🌟 Internet Famous David Steel / LazerPig / Ricewynd / Malquistion - Pathological Liar, Reddit Historian, Femboy Thirster, and Vore Connoisseur

Hillary Clinton's Ass said:
Looking forward to RedEffect dunking on him for being extremely retarded about Soviet tanks and completely misunderstanding Soviet tank doctrine.
Click to expand...
tbh most of the T-72's users were thirdworlders who didnt understand soviet tank doctrine either

but even if we ignore that, my uncle once blew up a T-72 with a missile back in lebanon (nailed a hit at the spot between the turret and the hull where the autoloader is at its most exposed)

according to him, it was surprising even to him, he didnt think the missile will penetrate
 
DNNS-2 said:
Lazerpig is premiering a new video on his channel about the T-72.
Click to expand...
I mean yes it does toss its turret in a spectacular fashion, but the T-72 was also meant to face the M60, not quadcopter drones and top attack missiles in the 21st century. He would be disingenuous if he doesn't bring up its age
 
WelperHelper99 said:
I mean yes it does toss its turret in a spectacular fashion, but the T-72 was also meant to face the M60, not quadcopter drones and top attack missiles in the 21st century. He would be disingenuous if he doesn't bring up its tank turret tosses. As long as ammunition is able to detonate and can create a change
Click to expand...
Basically every tank can turret toss. Lot of them just as bad as the T-72. It all depends on the sensitivity of the propellant used, what it gets hit by, and whether it can create a chain reaction fast enough. Really the only tank that this cannot happen, is the Abrams. But that doesn't mean that there isn't any danger. Ammunition in the bustle rack can still detonate cause the entire back half of the turret to be deleted and the ammunition door to cave in, killing the crew if they hadn't evacuated beforehand. There's a few example of this in Iraq. Abrams also has plastic rods and plates across the ammo bustle to try to prevent a chain reaction with strategic placement of its ammunition. Such as not clustering HEAT rounds together.

A powerful enough detonation, might even displace the turret. Though not by much. Really the whole turret toss is a lame circlejerk promoted by midwits. Some of the detonations like the Leopard 1 and CR2 are extremely catastrophic, causing the entire hull to come apart.

images - 2026-03-21T131559.223.jpeg
images - 2026-03-21T131528.300.jpeg
images - 2026-03-21T131450.965.jpeg
 
DNNS-2 said:
A powerful enough detonation, might even displace the turret. Though not by much. Really the whole turret toss is a lame circlejerk promoted by midwits. Some of the detonations like the Leopard 1 and CR2 are extremely catastrophic, causing the entire hull to come apart.
Click to expand...
'Member when the pig was coping about that Challenger 2 that got blown up to smithereens? The turret tossed to the side of the road? With pig saying that it was totally a T-64, guys.

Or 'member like the first Challenger 2 that got destroyed by the Russians and the pig coping that it was totally destroyed by the crew with Molotov cocktails?
 
WelperHelper99 said:
I mean yes it does toss its turret in a spectacular fashion, but the T-72 was also meant to face the M60, not quadcopter drones and top attack missiles in the 21st century. He would be disingenuous if he doesn't bring up its age
Click to expand...
It also has to abide to a much stricter set of size and weight requirements than it's western counterparts due to the demands of Soviet logistics and operational mobility. They weren't going to compromise on mobility or firepower.
 
WelperHelper99 said:
I mean yes it does toss its turret in a spectacular fashion, but the T-72 was also meant to face the M60, not quadcopter drones and top attack missiles in the 21st century
Click to expand...
It was also designed primarily to be cheap and mass produced in attritable numbers and for export sale, the T-62/64 and the later T-80 were supposed to be the "good" tanks. And guess what? The Soviets succeeded, they did exactly what they meant to do and the T-72 along with its brothers are unequivocally successful and effective designs.
JJLiautaud said:
Is it even worth watching? I don't want to get aids.
Click to expand...
Just take your prep beforehand.
 
Sleazy Car Salesman said:
It was also designed primarily to be cheap and mass produced in attritable numbers and for export sale, the T-62/64 and the later T-80 were supposed to be the "good" tanks. And guess what? The Soviets succeeded, they did exactly what they meant to do and the T-72 along with its brothers are unequivocally successful and effective designs.
Click to expand...
It is remarkable that the T-72, despite being the cheap one, has lasted as long as it has.

Sleazy Car Salesman said:
Just take your prep beforehand
Click to expand...
I'm not excited. I'm tired boss
 
WelperHelper99 said:
It is remarkable that the T-72, despite being the cheap one, has lasted as long as it has.
Click to expand...
Eh, not really. The T-72 is the very definition of "good enough" and in 9/10 of all cases that's all you ever need to be. It's outright better than any of its non-Soviet contemporaries and won't cost you your first born to purchase like any of its superior non-Soviet competitors will, it's small and lightweight and so it works fine with just about any road, bridge, or rail system in the world, and it's legitimately dangerous if used to its strengths even against modern hardware.

It isn't the T-72's fault that most of its operators don't know their asses from their elbows, that most of its conflicts were fought by downgrade export models, and that it's a tank from the early seventies that frequently finds itself up against technology from the 2010s or newer in the modern day (most of which was designed specifically to kill the T-72, might I add).
 
Last edited:
WelperHelper99 said:
Idk boss, I'd take an M60 RISE for sheer AMERICAN STEEL over the T-72, but thats just me
Click to expand...
Horse a piece I'd say. The big issue with the M60 is the ammunition, the US didn't have good APDS until after the Soviets and Brits and it wasn't really until the Abrams that American APDS and APFSDS became the absolute hypebeast monsters that we view them as today. Of course the RISE package does give you IR capabilities which is a game changer.

The M60 isn't really a great tank until you get to the A3 variant, but the M60A3 is also half a decade newer than the T-72 and was made in direct response to it, while being more expensive larger and heavier, so my point still stands.
 
Sleazy Car Salesman said:
Horse a piece I'd say. The big issue with the M60 is the ammunition, the US didn't have good APDS until after the Soviets and Brits and it wasn't really until the Abrams that American APDS and APFSDS became the absolute hypebeast monsters that we view them as today. Of course the RISE package does give you IR capabilities which is a game changer.

The M60 isn't really a great tank until you get to the A3 variant, but the M60A3 is also half a decade newer than the T-72 and was made in direct response to it, while being more expensive larger and heavier, so my point still stands.
Click to expand...
With the ammo, I'd say it didn't help that we stuck with 90mm as long as we did, bottlenecked a lot of development programs
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom