BUTT face to the pride of malaysia PT-91M?
-
SingaporeTyrannosaur, I no need to give you details and comparison of SAVAN-15 FCS and Leopard 2A4 FCs. You can do this on your own, try Gooogle.
As to the 20% better accuracy. Accuracy of gun is accuracy: dispersion/MOA. Precision in lay of gun is different thing connected to stabilisation system.
No, aproximattion of A4 frontal turret protection is in range between 550 and 690 mm.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:The first generation of Leo2 tanks had an approximate KE protection of 650mm RHA, and the armour was further improved against KE attack in the A4 variantHence along the frontal arc, I express my doubts that anything less then the american "silver bullet" APFSDS will do the job on a Leo 2,
I dont know. Older Polish 125 mm APFSDS tungsten penetrator round from Pronit Pionki has claimed penetration >560 mm RHA, newer, result of cooperation with Israeli IMI, >600 mm (probably 640 but it is classified), this round is ready for production but production not started yet due to corruption affair), Ukrainian tungsten penetrator Vityaz round has claimed penetration 760 mm, Pakistani DU penetrator >700 mm, Chinese new rounds with penetrators: tungsten >800 mm, DU 960 mm, this later claims are suspect but according to Chinese, APFSDS rounds from theirs 125 mm gun have 30% bigger kinetic energy than Russian 125 mm and 40% than western 120 mm(with L47 barrel). Ask directly Ukrainians, Pakistanis and Chinese if not believe them fully.
But please know, that even if turret is not completly penetrated, tank could be eliminated by powerful impact force causing many damages of internal electronic, other systems and severe wounds of tankers. -
quote:Originally posted by tankfanatic:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
if your enemy reach the highest point of their defence technology and you didnt..all you need to do is denied them those that can be targeted.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sing good friend up north could be thinking of this. -
Chey, so it's MOA?
20 percent more in MOA? As one might point out even with the capabilities of 1991-era FCS this has become a moot point. This increase in accuracy (if verified) does not equate to a pratical increase in combat effectiveness.
Unless of course in engagements that take place at really extreme range (4-5 km+), but yet again moot given most conventional KE rounds would have lost much of their effectiveness at that point and you don't usually get that kind of LOS unless you are in really good tank country.
And one does not see this in our region much.
On protection:
Uh uh, the Tankers at StragetyPage will give you a different RHA estimate for the Leo2A4 series, the estimates you put out seem to be more of the ballpark for KE protection of the ORGINAL Leo2 variant without the remodeled armour and tungsten upgrade.
As for the effectiveness of Chinese (and associated penetrators), let's just say it's a matter of much debate as well though I find it highly suspicious. The PRC does have a bad habit of overstating their stuff just for the effect of it. And of course, it's hard to verify their numbers as well.
KE is not just the end of the APFSDS equation, the design of the penetrator must be able to wistand the forces generated on impact with the target as well, or else it will simply shear or snap and be ineffective.
What this means that the Chinese must have made several advances in materials science and penetrator design for such performance to be possible... I'll file it under the same classification as the Iranian "super cruise missile and torpedo report"... interesting but unable to be fully verified.
But of course I find this suspicious for the simple reason the Yanks and Germans, (and even the russians) with far more knowledge of tank guns and ammunition have been trying to crack the current KE performance deadlock for decades and suddenly China comes up with a superpenetrator? *scratches head*But please know, that even if turret is not completly penetrated, tank could be eliminated by powerful impact force causing many damages of internal electronic, other systems and severe wounds of tankers.
That would be more of an issue for Soviet derived designs like the PT-91M then Western designs. The low survivability of the T-72 design means that even a minor penetration will end up with a catastrophic kill, and I doubt this issue was rectified in the PT-91M.
On the other hand, combat experience has proved that the Western mindset towards tank designs (with emphasis on damage control) has led to AFVs that were mission capable even after having taken several penetrations (lucky shots that missed everything vital though)! And of course we had this story of a bogged down M1A1 that was shot several times before it brewed up (ammo explosion), but still remained intact and was discovered to still be working when it was finally pulled out.
In fact the destruction of any unrecoverable M1 tank to prevent capture usually involves hitting it several times with airstrikes from heavy anti armour missiles and dropping a rather large bomb on it, if possible. Just to get an idea of how difficult it is to render unusable to anybody.
What this translates to is that western designs, even after having being hit will have a far higher chance of being mission capable. And even after being knocked out will have a far higher rate of crew survival and unit recovery. The same can't be said for the traditional soviet design on which the PT-91 is based.
Not to toot any horns, but the issue of AFV/crew survivability after being hit is more of an issue of the soviet designs like PT-91M, not the Leo2.
Of course in all of this we forgot to mention that Singapore was getting refurbished Leo2A4s... it's anybody's guess on what "refurbished" means. But I don't think it's going into battle alongside the digital Bx2 dumb, deaf and blind with last era electronics. -
Originally posted by snowfox_my:
Err ... where did you get this from? Any proof of future pruchase of Leo 2s?
The Poles are Not Upgrading their Twardy to T-91M standard. But to Leopard 2A4.[/b]This is to ensure that the Polish Force will be inter-operable with the Leopard Tanks they have, and what most NATO Force operates with.
No, the Poles do not need to have Leos to be able to function effectively with other NATO formations. They only need to upgrade their comms equipment ... which they have already done so.
Commonality of equipment is not necessary for multi-national cooperation. Have a look at all those multi-nation NATO exercises involving US M1, Brit Challengers, German Leos, French LeClerc and Italian Arietes?Polish Army Leopard Tank "acquising" was also part of the NATO requirment. Germany is transferring to equip a complete Polish armoured brigade, improving Poland's interoperability with other NATO forces
No. Read the links in my post.
Poland acquiring Leos was to ensure inter-operability with the 7th Panzer Division. If Poland is to contribute a brigade to the ARRC as part of a division element rather than a corp element, it has to have a TO&E supportable by the logistics and maintenance elements of the division. -
Guys ... how did an initial comparison of (SAF) HEAT LAW/ATGM capabilities vis the PT-91M degenerate into another Leo 2 vs PT-91M pissing contest?
Cool it lah ...
-
From the very other side: every tank can be easy eliminated from fight by fire of medium calibre automatic cannons. Yes, according to some of my informations, most of Abrams eliminated from fight in Iraq were not due to attacks by dedicated AT weapons, but because of fire of 23-30 mm cannons and destruction of tank`s optoelectronic sights and - interestingly - barrel...
-
It can't really be helped
As much as I try to remain objective, I catch myself slipping in the "my MBT is BIGGER AND BETTER THEN YOURS" talk every few arguments or so.
Oh well, national pride can be hard to supress at time. But hey that aside I do make the attempt to put up valid points. -
A mission kill as with any AFV, this is old news. The side hull of any MBT is also rather vulnerable, and this is no exception with the M1. And of course we have cases where Bradleys used their 25mm Bushmaster to take out T-72s (while the T-72s were generally protected against 25mm, all it needed was one round in the many to find a weak spot and set off the poor damage control measures of the T-72) .Originally posted by Wosiu:From the very other side: every tank can be easy eliminated from fight by fire of medium calibre automatic cannons. Yes, according to some of my informations, most of Abrams eliminated from fight in Iraq were not due to attacks by dedicated AT weapons, but because of fire of 23-30 mm cannons and destruction of tank`s optoelectronic sights and - interestingly - barrel...
There was this M1A1 tank which turned it's main gun into a rather sturdy wall during the Thunder Runs in Bagdad, and bent it, rendering the multimillion dollar MBT mostly mission killed from that simple action and forcing the crew to fight on their machine guns during the mission.
And it seems that often reason for taking an M1 out of the fight was not enemy fire but General Mud.
On the other hand, when the really bad stuff happens to Western designs, the crew survival rate is simply a lot higher then any Soviet design... mostly because Western designs try to avoid the trend of sticking the crew in a cramped turret with no space for spall liners, ammo stuffed all around with no space to vent the blast in the event of an cookoff after being hit.
The ultimate test of any RHA values it seems... is to really bring it into combat and let it take stuff. Which indicated that the M1A1 HA (and above variants) were actually far more protected then their "official" RHA values. One can only speculate why this is so, purposeful misinformation prehaps? -
Kotay, you are right in all. But due to various political and economical reasons it is possible that:
- 586 T-72 will be not modernised to PT-91 Twardy standard,
- 232 PT-91 Twardy will be not modernised to PT-91M standard,
- 128 Leopard 2A4 may be modernised to unspecified standard,
- 123 next Leopard 2A4 is planned and have to be modernised,
but also
- totally new light tank (20-30 tons) with 120 mm light gun in low profile turret will be offered for Polish army in this year. -
As for the effectiveness of Chinese (and associated penetrators), let's just say it's a matter of much debate as well though I find it highly suspicious. The PRC does have a bad habit of overstating their stuff just for the effect of it. And of course, it's hard to verify their numbers as well.
well you can ask the pakistanis about that super round!
they test it and it cant even peneterate 600 RHA -
Because there are many different grades of RHA.
Steel itself already have different grades dont talk about military grade steel.
Ai yo... -
Understand that you are too busy, just to google this Upgrading of T-72/PT-91 to Leopard 2. PLs read this: http://www.army-technology.com/projects/t72/Originally posted by kotay:No. Read the links in my post.
Poland acquiring Leos was to ensure inter-operability with the 7th Panzer Division. If Poland is to contribute a brigade to the ARRC as part of a division element rather than a corp element, it has to have a TO&E supportable by the logistics and maintenance elements of the division.
Ps it is labelled as Polish T-72, Polish Label their modified T-72 as T-91. To the rest of the market the generic term T-72 is used, as it able them to cover a wider market segment.
It's is true that system need not be similar to inter operate (Why even the American Forces in Iraqi also when to conflict with not so compatible comms)
But NATO want to do it their way. Maybe you can highlight it to them with your wisdom.Originally posted by kotay:
Am a bit confuse, The Polish is providing a brigade strength right? If it is operating under a a Corp, or Division or Army. Do you get a discount in the number of Men provided? Sorry how is it related to the Topic of this thread?
No. Read the links in my post.
Poland acquiring Leos was to ensure inter-operability with the 7th Panzer Division. If Poland is to contribute a brigade to the ARRC as part of a division element rather than a corp element, it has to have a TO&E supportable by the logistics and maintenance elements of the division.Originally posted by kotay:
Every Country has it's Pride.
Guys ... how did an initial comparison of (SAF) HEAT LAW/ATGM capabilities vis the PT-91M degenerate into another Leo 2 vs PT-91M pissing contest
Every Armed Forces have their own set of requirements, be it Technical, Political. Thus based their purchasing decision on those aspect.
It's is Admirable that detail aspect of various system is studied and check in detail.
T-91 serve a [purpose that the MAF has determined.
Leopard 2A4, serve the purpose that SAF had laid out.
Forces that Operate T-72 and Leopard
It's true that the Polish Army operate T-72(T-91) and were provided with Leopards by the Germans (Alot of Historical reasons for this move, trying to heal old wounds)
Finnish Army also operated T-72, and move to Leopard 2A4.
All had their own reasons for doing so.
If the chances arise, ride on a T-72(T-91) and a Leopard. Compare it with SM-1, World of Difference, true T-91M is fairly new. -
Sorry to nitpick (again) ...Originally posted by CM06:Because there are many different grades of RHA.
Steel itself already have different grades dont talk about military grade steel.
Ai yo...
Actually there is only one grade for RHA or Rolled Homogeneous Armour. It represents a basic composition steel plate used to represent effectiveness of military armour.
For the US Military, this is defined by MIL-A-12560 and works out to be something like ...
Steel, Wrought, Homogeneous.
Typical Chemical Composition:
C .27 Mn .27 P .010 S .007 Si .240 Ni 3.310 Cr 1.25 Mo .36 V .011 B .0001 Cu .015 Ti .003 Zr .001 Al .027 Pb .004 Sb .018 As .003
Typical Thermal Treatment:
Harden 1660º 115 min. Water Quench, Draw 1220º 115 min.
Different nations may have different standards of measuring armour values though.
There are however many other types of steel, as well as many other types of materials used for armour. In order for a method of commonality in comparing their relative effectiveness, RHAe or Rolled Homogeneous Armour Equivalency is used to prevent confusion as to the composition of the material in question. -
Dude, you can say there's only one type, It's impossible to say for certain that's what different manufacturers do.
As far as i know, RHA is a type of armour made like what you stated...rolling the steel then water cooled to create high strength then heated again to create flexibility to make the shape. It describes the process more than the composition.
Not to mention, the composition will change when newer materials are added to give better properties.
This process while repeated worldwide cannot be for certain to be precisely followed. Hence why there's QC for some products and none for some. (RHA is not formed properly will lose from 5-50% of their full strength as experienced in ww2 when they first had it)
Hence dont need to nitpick. You know i know. The "RHA" on a Russian tank is different from a pakistani tank to that of china,india, euro ones..
That's what i think is logical.
EDit:
Oh yeah you said RHAe....yeah that's what i mean anyway. There's alot of debate regarding RHA thickness and penetration. So yeah. all this is silly. If you are in the tank..any knock is going to hurt. -
As far as i know, RHA is a type of armour made like what you stated...rolling the steel then water cooled to create high strength then heated again to create flexibility to make the shape. It describes the process more than the composition.
for all the advancement in metallurgy technologies, RHA were still using german WW2 technique -
Originally posted by snowfox_my:
Err ... the link you provided has this to say:
Understand that you are too busy, just to google this Upgrading of T-72/PT-91 to Leopard 2. PLs read this: http://www.army-technology.com/projects/t72/
"In June 2002, The Polish company, Obrum signed a contract with Rheinmetall Landysysteme of Germany to co-operate on the modernisation of Polish Army T-72 tanks, using Leopard 2 technology."
How does this mean that the T-72/PT-91 will be upgraded to Leo 2s?
If I read this correctly, it means that the T-72/PT-91 will be upgraded very much like the PT-91M with western vehctronics. In this case, they are possibly looking at the EMS-15/PERI-R17A2 sights, electrical harness and gun stabilisation system used by the Leo 2.
I would love to see you explain how the above quote equates to a replacement of the T-72/PT-91 by Leo 2s.It's is true that system need not be similar to inter operate (Why even the American Forces in Iraqi also when to conflict with not so compatible comms)
Okay, so NATO want to do it their way ... where does it say that part of NATO membership required Poland to buy a whole brigade of NATO/German equipment?
But NATO want to do it their way. Maybe you can highlight it to them with your wisdom.
Where in Poland's entry into NATO was it mandated that member nations must use platforms designed/manufactured by charter NATO members?
If NATO's way is that all member nations must use Leo 2s (like what you're saying about Poland), then what about recent members like the Czech Republic, Hungary, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia?
More importantly, you left out replying to my highlighting the diversity of platforms within NATO with the UK Challengers, French LeClercs, Italian Arietes and US M1s?
IINM, all that NATO requires for member nations is that they upgrade their C3I to be compatible with the standards in place.
Like I've been trying to say, the acquisition of Leo 2s by the Poland Land Forces were more to do with integration into the 7th Panzer Division (and ARRC) than integration into NATO. As to why they wish to have a brigade under ARRC/Bundeswehr command, that I agree is political.
I think you misunderstand me here ...
Am a bit confuse, The Polish is providing a brigade strength right? If it is operating under a a Corp, or Division or Army. Do you get a discount in the number of Men provided? Sorry how is it related to the Topic of this thread?
The ARRC is a Corp/Army level formation. If the Poles contribute a brigade as an independent formation, than the brigade will have to function as an independent formation attached to Corp HQ. This would allow the Polish Brigade the freedom to use it's own hardware as an independent brigade will have it's own self-contained higher level maintenance depots. However, Given the structure of ARRC, that is unlikely to be approved.
IINM, Poland has made a statement that it wishes to be an active member of NATO and the only way they could contribute a brigade was within the organisational structure of a division assigned to ARRC.
For a brigade to be assimilated effectively into a division, it has to be supportable by the logistics and maintenance units of the division. If Poland insisted on using PT-91s, the 9th Panzer Division would have to enlarge their divisional support structure to cater for the new equipment ... not very ideal issit? Hence a whole brigade of Bundeswehr stuff ... Leo 2s, Gerpards, M113s etc.
Look ... a lot of countries have purchased Leo 2s recently because the Bundeswehr have been conducting a fire sale of their surplus-to-requirements stocks ... literally in the thousands.
Forces that Operate T-72 and Leopard
It's true that the Polish Army operate T-72(T-91) and were provided with Leopards by the Germans (Alot of Historical reasons for this move, trying to heal old wounds)
Finnish Army also operated T-72, and move to Leopard 2A4.
All had their own reasons for doing so.
Not to disparage the Leo 2A4 but in alot of these purchase decisions (just like Singapore), it isn't because it represented the best available platform but rather the one with the most bang for the buck.
Go check for yourself the proliferation trend of the Leo 2s and tell me the bargain basement price was not a primary factor?
Oh BTW, Finland is not a member of NATO.If the chances arise, ride on a T-72(T-91) and a Leopard. Compare it with SM-1, World of Difference, true T-91M is fairly new.
Duh ... -
Originally posted by CM06:
There can only be ONE! everything else is just RHAe
Dude, you can say there's only one type, It's impossible to say for certain that's what different manufacturers do.
As far as i know, RHA is a type of armour made like what you stated...rolling the steel then water cooled to create high strength then heated again to create flexibility to make the shape. It describes the process more than the composition.
Not to mention, the composition will change when newer materials are added to give better properties.
This process while repeated worldwide cannot be for certain to be precisely followed. Hence why there's QC for some products and none for some. (RHA is not formed properly will lose from 5-50% of their full strength as experienced in ww2 when they first had it)
Hence dont need to nitpick. You know i know. The "RHA" on a Russian tank is different from a pakistani tank to that of china,india, euro ones..
That's what i think is logical.
EDit:
Oh yeah you said RHAe....yeah that's what i mean anyway. There's alot of debate regarding RHA thickness and penetration. So yeah. all this is silly. If you are in the tank..any knock is going to hurt.
-
Agreement between Obrum Gliwice/Bumar Labedy and Rheinmetall from 2002 about upgrading T-72 with Leopard 2 technologies was based only on commercial plans of these companies, not any state program. They simply had hope that old plan of "leopardised T-72" aka "PT-97" that is T-72 hull with new turret based on Rheinmetall technology, will be revitalized. Not such happend. -
One thing about latest military "developments" coming from the region of China, Pakistan, India, Iran... etc, is that they need to be taken with a large pinch of salt.Originally posted by tankfanatic:well you can ask the pakistanis about that super round! they test it and it cant even peneterate 600 RHA
While every nation has its own national pride, most of them have systems in place to check or at least manage most of the politics that come into play. Remember the politics over the M2 Bradley protection issues and what have you not.
On the other hand, nations like China, Pakistan and others mentioned do not have such systems in place, and making exaggerated claims for their systems seems to be part of official policy. IÂ’m not too sure what to make of the things like super-torpedoes, supertanks, cruise missiles and ammunition that they seem to be able to come up with the drop of a hat, but I think common sense tells us to be more sceptical of it.
Not that it isnÂ’t possible for them, but if you are claiming that you managed to crack the performance deadlock that dedicated companies of other nations with decades of experience have been working on for very long, and even tot a 30 percent increase in power in your gun and ammunitionÂ… letÂ’s just say that one needs to treat such a claim with some reserve until it can be tested by the trusted guys in the business.
But of course this is not just restricted to those countries, weapons systems are often sold with very favourable models to test their PK, while actual practice might prove something entirely different. The improved Sidewinder variants used in the Falklands were supposed to have a PK of 0.9, but in practice it turned out to be in the ballpark of 0.78 instead.
Hence the danger of treating "on paper" arguments as gospel truth. At one juncture the Israelis were forced to fight Arab armour with inferior FCS (no night sight), but they still managed to make a more then favourable account of themselves, and puzzling the Soviet and Arabs who knew that "on paper" their armour was in every respect superior.
Once again the human factor is the hard part of the equation, and technology can only take you so far. And this I think is the same from every MBT from the T-55 to the M1A2. -
India did their own take on it through, prehaps to salvage some of their previous MBT project.Originally posted by Wosiu:Agreement between Obrum Gliwice/Bumar Labedy and Rheinmetall from 2002 about upgrading T-72 with Leopard 2 technologies was based only on commercial plans of these companies, not any state program. They simply had hope that old plan of "leopardised T-72" aka "PT-97" that is T-72 hull with new turret based on Rheinmetall technology, will be revitalized. Not such happend.
But I'm not too surprised not much happened from it, there are better ways of getting your MBTs and the T-72 design is getting long in the tooth no matter how one tweaks it. -
But could this be because the T-72 has its merits along with the shortcomings?Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:India did their own take on it through, prehaps to salvage some of their previous MBT project.
But I'm not too surprised not much happened from it, there are better ways of getting your MBTs and the T-72 design is getting long in the tooth no matter how one tweaks it.
The T-72 is to tanks, what the AK is to assault rifles. It is easily the most widespread tank platform in the world.
The chinese, who could probably copy some western design in tank hulls, chose the T-72 design as the base for their own new tanks.
I don't know much but its low silhouette and generally smaller and lighter size may in some ways be an advantage. Especially for smaller Asian crews, surely the smaller size may not prove to be such a big disadantage?
The Korean K2 seems enormous. While this means it is way better in armour, it is also a bigger target and is weight restricts its movement in narrow urban areas and over bridges? -
Actually hor, the AK-47 of MBTs would be the T-55 by a long shot, it is still being used in many variants today. The T-72 is more of a AK-74 of tanks, if one were to draw such an picture.Originally posted by moca:But could this be because the T-72 has its merits along with the shortcomings?
The T-72 is to tanks, what the AK is to assault rifles. It is easily the most widespread tank platform in the world.
The chinese, who could probably copy some western design in tank hulls, chose the T-72 design as the base for their own new tanks.
I don't know much but its low silhouette and generally smaller and lighter size may in some ways be an advantage. Especially for smaller Asian crews, surely the smaller size may not prove to be such a big disadantage?
The Korean K2 seems enormous. While this means it is way better in armour, it is also a bigger target and is weight restricts its movement in narrow urban areas and over bridges?
The main advantage of soviet designs is their low weight and cost, you could get about 3-4 soviet styled designs for one western tank.
But unfortunately in pratice the low silhouette and size had not proven to be a real asset in battle, FCS has simply improved to the point that reducing the size of the tank does not relate to any real chance of the enemy missing.
And they made great sacrifices just to trade off size, drasically reduced internal space and poor damage control abilities.
Being small may be beautiful in an AFV, but I think for modern MBTs are currently an exception to this rule... if you want to survive at least.
At the end of the day if you want to talk numbers the T-72 may be able to fit into smaller areas then a Leo 2, but it's ground pressure is actually higher and mobility less. So once again that's a tradeoff.
The soviet-styled design like T-72 is a great if you are facing lesser AFVs and infantry, but not really a tank you want to be fighting another tank or dedicated AT weapons in.
And of course if you look at the Type 99, which is the most advanced Chinese MBT yet, it shows that they have elected to put some western thinking into their design.
Not saying the western approach to tank design is the best, but I think as a whole they have a sounder approach towards making MBTs- putting the focus on protection and crew survival and confort as opposed to making the tank as small as possible- on a piecemeal evaluation at least. I mean it's another story if you can send thousands of inferior designs to swarm your enemy, in which case you are willing to sacrifice your tankers. -
Thanks for the info ... doesn't equate to a replacement by Leo 2 does it?Originally posted by Wosiu:Agreement between Obrum Gliwice/Bumar Labedy and Rheinmetall from 2002 about upgrading T-72 with Leopard 2 technologies was based only on commercial plans of these companies, not any state program. They simply had hope that old plan of "leopardised T-72" aka "PT-97" that is T-72 hull with new turret based on Rheinmetall technology, will be revitalized. Not such happend. -
Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:
I think wosiu got his figures from here ...
20 percent more precise? What do you mean? In terms of MOA or ability to lay the gun? Proper numbers please.
Konstrukta 125mm 2A 46MS
"First hit probability of 2A46MS modernized gun compared to the original 2A46 gun was increased by 23%. In conjunction with a FCS of T-72 M2 MBT this value was even more enhanced."
Granted it's a manufacturer blurb, but just like a high grade barrel enhances a sniper rifle accuracy, a proper main gun barrel can enhance accuracy over the typical 500-rnd monkey model barrels.
What remains to be asked is whether a 23% increase in the 2A46MS equates to a similar barrel accuracy of the Rheinmetall 120mm ... ? -
Did I say AK47?Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Actually hor, the AK-47 of MBTs would be the T-55 by a long shot, it is still being used in many variants today. The T-72 is more of a AK-74 of tanks, if one were to draw such an picture.