Find me at:

Support

Sunday 22 March 2015

Richard Cutland talks about T-72 (Corrections Included)

Hello warriors,

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.

37 comments:

  1. SS, why does Rita sign these?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is the Rita Borg Collective, we have assimilated SS, his biological and technological distinctiveness has been added to our own. Lower your firewall and surrender to the changes. Resistance is futile.

      Delete
    2. Because SS can't. His job doesn't allow it.

      Delete
    3. I surrender to Rita, I'll be your slave and you can assimilate me, as long as I get some chocolate in the process :) :) :) Rok Turk, that was rhetorical question, but thanks for clearing it up!

      Delete
    4. You can have all the chocolate, I'm allergic to it. :D

      Delete
  2. What a rough life to have review tanks......

    ReplyDelete
  3. The T-72 was supposed to replace the T-62, which the Soviets didn't like that much, as well as the T-55. As they knew the T-64 was too expensive to do this.

    The T-80 was designed to replace the T-64 series.

    ReplyDelete
  4. A lot of those mistakes seem like nitpicking just to make Cutland look bad (like the height. Oh no, he was wrong by 4 cm. How does he dare to do that?). The same with the production numbers. He said "over 25 000 units", which at least based on my knowledge of maths, includes 30 000 (and 35 000). And sources can vary wildly, depending on how you count and who does the counting.

    Also, he said OF-26 HEFT, not ATFT. So before criticising information presented by someone, it might be smart to learn sufficient English to actually understand what they are saying wrong. I'm not saying that it makes his information any more correct, but the point stands.

    And even if it is a modernised T-72, it's still a T-72. Might've been nice to mention it but does it really matter?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. this modernised T-72 can beat early models of abrams or T90 :) old T-72 wouldnt have any chance :)

      Delete
    2. wonder who wrote this , seems like SS is writing again.

      Delete
    3. @uploader51: The only difference between T-72 and T-72M1 is slightly thicker hull armour and newer composite armour on the turret. Doesn't make it any better

      @ewanc9: The "mistakes" are a direct copy-paste from SS' youtube comment on that video.

      Delete
    4. yeh SS is really on a witch hunt for this guy , he needs to calm the fuck down.

      Delete
    5. You made your point which I give a +1 except on the nitpicking, reading it now I know it seems like it but there were stuff I could have written but left aside as I'm not gonna turn this into a witch hunt. I don't have anything personal against Richard, everyone does mistakes in their life but some things have to be pointed out, makes part of this job, and so far this has been the hardest thing I had to do on the blog. Next time will try to make the information more neutral.

      Delete
    6. +1 Niko Holkko . Rita, this post seemed mean spirited. We have enough toxic culture in WoT; you don't need to add to it. It's especially harmful, since you're criticizing someone who is doing his job. I wonder how you would like it if people blogged about what a bad job you're doing?

      You have an opportunity to be a positive influence in our community. Don't waste it.

      Delete
    7. @Rita: I like you and I respect that you took up SS' mantle. I respect SS as well for all the work he has done. Sometimes it just feels like the man has some sort a grudge against certain individuals who work for Wargaming.

      I wish you made this blog a bit more of your own style. Sometimes it feels like some of the things you write come directly from SS (I'm not saying he's a bad source, but it's your blog after all and not his).

      I'm glad that you are willing to take feedback and I apologise if my original post had a slightly negative and arrogant tone in it. Probably a left over from trying to do my daily triples with the drooling weekend warriors. You know how it is :P.

      Delete
  5. Some of those are nitpicks, yes. But anyone with even a passing interest in modern tanks should know that the T-72 wasn't intended to replace the T-64, as the original model T-72 was vastly inferior to it. I know a few guys who were stationed in Germany in the 80s, and while they knew all about the T-72 and its variants the T-64 was still a mystery to them. The Sovs kept it all to themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I love when he speeks of smoothbore canons.

    The Soviets ditched rifled in favor of smoothbore, after them the Russians stayed with smoothbore.
    The Americans ditched rifled in favor of smoothbore.
    The Germans ditched rifled in favor of smoothbore.
    The French ditched rifled in favor of smoothbore.
    Even the British have upgrade programs for their challengers to finally ditch the rifled in favor of a smoothbore.

    And there is Richard saying "You can debate smoothbore vs rifled untill the cows come home". No, you cant smoothbore is better and it is proven by all the major tank building powers using them. You can debate because you are not objective. That doesnt change the fact you are wrong.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Britain isn't replacing its guns, you clearly aren't objective.

      Delete
    2. The popularity of the smoothbore guns has a lot to do with the popularity of the tanks using them.

      The benefits of a smoothbore have mostly to do with longer barrel life, which hasn't been borne out (L30 barrel life is at least as long as 120mm smoothbore), and better retention of gases behind the projectile, but smoothbore guns have gasses escaping anyway. Seems as though only HEAT really benefited all that much and they're fairly depreciated in anti tank use.

      Delete
    3. @ ewanc9 They aren't replacing their guns because it costs money. Not because rifled guns are somehow better, which is why almost no one uses them...

      Delete
    4. Then why send R&D to develop a new type of rifled gun with the same life as a smothbore ;)
      Also, HESH

      Delete
  7. Cutland needs to be shot dead. He is a bastard that doesn't deserve to suck air another second, just like Serb

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Erm, shot dead? I dislike this fellow too, but that's a bit rough mate.

      Delete
    2. Easy fella, everyone makes mistakes in their life, no need to wish that upon Richard.

      Delete
    3. His mistakes are too great to be forgiven.

      Delete
  8. Nobody wondering why he made a video about a tank that will never appear in wot? yet most likely will be in aw?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Well, atleast he isn't reading his lines in this one, atleast not clearly. Altough, might be the rumours, but to me he appears drunk. :P

    ReplyDelete
  10. Yet he starts out leaning on a future tier 6 premium.
    Australia says thanks for the mention Richard.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. i hope they bring in the sentinel soon :3
      i'd definitely buy it as i'm from Aus and a big fan of the 17pdr

      Delete
  11. Regarding ammo capacity, they eventually stopped storing rounds outside of the autoloader because they were more easily cooked off than those in the carousel.

    Regarding ammo that it would fire, T72s were originally equipped with the 2A26M at the newest, with the 2A46M-1, chamber pressure was bumped up and any ammo made to take advantage of it is a no go in an unupgraded T-72. Source: http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/ARM/2a46.html

    ReplyDelete
  12. Aside from the Mis-information in this video, I really object to Wargaming starting a tour of "Asia" by coming to us here in Australia. Would love to be referred to as Oceania as this cluster truly is. Dump the "SEA" server in favour of it I say. IM sure players in NZ, Fiji and other Pacific Island nations would agree. WE ARE NOT ASIA!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. yeah i agree! but there should at least be a choice when you log in, as i have a few friends from the Asia server that i would no longer get to see.

      but yeah, your right, most countries in Oceania have rubbish internet and can't get a stable connection to people all the way in japan (esp Aus)

      Delete
    2. I understand what youre saying mate, but you misunderstand me. I dont mind the server being located in Singapore, I just dont like that its called the "South East Asian" server, when so many players are from the pacific nations. Call it the "Oceania" Server instead... I know its just a name, but I think it may make us a bit more prominent. Right now our server gets treated like the RU, EU and US server's retarded cousin.

      Delete
  13. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Is that a Chieftain I see in the background?

    ReplyDelete