Are Russian tanks poorly designed?

Russian tanks aren't as poorly designed as you think.

The T-72 was designed during The Cold War when the main threat came from the main guns of other main battle tanks. So the T-72 was designed to be cheap to produce, small and hard to hit.

Smart weapons like the Javelin and NLAW have changed the game. Now it doesn't matter how small you are when a computer does the hunting and killing. So the T-72 was a well-designed tank for its time and its intended purpose.

[Expired.vegetable]

Wow this guy's knowledge seems like he's been a anti tank infantryman for 20 years

[thecommentguy]

"the javelin doesn't care how small you are"
finally a girl who doesn't discriminate your size

[Seriouspatt]

Most Russian problems seem to boil down to "it's not 1985 anymore".

[JerryMetal]

Just put a smaller toy tank on top of the turret to distract the Javelin

[fishy]

"That American soldier got a bit more modern RPG there's no chance he will hit us. WHY IS THE ROCKET STEERING"

[Leoisatank]

A smart man I cant remember once said..
"Dont prepare for the world of today... prepare for the world of tomorrow."

[michaelangelo]

In Syria, we called the Russian T72, the monster. It took several RPG 7 hits and it barely did anything to it due to reactive armour. It was undefeated until the US supplied TOWs

[eon]

When you prepare for one certain enemy all your life and instead fight another type of enemy.

[ianmason]

One other thing to be considered is that the autoloader is but an enabler of the turret-popping: the ignition source tends to be spare ammunition stored in the crew compartment getting hit with another tank round or missile.

Ukrainian doctrine dictates that no ammunition should be stored outside the autoloader; this has drastically improved crew survival.

[TheWolvesCurse]

i just recently watchen an interview with one of the engineers who had a hand in developing the Leopard 2. when asked about the T72, he said that following the soviet doctrine, logistics and manpower avaliable it was a extremely well designed tank which worked exactly as it was intended. it wasn't designed for asymetric warfare as we see now predominantly. it was made to strike a hole into NATO defense lines and rush the Fulda gap and push through to the french border. damaged units were to be abandoned and replaced by new ones. this is also what we see in Ukraine now. the military of the Russian federation just doesn't have the might of the soviet union ones, so it doesn't work as intended anymore.

[resistance]

Makes sense, they aren’t a bad design just out of date.

[hoshimiruu]

finally someone that doesn't just point at autoloaders and say "haha turret space program"

[mayferrera]

“The javelin doesn’t care how small you are”

Bro I wish women were like that

[gfygber]

The small size and auto loader also helps the crew to be evaporated inside when hit, it's a nice way to save body bags.

[ExUSSailor]

It's amazing to me just how much Russia let their doctrine & tactics stagnate. They keep sending tanks into urban areas without supporting dismounts. And, SURPRISE! It keeps resulting in the same thing.

[OldBlue]

“if it got hit you weren’t getting another one”
Government spending: Am I a joke to you?

[mtaaaaa]

"The Javelin doesn't care how small you are"

Edit: cheesus pizza, I don't think I've gotten this much on a comment before

[jamesgornall]

FINALLY someone who doesnt just criticise without analysing at least some reasoning behind design choices. Also, consider this... Modern ATGM do not care how big you are, they can disable an M1 even with its 77 ton mass. Also, a T72 costs 5-8% what an M1 costs. You lose it, its a lot of tank to replace

[chrishooge]

Dude, you are killing it. Another fact, when we introduced the Bradley in the late 1980s every IFV had to be reclassified as a ATGM bearing Tank Destroyer platform.

[danbandito]

I really enjoy your breakdowns on the Russian tanks, ive learned a ton from them!