.

Either you saw the same episode or you knew the guy being interviewed

Be honest are you a lying faggot who saw this too

>>34532443
>>34532562

also there are these things, you might have heard of them, they're called hills and they tend to be a bit higher than the surrounding terrain, infantrymen and crew-served like hills too, almost as much as buildings

File: propperly welded t-72 turret, welded byy sovjet elfs.jpg (133KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 800x600px

>>34530763
>Is the T-72 still a viable MBT in today's battlefield?

I think so. Or let me specify. A version with better metallurgy, welded turrets, better gun sabilization and electronics will emerge as a new light tank class (<44t) - possibly even remote controlled.

>>34532185
Pretty sure a PKM with AP ammunition could pierce an FT.

>>34532151
But many of the Iraqi T-72s were assembled from parts or downgraded even from the base model. It could also be there was no power turret traverse because of Iraqi-tier maintenance

>>34532753
>Iraqi T-72s
were made in iraq and shot concrete training rounds or mild steel sabot rounds at best during desert storm. it was a shitshow.

>>34532151

Most of the Iraqi tanks were dug-in with their engines off to avoid standing out on thermals. I don't think the electric traverse works unless the engine is on, but you can manually traverse and fire the gun just fine.

>>34532110
>M1A1 has a higher top speed as well as (lol) electric turret traverse.
>implying T72B has none

>>34530819
but weasel-kun is too cute to kill

>>34532110
>cheap AFVs for zerg rushing NATO defenses

meanhwile in the real world the t72 nato got ahold off prompted frantical ammo upgrades as it turned out the ammo in use was ineffective against the T-72 and it's ERA.

The July 1997 issue of Jane's International Defence Review confirmed that after the collapse of the USSR, US and German analysts had a chance to examine Soviet-made T-72 tanks equipped with Kontakt-5 ERA, and they proved impenetrable to most modern US and German tank projectiles. U.S. Army Spokesperson claimed at the show: "The myth of Soviet inferiority in this sector of arms production that has been perpetuated by the failure of downgraded T-72 export tanks in the Gulf Wars has, finally, been laid to rest. The results of these tests show that if a NATO/Warsaw Pact confrontation had erupted in Europe, the Soviets would have had parity (or perhaps even superiority) in armour"[45] KE-effective ERA, such as Kontakt-5, drove the development of M829A3 ammunition.[46]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-72

>>34532669
not with enough meme bricks it won't

File: IMG_1931.jpg (3MB, 3648x2736px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3648x2736px

>>34530763
The T-72B3 is viable, but viable doesn't mean ideal or on par.

>>34532841
The funny part is it was T-80 tanks with Kontakt-5, and the Soviet Union scrambled to uparmor its tanks after it got ahold of modern Western APFSDS.

>>34532110

Nice try my man, but you forgot to say how the autoloader will rip the gunner's arms off and because there's no loader, you die quicker, just like in World of tanks.

>>34531923
Because the Iraqi officers stripped out literally everything that could be sold, then sold it.

There's a tank graveyard on FOB Marez where a lot of the surrendered or disabled Republican Guard armor was dumped. There were T 72s in there that were so gutted they had literally welded folding chairs in front of a hole plasma-torched through the armor because they'd stripped out the viewing blocks, periscopes, and factory seats.

They didn't start as monkey models either, you could clearly see where the parts had been, and the residual damage from them being crudely hacked out.

>>34533233
That "quote" has been floating around forums for years now.

>>34532498
guess in whichever fantasy land you're living in helicopters aren't a thing.

>>34530817
are you retarded?

>>34533554
Pretty sure that's all of /k/

>>34532575
>you knew the guy being interviewed
Yes, I do. Every time it airs he knows because another person who kinda knows him says OH SHIT YOU WERE ON TV.

>>34530763
If heavily modified it can compete with modern MBT models. Even pushing far back as T 55 models with ATGM launchers, and ERA can somewhat provide as a swarm tank.

>Powerful main gun, with lots of modern ammunition developed for it
>Armor that can stop APFSDS autocannons from most directions, and RPGs from the front can be modified with ERA to stop HEAT warheads and even some modern Sabot rounds

You tell me Rommel. Could a big fucking gun on a mobile, armored and inexpensive platform be at all useful?

>>34530763
It's a main battle tank that can be bought on the open market for around 50 grand not including spares, ammo and trainers (who can be had for vodka and a roof). Unless you intend to go up against a modern army it's the deal of the century.

>>34533331
Thats amazing. Not doubting it - just wondering how that shit flew under a leader such as Saddam. Not starting a Saddam bashing tangent, but such leaders/power structures usually deal with people in a way devoid of due process.

>>34534507
Raises hand in confirmation.
>Mum helped me post this.

Assuming you are supplied by actual russians so you have access to spare parts and latest and greatest penetrators, the greatest issue in individual tanks in not-COIN environment becomes command and control. Base models of T72 are very crude in electronics and would stand zero chance against modern MBTs in low light conditions due to only having active night vision and even during daytime would be at a disadvantage due to zero hunter-killer ability for the tank commander, I believe this is partly fixed in the B3 model.

>>34532771
Trick answer.

T72's did not have cranks for manual turret traverse because the turret also has all the ammo and autoloader on the carousel. The gunner or commander alone would have to move literally about 25+ tons of munitions and components to move the turret at all.

>>34531961
>>34532164
Nigger you are talking about penetrating 50mm of cast steel armour with SLAP-T rounds when even SLAP rounds for the 50cal can only do 34mm RHA @90 at 500 meters. You could even stand on the turret and fire directly down and you still wont do shit.

You are better of shooting at the engine deck aiming at the radiators to do anything.

>>34530763
For the most part, yes. They're extremely plentiful, cheap, easy to maintain & train on, and there's a myriad of upgrade kits for them.
If you want something with modern equipment, you'll have to go for the T-72s big brother, the T-90S or T-90MS. As far as I know, Russia doesn't offer a T-72B3 equivalent export model or upgrade kit.

You can expect to pay over 3 times much for an export M1A1 Abrams, which is more expensive to maintain and requires a far more capable logistics system to keep running in wartime conditions.
Or nearly twice as much if you go for the T-90S or T-90MS.

Unless you're adversary is kitted out with M1A2s or Leopard 2A6s/A7s, you'll be fine. Most nations are still using older tanks like the T-54/55, Type 59 and Type 69/79 or M60 Pattosn & Centurions.