Why Ukraine destroys Russian tanks easily, wiping out over 700 of them so far, is due to a design flaw in the T72 tank that makes it catastrophically blow up when hit with an anti-tank missile.
Why Ukraine Destroys Russian Tanks So Easily
The T72 Russian tank is designed to be smaller than the U.S. Abrams tank and operated by a smaller crew. This is made possible by the automatic loader that is built into the turret assembly, just above the heads of the crew. This would seem to be a big advantage over the US Army’s Abrams tank, but it comes at a big tradeoff in safety and is why why the Russian T72 tank is so easy for Ukraine forces to destroy.
The Abrams Tank Safety Features
In contrast, the US Army’s Abrams tank is larger, requires a larger crew, and its shells are manually loaded by a crew member. The ammunition is stored in a separate compartment that has a “blow out” panel that releases the explosive force in the event that the tank is hit and its ammunition is detonated. This greatly increases the likelihood that the crew will survive and that the tank will not be completely destroyed.
How Ukraine Forces Kill Russian T72 Tanks
There is a thinner panel on the side of the T72 tank near the ammunition storage and autoloader. This spot is well known to Ukrainian forces, and a hit on the top of the turret or on this side panel will detonate all the ammunition stored in the autoloader. The resulting massive explosion will kill the crew instantly and will often blow the turret off of the tank. Funerals for T72 tank crews are closed casket because there is little left of their bodies that is recognizable.
Follow UkraineNewsStories.com for Ukraine news and news analysis.
Video production courtesy of CRUX on YouTube
Photo courtesy of Armed Forces of Ukraine
@fartyboots Damn. Sounds like a waste of food for the dogs.
“The autoloader reportedly reduces the number of personnel needed by 25%.” Good intel! Nobody would have guessed that.
the tank’s amo’ exploding reduces the number of personnel needed by 100%.
How much “data” is collected during conflicts where new weapons are “tested” in real-time, and how valuable is it, regardless of the deaths involved?
Cause Russia was always threatening and fluffing bragging about his military power , but when real combat comes, the true form has been revealed
Its pretty strong, Ukraina just very large and opening large corridor, if Russian only open from donesk and Crimea, it might have diffeent story..
But i guess thats not the objective for Russian army.
But you can compare it to Iraqi war, this war is much harder and much more land controlled
“Reports suggest that such events are instantly fatal to the crew.” No kidding! Being inside a tank has always been considered the safest place to be on the battlefield – and also the quickest way to die without prolonged agony. Tank crews get closed closed-coffin funerals for good reason.
Well well well….
I remember a year ago how “great” Russian tanks were, even better than the Abrams.
And now?
I also remember Russia selling a ton of tanks to Iraq, stating they could easily beat the Abrams.
During the opening invasion, largest tank battle in modern history, America lost “1” Abrams, because it blew a track.
Guess the world should start buying Russian hahaha
And if Russia is this weak, you know it instills fear in China, they have been VERY quiet lately.
More men doesnt mean stronger, sorry.
They had way worse tanks in ww2 than the germans, lost a ton of them….BUT…they had far more than the germans and that was the turning point. Its better to have more soldiers with inferior weapons than less with better it seems.
quality goes in, before the volume of sales increases….. not like modern ‘plastic’ computerized rolling piles of money-pits VEHICLES….TOYOTA OR HONDA, or my bicycle….
“Reports suggest that such events are instantly fatal to the crew.” No kidding! Being inside a tank has always been considered the safest place to be on the battlefield – and also the quickest way to die without prolonged agony. Tank crews get closed closed-coffin funerals for good reason.
“Wait, i thought we were supposed to display these only on parades” Said the tanks operators.
The “huge damage” is explained by the fact that there has been 50+ years of technological advancement of weapons designed specifically to destroy such tanks.
@Wry and Dry Not what you have but how you use it. An aircraft carrier still carries all the advantages of having air power on tap. You can’t really compare. An aircraft carrier can be screened by dozens of ships that are the most modern in the world. If 1 carrier task force gets destroyed in a war, one of the other dozen or so will fill its role . China doesn’t have the munitions in rapid enough storage to handle… hundreds of planes penetrating it’s airspace all over. And in a real war scenario like Taiwan, guess who makes all the hardware and 90+% of the OS used in technical computers in China? USA 🇺🇸 . The US can wage cyberwarfare like no other nation can. It has the sheer scale and technology on its side. The Americans are already giving Taiwan tons of modern Harpoon missiles.
@Bill Bopperton Maybe the Rus are not consistently using infantry and drones the way they need to in their tank operations? I saw a video about a month ago of Ukes on foot armed with ATGMs or similar, lurking probably under 100m from a road, seemingly trying to ambush a tank. They had gotten shot to pieces, seemingly with heavy-machine-gun fire. I figured they were probably detected by IR surveillance of some kind.
@Bill Bopperton “guess who makes all the hardware and 90+% of the OS used in technical computers in China? USA 🇺🇸 . ” Huh? I thought they were making our chips and maybe were putting back doors in them. Certainly they aren’t using US-made desktop computers in their weapons-system CAD/CAM. I would think they would use some linux derivative for their embedded systems. Or maybe I’m wrong.
@Wry and Dry , Military development of offensive and defensive weapons will never end. The need for carriers will become obsolete akin to the lack of needing heavy Battleships.
@cairo but the design of the frame and turret are, as those can’t be replaced with a completely new design during an upgrade/refit.
The main issue, that is completely ignored by this video, and almost all media during this conflict, is that the T72 was never designed to take on a similar size force, but instead were made cheap, and with little care for the crew, and the Soviet’s planned on using their overwhelming numbers to blast through NATO units, who tanks were better, but available in much smaller numbers.
Russia on the other hand, outnumbers the Ukrainians, but not by the extent that was planned when the T72 was designed. In 1984 The Warsaw Pact had 3+ times the number of tanks of NATO, almost twice as many ATGM launchers, about 2.5 times as much artillery and approximately 3 times as many APCs/IFVs. And most importantly, those NATO equipment totals include not just what was deployed within Europe, but also equipment the US military had within the USA, South Korea and elsewhere.
Yes, much Soviet gear wasn’t necessary ready to storm the gap, but moving the rest of their military West ovule be easily accomplished via rail lines in the weeks before a conflict, while the US would likely require a year or more to move significant amounts of heavy weapon systems to Europe. Remember, the build up to the first Gulf War took 6 months or so, and many units ended up not being at full strength due to limitations on transportation.
So, not only are these old, and often outdated, and poorly maintained, T72s in smaller numbers than they were designed to operate in, but it seems the Russian troops aren’t dismounting to protect against ATGM teams, which itself is a death sentence, especially with the number of anti tank systems that have been provided to Ukrainian forces.
Look at the footage of a bunch of these ATGM shots, often recorded by drones, and you’ll see that even a half hearted infantry screen should have discovered and engaged those anti tank teams long before they were able to fire on the tanks. Hell, teams equipped with very short range ATGM are able to engage enemy tanks without being engaged by Russian infantry, which is insane.
I think when an analysis is done in the aftermath, the metallurgy of the armor will reveal that the armor and steel is not the quality it is supposed to be. High-quality steel and armor plate is expensive, and the Russian military and industry is so corrupt that they probably have been providing much cheaper and weaker steel for their tanks for many, many years. It would not surprise me if this has been going on for decades.
@DEEEEEEEENCH ouch you got me can’t win them all ig maybe US could take some pointers from Russia and Cuba
@Orcawhale We could forge it and heat treat it to produce the specific properties needed for use in jet engines. China and Russia are still trying to figure it out.
forge and roll it.We could heat treat it and machine it.
You’ve hit the nail on the head there, the corruption means that the forces will always get useless equipment as well as minimal training and resources.
Jon651 After seeing some armored vehicles splattered into small pieces beyond any recognition , not just having turrets blown away, I think you are right. This can be rarely seen before (the hull was mostly intact) and makes me wonder if the welding process was done correctly
I don’t think yu can conclude that. The concept tank is currently, with all the advanced ATGM missles in large quantities around, a bad one without extensive tactical protective measures. I have no doubt that a javelin will kill an abrams and Leopart or whatever just as easy. Leoparts have been uses in combat in the far east, and poor tactics, just letting them sit around, exposing the back as an easy target, has killed several of them by ATGM. Good steel or not. 1100mm penetration capable double heat is what it is: deadly for all tanks.
03:25 I was wondering why so many Russian tank turrets were off the tank after a shelling. Bad war, bad design. Time to go home.
The T-72 is hardly a “Super Tank.” We faced them twice, in Iraq with very few losses. They’re just a plain, *old*, tank.
@Piano Music I wouldn’t describe the Ukrainian Army of 2022 “a joke” considering they have managed to stop the Russians from taking their country, a task that many thought would happen in a few days!
I doubt Putin will risk more than 30% losses of his armed forces and their equipment. However I believe he will, all be it foolishly, be willing to risk and endure up to that kind of loss.
@Tricky Foxx Puerto Rico has azure blue seas, palm fringed beaches and coral reefs… Afghanistan, less so. Why would anyone want to colonise Afghanistan? Oh, nice rug industry perhaps??
T-72B3 is a complete different tank then the T-72 and it’s a TOTAL different tank then the Iraq T-72 replica even reports of 30mm armour on the sides That’s like saying the M1A1 Abrams is old not really because it’s been upgraded into the M1A2 … simple but you’re just a an American what do you know about then outside world
“The autoloader reportedly reduces the number of personnel needed by 25%” LOL 😄😄 OBVIOUSLY.
The javelin reduces the required crew by 100%.
I’m not sure it’s a massive surprise that a 50 year old tank that’s from an army with poor maintenance records and terrible supply issues is so easily defeated by weapons designed in the succeeding 50 years to destroy them.
And that too when most of the ones are straight up revived from junkyards…. staying there for 20-30 yrs
@Trolling Them Softly modernization does just upgrade its electronics which does not really do anything for the tank survival and protection
@Magnificent Goldie Russian tanks are small, cramped and are light to increase mobility so they can be used to invade. Their gun has a very limited elevation and depression so they are very poor in hilly terrain or urban fighting. Russians tanks are great invading poorly armed little countries such as Czechoslovakia or Hungary to stop them breaking away. Their greatest success.
@Viceral Man could say the same thing about the Abrams kid lol they have obviously upgraded them the design is perfectly fine just needs another upgrade just like the Abrams
I think it’s a mistake to call the T-72, who’s design is now 50 years old, or any variation of it a ‘Super Tank’. It’s place on the battlefield today, as well as in many former Soviet republics stocks is due over 18,000 of them having been built before the fall of Soviet Union. The original purpose was to overwhelm any possible NATO armor resistence through sheer size of force. It is no longer being built, but existing ones have seen upgrades in tech and explosive anti-ordinance armor. In Russian tank heirarchy, the T-14 is the true Super Tank. Unfortunately (only to Russia) the planned obsolescence of the T-72 hasn’t happened.
@Coda Alive There just aren’t enough of them to really make anyone nervous, from what I hear. And they’re not using them now because they just don’t want to chance the bad press of losing one (or more).
@Milferd Jones The Russian economy is comparable with Belgium. Strip out petrol chemicals and gas and the economy is about the size of Paris (Texas).
@JengaBanga As far as I know, the T-14 failures at the parade where operator errors, they activated an emergency stop system. Poorly trained soldiers operating them. How good it will be in combat? Who knows. The gun specs are impressive.
@Katimbo Allan NO. Western tanks are not indestructable, they also only coock with water. Reactive and normal armor are not magic. If ou use a javelin, NLAW or other ATGM against an Abram or leopart, they will be toast too, no doubt. Leopart tanks have seen war in the middle east and bad tactics made them easy targets. Several of them stanbding exposed got hit in the back by capable ATGM and where destroyed. ATGM are a deadly threat to all tanks and it really requires a very good tactic and plan to use tanks without loosing them with today’s man-carried and plentiful threats..
As a certain famous person might say, “A rapid unscheduled dissassembly”. I guess the turret is the blow out panel.
Aka “Major Malfunction”…
“A significant emotional event”.
when hot pieces of metal are punching through your armor, you’re having a really bad day.
“Reports suggest that such events are instantly fatal to the crew.” No kidding! Being inside a tank has always been considered the safest place to be on the battlefield – and also the quickest way to die without prolonged agony. Tank crews get closed closed-coffin funerals for good reason.
And that’s why we place one of our dog-tags in the lacing of our boot.. It’s the only recognizable thing left.
@Ci Absalon Not if your feet are destroyed.
@Spidifredi drug use in the US military has historically been pretyy hihg. Especially in Vietnam.
But to be fair, Russia does have the best fleet of billion dollar yachts in the world.
not any longer, the large part of that fleet has been arrested in many ports around the globe
The T-72 is far from “Putin’s Super Tank” as it’s a 50 year old design. It also has blow-off panels, it’s call the turret…
@UK man loves goddesses This ^ and the fact that the number of Armatas they have is not enough to make a difference, they have barely enough of them for military parades.
@Mark Novack That might have worked 70 years ago but not now. Each tank costs millions, needs a lot of resources and time to build, but AT weapons and disposable drones are peanuts in comparison and can be run off assembly lines pretty quickly.
@Tony Yarbray How would it pop it tops if it has blowout panels on the side of the tank.
@SatiricalMonkey ? they did do a parade of them they have around 200 of them not enough for ukraine still but a wonderful peice of technology at best.
The main issue plagues all tanks, where there is little to no armor on top of the tank, making it easy for javelins, NLAWs and airstrikes to penetrate and destroy the tanks from above, which is how most of these tanks were destroyed. Auto-loaders malfunction often and in the case of Russian tanks tend to eat the crew members arms from time-to-time. For the last 60-70 years Russian tanks have had the poor idea of storing ammunition around the turret, making it very easy to detonate the entire supply on impact. This unlike American tanks that store their rounds near the engine compartment where it would be very difficult to set off. Also most of these tanks don’t have the higher levels of reactive armor, probably because it’s so expensive. Poor logistics, command structure, moral and low crew quality ultimately factor into why these tanks are so poorly used, often being sent in without infantry support, or outrunning their infantry support, a mistake made in the winter war in Finland.
The concept of storing ammunition in a separated compartment with blast doors was first used in the german Leopard 2. The Abrams followed the Leopard 2 design and came a few years later. It’s not like that this type of design came from american tanks…
Tanks without infantry support have always been vulnerable. In WW2 German tanks apparently feared Russian infantry more than Russian tanks: if infantry got close they could target the engine vents whereas the Russian tanks often lacked the fire-power to penetrate the main armor. Of course, that said, the tanks still killed many Russian infantry even without their own infantry support (they could spin on their axis when Russian soldiers got close and mince them all with the tracks).
Modern autoloaders often malfunctioning is rather a myth. Same as numbers of limbs lost, that hasn’t been a significant issue aside of very early designs.
@Bill Pugh Who exactly never said that? I answered James P who said, that american tanks have their ammo stored separated from the crew, while it is only the Abrams and not american tanks in general. And i just pointed out, that this is not something american tanks came up with. It is more like western tanks in general follow this design feature with the germans went ahead with it. So whats wrong with that? Seems more like you are the one sounding triggered…