Richard Cutland flew to Australia to talk about the T-72 there (because, you know, there are totally none in Europe). You can view his video here:
Now, as usual with Cutland's videos, there are mistakes. Here's what was found in this one:
First of all, this vehicle is not just "T-72", it's a T-72M1 vehicle from former Czechoslovakia (produced under license), so not exactly a typical thing.
- Number produces: Russian sources (Pavlov, Baryatinsky) state over 30k;
- The reason was not to replace the aging T-64A, but to provide an alternative to it, T-64A was actually more advanced and was for interior use only, while T-72 was to be exported as well;
- The costs are actually very relative because the "40 percent less" cost concerns the T-72 "Ural" (first model) that did not have composite armor;
- The "V-shaped plate" (plate? you mean the mudguard?) is not distinctive, T-64A has it too. It could however serve as a difference from T-55, if you can't tell at first glance;
- Height is not correct, should be cca 2,19 meters (Source: T-72 Soviet manual), Challenger took his number from wikipedia;
- Evenly spaced roadwheels? Not really, but it's not as pronounced as on the T-54/55;
- 5:50 video - that's a T-64, not T-72;
- The gun actually fires SHITLOADS of rounds;
- OF-26 "ATFT" what the "frack" is that? It's not even an original designation, it's the designation of the shell itself (even that is wrong, should be was 3OF26), the round was called 3VOF36 and it was a HE round;
- Ammo count is not correct: he mentions 22 rounds in autoloader (correct) but also 17 rounds outside of autoloader, which varied from model to model, 39 in total was correct only for T-72 Ural, what he is looking at is T-72M1, which had 44 or 45 rounds;
- Funny part how he talks about an unupgraded T-72 in front of an upgraded Czechoslovak T-72M1...but, whatever.