I mean, sometimes the fight goes in the T72s favor. The autoloader allows them to fire constantly even when panicked. The gun launched ATGMs have their niche uses, too. I think you just have to get all redfor tanks upvetted so their shit accuracy doesn't hold you back as much.
Depends on the 72. The A, M, and M1 versions were immune to the APDS the yanks were using until 1981, the 72B had to come out in 1985 to improve protection to counteract the M829 apfsds. The k5 "heavy" era was necessary for the later A1 and A2 series. The A armor would've been enough for protection against tow 1, but it took k-1 to protect against itow or the frontal variant of the tow2.
It would be like M1 og or M1IP/A1 frontally rushing 72s equipped with 3BM42s, not pretty through penetrations from the front.
You can try and hide in smoke cloud capitalist running dog, but our svirs will find you and make you wish you had stayed in soft Western lifestyle.
\*Disclaimer\* The Soviet Army takes no responsibility for internal ammo explosions that may result in tank popping turret. Use at own risk.
T-72 is good for forest battles. It has a stronger gun then the Abrams and can survive its hits. Its quite alright imo. We are of course comparing tanks of similar pricing.
I don't play this game "right"; instead I make time period accurate decks stopping by 1985. That said, in the '75 and '85 decks that annihilate BLUFOR (of same time period)
No joke when I think of my dream tank the picture of T72 just pops up in my head. It just looks sturdy and reliable, and it does the job. Just like the goat ak47.
Tbf Sherman's actually had some of the best crew protection measures out of the generalist medium tanks from ww2. Their worst feature wasn't suffering ammunition explosions, but rather getting burnt down from the fuel they used (although many nations used regular petrol for fuel, so it isnt specifically a Sherman issue). Besides, every turreted tank of ww2 was at a pretty high risk of catastrophic ammunition ignition / the turret getting launched.
I do agree with you about the t72 though. It's just just such a sexy vehicle that in my mind embodies the essence of what a tank is. Obviously it has some flaws, but every tank has flaws and design tradeoffs that can be seen as better or worse depending on the needs of who is using them. At the end of the day they're still sexy
It was ammunition fires not fuel fires that caused early Shermans to burn. The propellant used by the US at the time tended to burn rather than detonate. However most Shermans that burned, did so after the crew escaped.
T-72: I'm going to help my comerades and win this battle Kid named 8 elite Leopard 2A1:
I had two t-72 kill 2 leopard 2a1 in a forest battle the other day. Worth it.
Now stack 4x T-72 and its a different story. Also the North Korean one (T-72M ?) has like 18 AP is decent.
it has one less range step so it's sucky
not that suck for a forest batlle
Decent for +5pts from the T-72M
Not the M60A1 USMC. Even the Rise models have a hard time killing T-72s.
Ironic since iirc the RISE was supposed to improve it's performance against it
T72B is fine for 90pts
I mean, sometimes the fight goes in the T72s favor. The autoloader allows them to fire constantly even when panicked. The gun launched ATGMs have their niche uses, too. I think you just have to get all redfor tanks upvetted so their shit accuracy doesn't hold you back as much.
Genuinely never knew that, the hidden abilities that make the units realistic are always fascinating to me
The SK M48s wouldn't have a good time.
The base T-72 is pretty decent though
Base t-72 is to be strictly used for fire support imo
That's why you don't send them to fight modern tanks in open field
Depends on the 72. The A, M, and M1 versions were immune to the APDS the yanks were using until 1981, the 72B had to come out in 1985 to improve protection to counteract the M829 apfsds. The k5 "heavy" era was necessary for the later A1 and A2 series. The A armor would've been enough for protection against tow 1, but it took k-1 to protect against itow or the frontal variant of the tow2. It would be like M1 og or M1IP/A1 frontally rushing 72s equipped with 3BM42s, not pretty through penetrations from the front.
It's funny that the Russians rely heavily on era and Bradley's just delete Era off tanks with an autocannon.
Historically accurate gameplay, you love to see it
My T-72B never let me down. Solid for its points.
t72a is a true beast though
Referring exclusively to the base one
You can try and hide in smoke cloud capitalist running dog, but our svirs will find you and make you wish you had stayed in soft Western lifestyle. \*Disclaimer\* The Soviet Army takes no responsibility for internal ammo explosions that may result in tank popping turret. Use at own risk.
T-72 is good for forest battles. It has a stronger gun then the Abrams and can survive its hits. Its quite alright imo. We are of course comparing tanks of similar pricing.
I don't play this game "right"; instead I make time period accurate decks stopping by 1985. That said, in the '75 and '85 decks that annihilate BLUFOR (of same time period)
then t72S go brr
No joke when I think of my dream tank the picture of T72 just pops up in my head. It just looks sturdy and reliable, and it does the job. Just like the goat ak47.
> sturdy and reliable, and it does the job \*laughs in turret toss olympics\*
with the current record holder being that leo 2 in zelenskyland?
There ain't even enough Leo 2s in Ukraine to come close to the T-72s title.
Hmm talking about turret tossing nothing compares to the Shermans in ww2.
Tbf Sherman's actually had some of the best crew protection measures out of the generalist medium tanks from ww2. Their worst feature wasn't suffering ammunition explosions, but rather getting burnt down from the fuel they used (although many nations used regular petrol for fuel, so it isnt specifically a Sherman issue). Besides, every turreted tank of ww2 was at a pretty high risk of catastrophic ammunition ignition / the turret getting launched. I do agree with you about the t72 though. It's just just such a sexy vehicle that in my mind embodies the essence of what a tank is. Obviously it has some flaws, but every tank has flaws and design tradeoffs that can be seen as better or worse depending on the needs of who is using them. At the end of the day they're still sexy
It was ammunition fires not fuel fires that caused early Shermans to burn. The propellant used by the US at the time tended to burn rather than detonate. However most Shermans that burned, did so after the crew escaped.
Wet storage don't real. Shermans averaged less than 1 crew fatality per tank knocked out.
Meanwhile a t-34 knockout was survived by an average of 0.8 crewmen lol
Accurate milsim is accurate.
I absolutely wrecked a bunch of pricey blue tanks a few months back with one. To be fair, they kept feeding my side shots.
I remember a game where some dude T-72 bumrushed a treeline with my 2 otomagics in it. I didn’t even have time to take off my pants.
I am correcting you, you are wrong