安装 Steam
登录
|
语言
繁體中文（繁体中文）
日本語（日语）
한국어（韩语）
ไทย（泰语）
български（保加利亚语）
Čeština（捷克语）
Dansk（丹麦语）
Deutsch（德语）
English（英语）
Español-España（西班牙语 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙语 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希腊语）
Français（法语）
Italiano（意大利语）
Bahasa Indonesia（印度尼西亚语）
Magyar（匈牙利语）
Nederlands（荷兰语）
Norsk（挪威语）
Polski（波兰语）
Português（葡萄牙语 - 葡萄牙）
Português-Brasil（葡萄牙语 - 巴西）
Română（罗马尼亚语）
Русский（俄语）
Suomi（芬兰语）
Svenska（瑞典语）
Türkçe（土耳其语）
Tiếng Việt（越南语）
Українська（乌克兰语）
报告翻译问题
此主题已被置顶，因此可能具有重要性 
讨论规则及指引
2 
举报此帖
lol,...I heard different reports from Iranian Chieftain commanders when they even faced the monkey models. One shell hit em and everything inside the chieftain was shattered and they had to bail out.
T-72 is not a horrible tank, but compared to the T-64 and the T-80, it is a lesser tank.
T-72 was not considered a "lesser tank" by any means. The T-72B Obr 1989 has better protection than a T-80U, so this is not accurate. Yes, the divisions equipped with T-72 were based in the SU itself, but that's it. As a matter of fact, there were a ton of T-62 as well deployed in GSVG, and that's definitely a worse tank than a T-72.
The T-72B obr.1989 is an edge case, specifically made to bring T-72 up to T-80 standards. The majority of T-72s were not T-72B Obr.1989. The fact that GSFG had T-62 isn't really that relevant. Logistical concerns trumped minor tactical advantages and T-72 was not a better tank than T-64 until very very late in the cold war.
They already have the perfect way to introduce them with southag, since there were soviet T72 tanks in czechoslovakia
"Cheaper" does not mean worse, especially when you need reliable, comparable quality equipment but in big numbers.
T-80 was using a gas turbine, and made it ridiculously expensive to maintain and exploit. It used the same exact gun and comparable FCS. In fact they both share components. Both T-72 and T-80 started production in the 70's, 4 years apart to be exact. T-64 stopped being in production around late 80s because it started to show its age and the issues with its suspension and engine were not resolved. But the Soviets needed tanks, so did their East German allies. If Soviets would offload "lesser" tanks to their allies, they'd be exclusively armed with T-34s, T-54/T-55 and T-62s.
There's a good reason why T-72 was chosen as a successor, the T-90. T-90 was also started as a Soviet development. War in Ukraine has again proven it's much more important to have reliable but available in numbers equipment than fancy-shmancy "good for movies" tech. T-14 was only reportedly used only once, and was already put a verdict that it's simply too expensive to use in such a conflict, meanwhile T-72s and T-90s are flying off the conveyor belts. Even T-62s.
Tell that to the Soviets, that was their opinion at the time. Much like the Germans (mainly Hitler) who was of the opinion that tanks like the Tiger line and Panther were 'superior' because of their better armour and gun, when the true workhorse of the Wehrmacht was the StuGs and Panzer IVs which were both proven to be reliable, effective, and most of all, cheap to produce.
Again, this all comes from the Soviet's OWN statements regarding their choices on tanks. They were of the belief that the T-72 was inferior to the T-64 and the T-80, that's why the T-72 was the export model, and they kept the T-64s and T-80s for the Guards Divisions. It wasn't until the collapse of the Soviet Union that the two were dropped entirely from actual production and focus was put on the T-72 for the reason already stated, it was significantly cheaper to make, as the T-90 is just a rebranded T-72 to avoid the bad name it got during the Gulf War.
They didn't.
Also T-64 production ended BEFORE USSR collapsed, with T-72 being selected as a successor for T-90 and further modifications. Also before USSR collapsed.
Anyways go get yourself a book by Bariatinsky regarding T-72. Everything is explained there to minute detail. I basically typed everything in my initial post straight out of that book.
Nice meme about Gulf War T-72, 5/5.
https://thesovietarmourblog.blogspot.com/2015/05/t-72-soviet-progeny.html
Your own bloody source even backs the original statement up.
Guards units were considered the cream of the crop for the Soviet armed forces, having the first dips to the best the Soviet industry provides.
The point that is being made here isn't that the T-72 is a bad tank or straight up inferior to the T-80 and the T-64, the entire point is that the T-72 was considered inferior by the Soviets to the tanks they considered better, that being the T-64 and the T-80, thus why the T-72 didn't make it to Guards units. Thus the original point still stands, the T-72 is assigned to regular Army units, aka, the secondary Divisions, that don't get priority.
Soviet Tanks got a negative reputation in the various conflicts they were utilised for the reasons that were directly linked to Soviet tank design compared to the western counterparts, that being poor crew ergonomics, vision, and lack of gun depression. They had their advantages, significantly lower profile, and better armour due to angling, but this came with a heavy price that, again, the west puts more emphasis on, crew survival. Soviet tanks were not designed with the idea in mind that the crew can evacuate the tank easily in case it was knocked out, meaning that in case of a ammo explosion, or internal fire, the crew was toast. Not so much with the Western Tanks, which is why they tend to be gigantic in comparison to the Soviets when profile is considered.
Gulf War is the prime example of this, but there were other moments in world history where Soviet Tanks were proven to be rather poor in performance. Valley of Tears is another one of these examples, where the lack of gun depression made it nigh impossible for the T-55s and T-62s to fight back against the dug in Centurions.
I will once again reiterate to ensure you get my point, and that of Eugen in this case, the T-72 is not a bad tank, it was considered inferior to the T-64 and the T-80 series by the Soviets, thus why it didn't see deployment in the Guards Divisions.
Again to pull the example from Germans of WW2, the Panzer Divisions that were considered elite by the High Command were given the tank they considered the best, that being the Panther and the Tiger models, while the Panzer IV and the StuG was usually used to fill up everyone else. Meanwhile if you look into the actual qualities of these tanks, you will very quickly understand that the Panther and the Tiger were both logistical nightmares, much like the T-80 is.
So far we do not have second grade Soviet Divisions in the game, as those are not needed by the Soviets in Europe as of yet. They have those from the Pact nations, as we see in game. Plenty of T-72s from the East Germans and now the Poles. When the Czechs come in, we get even more, but until we get a Soviet Tank Division that isn't a Guards formation but regular Army formation, the T-72 will continue to be found in other Pact nations.
I'm not arguing about the game itself at all. I only addressed the "lesser T-64" meme. In the game itself T-72 is BETTER than T-64 as well, it's one of the best tanks, 7th/9th is one of the best battlegroups, simply because it's good enough at everything while being spammable (130+ points).