Would a T72 stand a chance against a King Tiger 2?

>>34778331
It would be a fair fight.

>>34778351
explain

>>34778384
Roughly equal in armor and penetration. A well nested in King Tiger would work well to make up for its lack of speed. While the existence of any amount of speed in the T-72 could allow it to out maneuver the King Tiger.

Equal depending on situation. Pretty much the Tiger needs good cover for the upper hand to get a killing blow. The T-72 could do the same or out maneuver the Tiger.

>>34778433
wouldn't it depend on the model of t72?

>Roughly equal in armor and penetration
wat. i know the tiger 2 was fairly thick for the time but was it really that close?

>>34778471

Pretty sure the advances in metallurgy, optics/targeting tech, and the fact that the T-72 can fire ATGMs would give it a firm upper hand. It's pretty silly to think that a design that was arguably impractical even when it was new would be able to beat a tank 30 years newer than it.

>>34778433
explain

>>34778351
>>34778433
Are you fucking retarded? Or you're just a wehraboo which is same. Or you're baiting very good like OP

Learn these

What is FCS and stabilizers
What is Smoothbore and APFSDS
What is suspension tension and transmission reliability (which KT was shit at both)
What is 125mm smoothbore and 88mm rifled
>Roughly equal in armor and penetration
You went full retard here didn't you

>>34778622
explain

>>34778622
>he took it
Looks like I reeled in a big one here

>>34778648
Fuck off
>>34778742
Prove it

>>34778622
And yet none of those saved the T-72 against the fucking Sherman, which the KT ate for breakfast.

File: T-90 First Good Look_Dec1993_1.jpg (501KB, 2100x1416px) Image search: [Google]

501KB, 2100x1416px

>>34778331
T-72 win 99%

Pic related a T-72BU which were later renamed T-90 for the sake of export.

Why?
>Better gun, All rounds you fire will kill the tiger 2 since the tiger 2 is ancient
>Better FCS capabilties since you laser your target and get the exact range automatically and the ability to fight in total darkness not to mention the ability to fire on the move
>Better overall armor design to the point that you are invulnerable in the front 60 degree arch
>Better mobility due to better engine and suspension which translates to faster movement and stability

So in any open engagement the tiger 2 lose. Any night engagement and the tiger 2 lose
Only way for the tiger 2 to win is to not engage at all like a tank and only ambush at close range to the side while being well hidden. Not sure if the T-72BU have thermals, if it does then even that wont work.

Even if you ask T-72 Ural vs tiger 2 the end result is the same so the better question to ask is if a Tiger 2 could fight against a M46 patton or T-54.

>>34778785
Wait what?! Shermans fought T-72's lol

>>34778765
Explain

Pretty much any tank past the T-54/Patton/Centurion are going to gut a KT front to back.

>>34778622
He said T-72. Not T-72A. So most of those don't apply.

>>34778786
>T-72BU

>>34778497
>Firing ATGMs

Why are you assuming OP meant "the best T-72 evar" and not "factory stock, first batch"?

>>34778805
That anon is probably referring to the Super Shermans that the Israelis ghetto rigged with a 105mm that fired heat shells and stuff.

missle launch 88m in king tiger kill T72 easy
King Tiger have better armor

>>34778881

Which also doesn't take into account that arabs literally can't into armoured warfare.

File: 1501984193502.png (192KB, 455x391px) Image search: [Google]

192KB, 455x391px

>>34778622
>What is punctuation?

>>34778872
>T-72BU is not a T-72
It was the initial name for the tank that the west knew ok? I dont know the initial russian name.

>>34778955
Yes, the T-72BU is "a T-72". No, it's probably nit what OP meant. Are you mentally defective?

>Hey guys could an Abram beat a T-72
>no a 105mm armed XM1 would lose to a T-72BU
this is you

>>34778854
Normal T-72 had 540mm LOS composite hull UFP and 400+ cast turret front and 125mm APFSDS that can pen 450mm at 2km
and stabilizers

>>34779008
>APFSDS
>normal T-72

>>34778930
Yeah, the Arabs just sucked. Otherwise, I don't think the Super Sherman would have done so well.

>>34778331
A T-72 would drive circles around a King Tiger 2.

Oh it's this time of /k/ again...

File: T-72 early 1975 production with side folding pannels.jpg (244KB, 1417x748px) Image search: [Google]

244KB, 1417x748px

>>34778854
So OP is talking about T-72 Obr 1975? Which T-72 model is he talking about?

>>34778974
OP never specified because he is a retard so fuck off. What kind of intelligent discussion do you think we will have in this thread? If you are OP himself then you should end your existence.

>>34779030
You are aware that every T-72 model can fire APFSDS? Tell me what is a "normal T-72"?

>>34779030
But they can.

You're thinking of "long rod" penetrators, which only the newest tanks can use (not even the Brits Chally 2 can use it thanks to its multiple part ammo).

>>34779079
70s tank, 90s ammo :^)

there has never been any weapon developed that can penetrate the frontal armor of the king tiger
this was proven in ww2

>>34779175
A handheld RPG-7 can penetrate the frontal armor of the king tiger

>>34779153
>what is 3BM9
This is a poor bait thread. Have a (You)

>>34779175
This is a thread comparing a Mobil Pak43
v an upgraded T72 with a 125mm cannon.
My AR 15 is more accurate and deadly than a M1 carbine, too
wanna make a thread about it?

>>34779189
never happened

>>34779536
You dying from touching power lines has never happened, so it can't happen.

Go ahead and try it some time.

>>34778331
In a beauty contest? No chance.

>>34778331
nope, no chance at all. it took out the t-72's grandfather by the thousands, so the t-72 would be no issue

>>34778331
Did you reel in any big ones OP?

>>34779030
>>34779153

T-62 was the first tank fired APFSDS T-64 second and T-72 was the third. T-72 fires APFSDS tungsten tipped and HEAT-FS.

Close this stupid bait thread already

>>34778785
>>34778805
>>34778881
Which also never went against T-72, let alone ate for breakfast.

>>34778785
wtf are you smoking?

>>34778433
>Roughly equal in armor and penetration.
What the fuck am I reading.

>>34783166
[spoiler]an obvious bait thread[/spoiler]

File: n8umjWj.png (3KB, 698x1284px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 698x1284px

>This thread.

>>34778331
Are you stupid?