I think it was the Ukrainian Tanker Colonel who was doing the longform interview after the capture. It is, in some ways, worse than upgraded T-72's. None of the advertised features worked and the optics technology, while domestically producible, was years behind the curve compared to what they were able to purchase from Thales to upgrade their T-72s.
I don't think any tanks have performed exceptionally this war, really
Western ones get the edge for crew survivability but there's way too much surveillance, drones, and weapons that can kill you within a few minutes 40km away if you are spotted. Combine that with the mostly flat steppe of Ukraine and it's a bad time to be a tanker. Also, the fricking minefields.
Not to mention, ATGM and shoulder fired weapons have come a long way in the last 50 years, too. If you get anywhere near the line of contact somehow, Mykola will blast you to high hell with an assortment of javelins, panzerfausts, NLAWs, carl gustafs... the list goes on
>why is *untrue statement*
Your thread is bad and you should feel bad, OP.
Honestly, I think the tanks have put in a pretty good showing considering the environment. They're regularly seen at the forefront of attacks and counterattacks putting in good service. Like sure it's no case yellow or bagration, but that's more a product of the Russians deploying inadequate forces to secure victory should the negotiations break down as they did than any failure of the tank as a platform.
The more interesting analysis to me is the comparison of the weaknesses of various tank platforms, considering how many have been deployed. The Russian tanks suffer from doctrinal mismatch and shitty reverse gears, the Leopards suffer from being difficult to repair, and the Challengers and Abrams suffer most of all from the fact that nobody builds them any more.
My homie, we have no less than 3 videos of them getting dabbed on by Chadley TOWs (that the Shtora-1 are supposed to stop lol), as well as plenty of turret toss /k/ino. But then again, you're probably a pajeet, Serbian, African, or some other third world country that simps for Russia.
>likes the Warrior
No, unlike most Xtards, he really, really fricking hates the warrior, and the CV90, and pretty much anything that isn't the Bradley. Of course, being right doesn't make him any less moronic. The problem is, once rumors started going around that he was false-flagging and calling other people Warriortard to cheapen the title, well, people went and did exactly fricking that.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>Of course, being right
But he isn't right. In one thread he said IFV's need to have good troop capacity for dismounts or it is shit and then, when told the Warrior has capacity for 10 he said 'That's bad because it means they can't afford more vehicles'. The guy is a schizo. No matter what you argue with him he ignores it and samegays. Why he cares I don't know, the Bradley is made by BAE so the guy sucking the wiener of a Bong company is hilarious.
Shtora-1 has not been able to JAM tow missiles since TOW-2, it works on cold war era missiles.
picrelated is an older TOW with only a single xenon flare on the back
This, since the moment Shtora was introduced it was already pretty much obsoleted by the West. Even the older legacy TOWs could still be used against it successfully, just needing a lot more considerations and knowledge of how to counter it by the crews.
But is it really? It seems like the only situation where ammunition cook off actually happen would already would be unsurvival catastrophic crew kills.
>But is it really? It seems like the only situation where ammunition cook off actually happen would already would be unsurvival catastrophic crew kills.
Part of the reason why they are catastrophic crew kills comes from the presence and placement of the autoloader to begin with.
>Abrams suffer most of all from the fact that nobody builds them any more.
Wrong re: Abrams since the hull refurb IS a rebuild being a zero time overhaul with upgrades and the hull line remains. The only reason not to restart heavy production is existing hulls.
Tanks are made of large weldments so done properly you can drastically change them without compromise.
You haven't a fricking clue about machinery. None. Why do you permit yourself an opinion on a subject you're utterly ignorant of?
Hulls don't wear in service nor turrets. Every wear part is designed for removal and easy replacement, most of that in the field. Your nigtarded concept of tank hulls as being somehow unwise or uneconomic to overhaul or upgrade can only stem from gross stupidity because not knowing basic facts about machinery is wretchedly ignorant.
Why do you imagine you know anything? You must be a poo.
to restart hull production you just need >someone to give you the steel on spec >jigs that haven't been thrown out >welders with experience
jigs are the most unreplaceable items, but all they need is a warehouse under padlock, and they don't go stale.
But if you have almost 1000 M1A0 70's optics, radios and L7, why not reuse the hulls?
Or, you know, give them to Ukraine.
Because both or political and military leadership is moronic. We have a golden opportunity to knock out Russia without losing a single American life yet our politicians are set to just drip feed Ukraine gear.
The DU armor upgrade only appeared midway through the M1A0's life. Where does that say they took M1s with the L7 turret and standard composite armor and rebuilt them as M1A1 instead of taking 80s built M1A1s and taking them forward.?
You will never be a real T-80UD. You have no MZ autoloader, you have no AINET, you have no de-capping layer. You are a frankensteined mobile trashcan twisted by drunk designers and unskilled laborers into a crude mockery of Ukraine’s perfection.
All the “validation” you get is two-faced and half-hearted. Behind your back people mock you. Morozov is disgusted and ashamed of you, vatniks laugh at your ghoulish appearance behind closed doors.
Real officers are utterly repulsed by you. Over a hundred years of evolution have allowed cavalry officers to sniff out frauds with incredible efficiency. Even your upgraded modifications look uncanny and unnatural to a cavalry officer. Your misplaced ERA is a dead giveaway. And even if you manage to get non-mongoloid Russians to crew you, they'll turn tail and blow you up the second you are hit even once.
You will never be a capable MBT. You wrench out a fake propaganda video every single morning and tell yourself it’s going to be ok, but deep inside you feel the depression creeping up like a weed, ready to crush you under the unbearable weight.
Eventually it’ll be too much to bear - you’ll buy a 203mm shell, hook up a detonator, activate the clacker and plunge into the cold abyss. Your designers will find you, heartbroken but relieved that they no longer have to live with the unbearable shame and disappointment. They’ll bury you with a headstone marked with "T-72BU", and every passerby for the rest of eternity will know an ugly T-72 is buried there. Your body will decay and go back to the dust, and all that will remain of your legacy is a pile of rust that is unmistakably a T-72.
This is your fate. This is what you chose. There is no turning back.
It's kinda infuriating when people act like a tank being destroyed by an ATGM means the entire concept of the tank is obsolete.
Like yeah, an ATGM of a large enough size will kill a tank without APS. You can sit down and do the math to figure out how big of a shaped charge you need to get through a given amount of armor plus ERA, everyone did that, all modern ATGMs can probably kill any given MBT with a good hit.
But you're not supposed to let that happen. All dismounted ATGM crews should be dead to artillery, all ATGM carrying vehicles should be dead to artillery, attack helicopters, aviation and tank fire, and all tanks should be dead to the aforementioned. It's been like this since the 60s.
I haven't seen a single credible statement by a Ukrainian armored commander implying the tank is obsolete. By all accounts they want more western tanks (that don't throw their turrets upon any cabin penetration), more aviation, more air defense, and more artillery specifically to do the above, which is their job. Like frick find me a single Ukrainian tanker who has been on the front in the last 2 years who didn't scan every single treeline, building and hilltop he saw for ATGMs. It's just tanking.
Most important thing that people forget is that Tanks/ Helicopters/ Carriers/ U-Boats make Anti-Them Weapons so important for a reason.
A Tank can kill and destroy so much If it couldnt be threatend, that all Infantry has to carry all these specialised weapons and call in Artilery. And those cost money too/ Exhaust Infantry and limit how much other firepower they can bring.
Exactly. Armchair warriors tend to forget that even the shittiest BMP-2 is still immune to 12.7 frontally, has a mounted gun (so it can deliver pretty accurate sustained fire when stopped, as opposed to, say, a M249 gunner or even a M240 gunner caught in a pinch and resting his gun on something), can carry dismounts in relative comfort, and can use its radio to call in support or communicate with other BMPs/tanks. A tank is even worse, a LAW shot at its front will do nothing.
This means that if you're in an infantry squad and you see a BMP-2 at say, 700 meters, your course of action is to scream to whoever is carrying AT (in a US unit that'd be the guy carrying a recoilless rifle or a dude carrying a Javelin if they're around) to frick it up, or to call in for fires like mortars, artillery, CAS, or attack helicopters.
You, a rifleman, are going to do precisely frick all. If it spots you and you get hit by its cannon, you are fricked. This is a really big deal and precisely why so much effort is put into killing these things before they're an issue. An infantry squad or platoon without AT weapons or support is going to get literally run over and murdered by a few BMPs.
Against infantry fire excluding AT weapons and when mines aren't an issue, yes. Any semi-intelligent Russian commander would be bolting his dismounts into the BMP if he knew that all he'd be up against was some 5.56 rifles and angry Ukrainian screaming. You have them ride on the outside because the floor buckles and the fuel tanks erupt in fire if ATGMs hit it or it drives over a mine.
At the very least I think we can safely say that the T-64 and T-80 are objectively and completely superior to the T-72 and T-90. No holds barred. If the maintenance is tougher, that's the price of a better vehicle
Untrained crews and inadequate logistics because Russia has four different tank models performing the same role.
The T-90s in Ukrainian service perform more or less on par with their Western peers.
>why is *untrue statement*
Your thread is bad and you should feel bad, OP.
Honestly, I think the tanks have put in a pretty good showing considering the environment. They're regularly seen at the forefront of attacks and counterattacks putting in good service. Like sure it's no case yellow or bagration, but that's more a product of the Russians deploying inadequate forces to secure victory should the negotiations break down as they did than any failure of the tank as a platform.
The more interesting analysis to me is the comparison of the weaknesses of various tank platforms, considering how many have been deployed. The Russian tanks suffer from doctrinal mismatch and shitty reverse gears, the Leopards suffer from being difficult to repair, and the Challengers and Abrams suffer most of all from the fact that nobody builds them any more.
This is bullshit. You're dumb and should feel bad about your Russian bias.
The *T-72* is an okay tank for what it was created for.
It was created for an environment where they were expected to take 15,000+ losses in a nuclear war where they would literally get nuked and if there was a single penetration the crew was going to die to the nuclear dust in the air anyway.
It is not designed to protect the crew, because the crew was expected to die even if just shrapnel penetrated the null anyway, let alone direct hits from ATGMs.
It was deemed pointless to try to protect the crew in a nuclear war so the tank was designed to be a small target and to be made cheaply.
The T-90 was an updated T-72 created outside that global reality and is a bad tank and is an extremely poorly designed (and manufactured) tank for a conventional war.
The T-64 and T-80 are decent tanks for the realities of current wars. A lot better than the T-72 and T-90. T-90 is garbage.
I think he meant the tank was good at following the doctrine, but the doctrine was insane bullshit that sucked ass which is still haunting ziggers to this day
The T-90 has better protection, horsepower, range/endurance, optics, fire control and stabiliser than any of its predecessors, while still having production numbers in the hundreds annually and crew safety good enough that they could all get away even when their tank is disabled and under attack by 3 IFVs. What's "garbage" about that?
>still produced like it is.
Which is what, the other Russian tanks that are inferior to it and Chyna's untried array of tanks which are basically upgraded T72s themselves? What tank of greater capabilities is being manufactured in remotely comparable quantities?
>Abrams >Over 5k produced >T-90 >less than 2k produced
lol
4 months ago
Anonymous
And how many completely new Abrams were produced in the last 5 years, anon?
4 months ago
Anonymous
>Boneyard Abrams are still better than brand new T-90Ms
That's even worse, you know.
4 months ago
Anonymous
Leaving aside the question of whether or not that's actually true, considering that video of the Ukrainian Abrams with its stabiliser malfunctioning and moreover the fact that they haven't been deployed to the front, the lack of new production is likely a significant factor in why the AFU received so few of them. Which is, after all, what really matters in a world where there aren't any tanks which cannot be disabled by a modern ATGM or FPV drone.
4 months ago
Anonymous
Man, Americans just can't do stabilisers can they
Sheesh. It's a wonder they can tie their shoes.
4 months ago
Anonymous
I don't know, but it depends on whether the Americans wanted to settle at 5k thinking it's enough to frick the entire planet raw (it is), or if they wanted to blanket their entire landmass in composite armour.
Back in the 2000s UAZ was building what, 100~ every year? Since then every open-source indication is that they've allocated many more resources to tank production (imports of crucial machine tools, expansion of the factories, defence contracts increasing, etc) and the Russians claim production of the T90 tripled since 2022.
They've gotten more soviet tanks from the west than western ones.
Absolutely true, which is why the ex-warsaw pact countries who delivered them don't have many left to give.
>using russian claims as evidence for anything
anon, plz
4 months ago
Anonymous
>Russians claim
>They haven't increased production from verifiable pre-war numbers despite significantly increasing defence spending and possessing the industrial capacity to use that spending because... they just haven't, ok?
Come on lads, you're better than that.
4 months ago
Anonymous
they obviously increased production after shit went off, the question is by how much >Russians claim production of the T90 tripled since 2022.
anon that is just pure twaddle, considering that UVZ was running triple shifts and barely keeping up even before the war
4 months ago
Anonymous
>anon that is just pure twaddle, considering that UVZ was running triple shifts and barely keeping up even before the war
Not necessarily. Aside from the fact that they could, you know, hire more people, UVZ wasn't just making tanks before the war, but also a variety of civilian products as well as other kinds of military hardware, and much of that production was handed off to other factories through 2022 and 2023 so that UVZ could focus on tank production. It is definitely not impossible for T90 production to be >200 annually.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>Aside from the fact that they could, you know, hire more people
The biggest bottleneck in tank production is the machinery needed for it and not manpower
Its like construction sites were 20 dudes are standing around doing nothing while only one person is doing work because they only have one machine to do the thing they need >then just buy more machines
All of them are basically made in the west
4 months ago
Anonymous
>The biggest bottleneck in tank production is the machinery needed for it and not manpower
They've jacked up their import of machine tools significantly too, mostly from china. Though as we've seen, they import plenty of western stuff through third parties too.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>verifiable pre-war numbers >possessing the industrial capacity to use that spending
4 months ago
Anonymous
>Come on lads, you're better than that.
They really, truly are not.
Tanks in general are dependant on combined arms to cover their weaknesses and both Ukies and Ziggers are failing at combined arms.
After 2 years I think I can count the times I have seen actual combined arms with dismounts moving forward of armour and holding for the armour to move up on contact on one hand.
The T-90 is a shit tank but I don't think we are seeing better tanks making a major difference with how they are being used.
I saw quite a few videos of the Ukrainians doing it anon. Including a few with tanks and APCs supporting each other. I think we're seeing less of it because the required force to break through the enemy lines is way too high for either side to stomach.
Well maybe Russia can stomach it but they're moronic and just feed BTRs into minefields piecemeal. My point is that Ukraine is abstaining from it out of caution, not inability.
>My point is that Ukraine is abstaining from it out of caution, not inability.
Have people forgotten the summer offensive already? Anon, they did do it, and it failed. They can no longer do it because they don't have the aviation or the artillery to perform combined arms operations any more.
The offensive failed because they didn't have the airpower, artillery or mine clearing/engineering vehicles/troops required to clear minefields of enemy activity then clear said minefields. Realizing this then abstaining from that course of action until you can build up enough forces to try it again is not "lacking the aviation/artillery to perform combined arms operations ANY MORE", it's simple prudence. Are you a vatnik or something?
>Realizing this then abstaining from that course of action until you can build up enough forces to try it again
Build up enough forces from where, exactly? What stockpiles are going to be emptied to build up the AFU again that weren't emptied the first time? How will they be built up enough to create a reserve to support offensive operations while also holding off Russian attacks along the entire front? And materiel aside, despite being in a war with the survival of their state at stake, they've been vacillating over signing the next big mobilisation into law for months it's so unpopular.
The summer offensive was the best chance they had to achieve the goal of reclaiming territory. There will be no more large ukrainian offensives.
>that weren't emptied the first time
No western stockpiles have been "emptied" outside of vatBlack person delusions.
>while also holding off Russian attacks along the entire front
The way they're doing it right now, by one-sidedly slaughtering every such russian attack while suffering minimal to no losses in return.
> they've been vacillating over signing the next big mobilisation into law for months because their lossesw have been so low that they're flush with manpower as it is
FTFY
The "summer offensive" was only the first step signalling the turning of the war, and it's "failure" was far mroe costly and devastating for the Russians than it mwas for the Ukrainians. There will be more large ukrainian offensives. And they will be evne more devastating for Russia. And they will continue until every single last zigger has been cleansed from holy ukrainian soil. And there is nothing you or your slavemasters in Moscow can do to stop it, ziggie. Deal with it.
4 months ago
Anonymous
How many litters of kittens I must have with that bratty cat to fix Ukraine dwmographic problem?
4 months ago
Anonymous
Assuming litters of 6, about 100,000 litters every year
The T-90M is by far the best Tank Russia has. It's the only one that doesn't seem to just get completely vaporized when hit in the wrong place by a drone
Does next to nothing T-72s don't at an unjustifiably higher cost they can't accommodate domestically anyways. The entire premise of the design is predicated on giga intermediate range/yield nuke spam and exploiting it with conscript moron mass; current year NUssr has deficient conventional forces for the same reason, just with more corruption. It's not worth dumping more R&D money with top down & loitering munitions popping turrets off for fun regardless.
question for everyone, is there a chance russia's facing a "tofo dreg" situation with their modern equipment? A lot of the stuff they have been sending out to the front has failed miserably in real combat, preforming way below what their supposed to be able to do on paper. That vid of the two bradleys slaughtering a T90 really hammed this home, i am willing to bet the metal those tanks are made from isnt even really "armor", someones been skimming off the top.
That tank wasn't really destroyed by those Bradley's, the crew panicked and bailed. As well the tank wasn't supported by anyone else, not infantry or other tanks. So in this case it was more of a training failure.
The crew bailed not because of specifically training failure but due to certain systems being disabled on their tank due to the 25mm fire like optics and etc
That tank wasn't really destroyed by those Bradley's, the crew panicked and bailed. As well the tank wasn't supported by anyone else, not infantry or other tanks. So in this case it was more of a training failure.
Even though it didn't turret-toss, the tank was undeniably a mission-kill. Neutralized is neutralized.
That tank wasn't really destroyed by those Bradley's, the crew panicked and bailed. As well the tank wasn't supported by anyone else, not infantry or other tanks. So in this case it was more of a training failure.
Ultimately, even with solid training and support, there's not a lot to be done once you've reached the point of "Spotted, targeted, and currently being hit over and over with AP fire." The mistakes you needed not to make were made quite a while ago by then, and now you're testing the second to last layer of the threat onion a little over three times a second.
At that point, short of an absurd amount of composure and luck, to keep fighting and also not have your tank's sighting and optics knocked out, there's nothing you can do but bail and survive to see another day.
Here's what that T-90, and its support SHOULD have done. >Hang back several hundred meters in a treeline >wait for infantry to advance and provoke contact >wait for recon to locate threats in the area >look to see if the M2s enter range and line of sight >smack them with 125 from as far away as possible
Russian equipment hasn't failed in real combat, that's a preposterous statement. Not least of which because the AFU uses exactly the same vehicles, including a few captured examples of the modern ones which in most cases are just developments of the old ones anyway, and they haven't reported any substantial issues. And that's without mentioning the captured examples sent to Britain and the US, one assumes we would have released that kind of embarassing information if we had it.
I still believe that the t-90m should have won the engagement >but muh shot out optics
Every modern tank has 3 optics
Commanders optics which can be used to aim via commander override
Gunners main gun sight (located on the left side of the turret in the t90ms case, aka on the side that wasnt being shot at by the bradley)
And then the gunners auxillary sight which is also placed on the gunners side (aka on the left side of turret) and is the hardest to hit optic out of the 3 due to being placed inside the armor array while being pretty durable against explosives >inb4 muh crew dazed and etc from 25mm hit
Modern tank crews in training have the equivalent of a 155mm artillery shell detonated a few meters away from them to prepare themself for this and use modern headgear to reduce the affects even more
Even in ww2 tank crews continued to operate under intense fire
It was also struck by FPV drones iirc, which would explain not firing back. I do find it a little curious how frequently both sides have been operating single vehicles on their own in this war, especially given situations like this.
But we know their shit can, at the very least, perform how you expect a big block of armor, engines and cannon to perform...
We know it because the Russians have spent the last 60+ years diarrhea spraying their weaponry across the shitskin world and we ourselves have had to fight the same materiel on many occassions.
Tofu dreg projects are fricked from their creation, what we're seeing is stuff that was fine at first but has been allowed to turn to vodka-stained shit by several decades of worthless snowBlack folk being left to their own devices without the firm hand of a communist officer holding ready to shoot them in the back of the head.
I still believe that the t-90m should have won the engagement >but muh shot out optics
Every modern tank has 3 optics
Commanders optics which can be used to aim via commander override
Gunners main gun sight (located on the left side of the turret in the t90ms case, aka on the side that wasnt being shot at by the bradley)
And then the gunners auxillary sight which is also placed on the gunners side (aka on the left side of turret) and is the hardest to hit optic out of the 3 due to being placed inside the armor array while being pretty durable against explosives >inb4 muh crew dazed and etc from 25mm hit
Modern tank crews in training have the equivalent of a 155mm artillery shell detonated a few meters away from them to prepare themself for this and use modern headgear to reduce the affects even more
Even in ww2 tank crews continued to operate under intense fire
>Modern tank crews in training have the equivalent of a 155mm artillery shell detonated a few meters away from them to prepare themself for this and use modern headgear to reduce the affects even more
Probably not these poor Russian bastards. I think they were under-trained and panicked under fire. A veteran crew would probably have turned to face the incoming fire and if they had a line of sight that wasn't obscured by smoke use the backup sight to fire at it. Then pull back because of the damage to their optics and whatever else. Of course they don't seem to have had any support either which was another huge problem.
>Modern tank crews in training have the equivalent of a 155mm artillery shell detonated a few meters away from them to prepare themself for this and use modern headgear to reduce the affects even more >Even in ww2 tank crews continued to operate under intense fire
yea that's the theory. but in reality the vatnig crew is poorly trained, on krokodil and has alcohol fetal syndrome so you're wrong.
it's doing just fine, tanks get fricking rekt in near peer conflicts, they are the loudest,biggest,most intimidating, target on the battlefield. They are hard to miss when you shoot at them.
This seems like the right thread to ask, how much cannon smoke is it acceptable to produce inside the turret after firing? I don’t think I’ve ever seen this in western tanks, at least not this much, as you can see the Russians are having to fire with their hatches open to let it air out.
i don't remember where i heard it so do your own research, but it was some thing about how loaders on ac-130s would get parkinsons-type symptoms from breathing the heavy metals from the primers.
Acute lead poisoning due to breathing in a frickload of lead salts, AC-130 crews are supposed to wear respirators but a lot of them don't because PPE is for pussies, real men get nervous system damage and die in their 40s
AC130 is notorious for giving its operators lung conditions because it's practically a Black person rig project someone came up with on acid (lmao guys let's stick a bunch of tank cannons on the side of a plane so we can shoot the ground really hard).
If they'd designed a plane from the ground up for that role they'd probably have considered actually ventilating the fricking thing properly.
i don't remember where i heard it so do your own research, but it was some thing about how loaders on ac-130s would get parkinsons-type symptoms from breathing the heavy metals from the primers.
Does anyone know if those gasses are flammable? I keep seeing videos like this, one little FPV explodes near the top and the whole tank disappears in flames. I’m thinking the gasses are flammable and they accumulate and then one small explosion sets off everything?
The autoloader only store 22 rounds, while everything else is scattered around the hull and turret. Right between the small trap-door that ejects the spend casing( don't know the term in english, but it's called stopor) there are powder charges and AFPDS shells locked on the back of the turret wall. The fuell tank at the back of the hull and the two fuell tanks on either side of the driver are also used as wet stowage
The T-90 is doing "well" in Ukraine — meaning all tanks are being squandered in piecemeal fire support actions after being driven hopelessly into defenses (mines and AT weapons). The T-90M isn’t doing significantly worse than any other tanks used in that manner.
because just like every other russian tank, they're utilizing it poorly. notice how the majority of tank destruction vids showcase a lone MBT in an open fricking field, just waiting to get blown up.
all memes aside, russian MBTs aren't bad per say, they certainly have drawbacks compared to western ones, but they also have advantages. none of that matters though if you ignore combined arms and send individual vehicles to war thunder their way around the enemy's line before being blown up by an FPV drone.
>but they also have advantages
Honestly, yeah. Lower manning, they're quite small, the T-72 is a bit smaller than an Abrams and a lot lighter, you get the idea. They're morons for how they use them though, the Ukrainians pulled off a very good and very underrated defense using tanks NE of Kyiv in early 2022, and those were just T-62s.
true, but size is less of a boon nowadays. modern drone recon, thermals, and fire-control-systems means kepping your actual silhouette size small isn't as important. even the Russians have acknowledged this, hence why the t-14 is frickhuge compared to their earlier tanks.
idk if the next gen of western mbts will switch to autoloaders or not, even if they do, they might keep a 4th man as a "drone operator" or something, because crews seem to like having a 4th dude.
Just a T-72 vismod
FPBP
Can't find the post in the archive but isn't there an analysis that literally said this and that they'll turret toss all the same?
I think it was the Ukrainian Tanker Colonel who was doing the longform interview after the capture. It is, in some ways, worse than upgraded T-72's. None of the advertised features worked and the optics technology, while domestically producible, was years behind the curve compared to what they were able to purchase from Thales to upgrade their T-72s.
fibby bippy
I don't think any tanks have performed exceptionally this war, really
Western ones get the edge for crew survivability but there's way too much surveillance, drones, and weapons that can kill you within a few minutes 40km away if you are spotted. Combine that with the mostly flat steppe of Ukraine and it's a bad time to be a tanker. Also, the fricking minefields.
Not to mention, ATGM and shoulder fired weapons have come a long way in the last 50 years, too. If you get anywhere near the line of contact somehow, Mykola will blast you to high hell with an assortment of javelins, panzerfausts, NLAWs, carl gustafs... the list goes on
pic kinda related
>why is *untrue statement*
Your thread is bad and you should feel bad, OP.
Honestly, I think the tanks have put in a pretty good showing considering the environment. They're regularly seen at the forefront of attacks and counterattacks putting in good service. Like sure it's no case yellow or bagration, but that's more a product of the Russians deploying inadequate forces to secure victory should the negotiations break down as they did than any failure of the tank as a platform.
The more interesting analysis to me is the comparison of the weaknesses of various tank platforms, considering how many have been deployed. The Russian tanks suffer from doctrinal mismatch and shitty reverse gears, the Leopards suffer from being difficult to repair, and the Challengers and Abrams suffer most of all from the fact that nobody builds them any more.
My homie, we have no less than 3 videos of them getting dabbed on by Chadley TOWs (that the Shtora-1 are supposed to stop lol), as well as plenty of turret toss /k/ino. But then again, you're probably a pajeet, Serbian, African, or some other third world country that simps for Russia.
>didn't even call me armatard
/k/ has fallen
millions must become hasguns
I honestly have no fricking idea who warriortard is besides a guy who likes the Warrior IFV and farts.
>likes the Warrior
No, unlike most Xtards, he really, really fricking hates the warrior, and the CV90, and pretty much anything that isn't the Bradley. Of course, being right doesn't make him any less moronic. The problem is, once rumors started going around that he was false-flagging and calling other people Warriortard to cheapen the title, well, people went and did exactly fricking that.
>Of course, being right
But he isn't right. In one thread he said IFV's need to have good troop capacity for dismounts or it is shit and then, when told the Warrior has capacity for 10 he said 'That's bad because it means they can't afford more vehicles'. The guy is a schizo. No matter what you argue with him he ignores it and samegays. Why he cares I don't know, the Bradley is made by BAE so the guy sucking the wiener of a Bong company is hilarious.
Lurkmoar newbie zoomer
Don't make me post it.
Frick you anon, I forgot about that (along with Spyro working at Subway)
Shtora-1 has not been able to JAM tow missiles since TOW-2, it works on cold war era missiles.
picrelated is an older TOW with only a single xenon flare on the back
This is TOW-2 with an additonal thermal beacon that allows it to defeat Shtora-1
This, since the moment Shtora was introduced it was already pretty much obsoleted by the West. Even the older legacy TOWs could still be used against it successfully, just needing a lot more considerations and knowledge of how to counter it by the crews.
"T-72 bad because turret toss-ACK"
Correct
tank crew promoted to vdv!
*WHIZZING SNAP NOISE*
That ain't no Pak 39, that's sound of Kraut High velocity!
There needs to be a movie made from POV of T-72 crew. And it is just a Russian horror movie.
>"T-72 bad because turret toss-ACK
>Correct
But is it really? It seems like the only situation where ammunition cook off actually happen would already would be unsurvival catastrophic crew kills.
>But is it really? It seems like the only situation where ammunition cook off actually happen would already would be unsurvival catastrophic crew kills.
Part of the reason why they are catastrophic crew kills comes from the presence and placement of the autoloader to begin with.
>Abrams suffer most of all from the fact that nobody builds them any more.
Wrong re: Abrams since the hull refurb IS a rebuild being a zero time overhaul with upgrades and the hull line remains. The only reason not to restart heavy production is existing hulls.
Tanks are made of large weldments so done properly you can drastically change them without compromise.
rebuilding old tanks is completely moronic though
Only government would do things like that
You haven't a fricking clue about machinery. None. Why do you permit yourself an opinion on a subject you're utterly ignorant of?
Hulls don't wear in service nor turrets. Every wear part is designed for removal and easy replacement, most of that in the field. Your nigtarded concept of tank hulls as being somehow unwise or uneconomic to overhaul or upgrade can only stem from gross stupidity because not knowing basic facts about machinery is wretchedly ignorant.
Why do you imagine you know anything? You must be a poo.
to restart hull production you just need
>someone to give you the steel on spec
>jigs that haven't been thrown out
>welders with experience
jigs are the most unreplaceable items, but all they need is a warehouse under padlock, and they don't go stale.
But if you have almost 1000 M1A0 70's optics, radios and L7, why not reuse the hulls?
Or, you know, give them to Ukraine.
Because both or political and military leadership is moronic. We have a golden opportunity to knock out Russia without losing a single American life yet our politicians are set to just drip feed Ukraine gear.
mainly republicans in congress are moronic
thats not true at all bud, the US long ago upgraded cold war era M1s to newer standards
The DU armor upgrade only appeared midway through the M1A0's life. Where does that say they took M1s with the L7 turret and standard composite armor and rebuilt them as M1A1 instead of taking 80s built M1A1s and taking them forward.?
You will never be a real T-80UD. You have no MZ autoloader, you have no AINET, you have no de-capping layer. You are a frankensteined mobile trashcan twisted by drunk designers and unskilled laborers into a crude mockery of Ukraine’s perfection.
All the “validation” you get is two-faced and half-hearted. Behind your back people mock you. Morozov is disgusted and ashamed of you, vatniks laugh at your ghoulish appearance behind closed doors.
Real officers are utterly repulsed by you. Over a hundred years of evolution have allowed cavalry officers to sniff out frauds with incredible efficiency. Even your upgraded modifications look uncanny and unnatural to a cavalry officer. Your misplaced ERA is a dead giveaway. And even if you manage to get non-mongoloid Russians to crew you, they'll turn tail and blow you up the second you are hit even once.
You will never be a capable MBT. You wrench out a fake propaganda video every single morning and tell yourself it’s going to be ok, but deep inside you feel the depression creeping up like a weed, ready to crush you under the unbearable weight.
Eventually it’ll be too much to bear - you’ll buy a 203mm shell, hook up a detonator, activate the clacker and plunge into the cold abyss. Your designers will find you, heartbroken but relieved that they no longer have to live with the unbearable shame and disappointment. They’ll bury you with a headstone marked with "T-72BU", and every passerby for the rest of eternity will know an ugly T-72 is buried there. Your body will decay and go back to the dust, and all that will remain of your legacy is a pile of rust that is unmistakably a T-72.
This is your fate. This is what you chose. There is no turning back.
>that will remain of your legacy is a pile of rust that is unmistakably a T-72
well said
>a product of the Russians deploying inadequate forces to secure victory should the negotiations break down
What negotiations, they were saying it was just an exercise until the day they invaded
It's kinda infuriating when people act like a tank being destroyed by an ATGM means the entire concept of the tank is obsolete.
Like yeah, an ATGM of a large enough size will kill a tank without APS. You can sit down and do the math to figure out how big of a shaped charge you need to get through a given amount of armor plus ERA, everyone did that, all modern ATGMs can probably kill any given MBT with a good hit.
But you're not supposed to let that happen. All dismounted ATGM crews should be dead to artillery, all ATGM carrying vehicles should be dead to artillery, attack helicopters, aviation and tank fire, and all tanks should be dead to the aforementioned. It's been like this since the 60s.
I haven't seen a single credible statement by a Ukrainian armored commander implying the tank is obsolete. By all accounts they want more western tanks (that don't throw their turrets upon any cabin penetration), more aviation, more air defense, and more artillery specifically to do the above, which is their job. Like frick find me a single Ukrainian tanker who has been on the front in the last 2 years who didn't scan every single treeline, building and hilltop he saw for ATGMs. It's just tanking.
>By all accounts they want more western tanks
I mean, who else is going to give them tanks, the Chinese?
Russians "gave" them a sizeable number of tanks lmao
They've gotten more soviet tanks from the west than western ones.
Most important thing that people forget is that Tanks/ Helicopters/ Carriers/ U-Boats make Anti-Them Weapons so important for a reason.
A Tank can kill and destroy so much If it couldnt be threatend, that all Infantry has to carry all these specialised weapons and call in Artilery. And those cost money too/ Exhaust Infantry and limit how much other firepower they can bring.
Exactly. Armchair warriors tend to forget that even the shittiest BMP-2 is still immune to 12.7 frontally, has a mounted gun (so it can deliver pretty accurate sustained fire when stopped, as opposed to, say, a M249 gunner or even a M240 gunner caught in a pinch and resting his gun on something), can carry dismounts in relative comfort, and can use its radio to call in support or communicate with other BMPs/tanks. A tank is even worse, a LAW shot at its front will do nothing.
This means that if you're in an infantry squad and you see a BMP-2 at say, 700 meters, your course of action is to scream to whoever is carrying AT (in a US unit that'd be the guy carrying a recoilless rifle or a dude carrying a Javelin if they're around) to frick it up, or to call in for fires like mortars, artillery, CAS, or attack helicopters.
You, a rifleman, are going to do precisely frick all. If it spots you and you get hit by its cannon, you are fricked. This is a really big deal and precisely why so much effort is put into killing these things before they're an issue. An infantry squad or platoon without AT weapons or support is going to get literally run over and murdered by a few BMPs.
>can carry dismounts in relative comfort
Pffthahaha.
Against infantry fire excluding AT weapons and when mines aren't an issue, yes. Any semi-intelligent Russian commander would be bolting his dismounts into the BMP if he knew that all he'd be up against was some 5.56 rifles and angry Ukrainian screaming. You have them ride on the outside because the floor buckles and the fuel tanks erupt in fire if ATGMs hit it or it drives over a mine.
This happens because both militaries air forces are shit
>militaries air forces are shit
Bruh, Ukraine has a couple dozen, fairly old, aircraft, the frick are they supposed to do in this environment?
abrahamabrams would slap tho
no, you may not see it
At the very least I think we can safely say that the T-64 and T-80 are objectively and completely superior to the T-72 and T-90. No holds barred. If the maintenance is tougher, that's the price of a better vehicle
It’s just a bad tank. It got its nickname the challenger of the east because like the challenger it has random gaps in the armor
Poor doctrine and an environment that's more lethal to armor than ever.
Untrained crews and inadequate logistics because Russia has four different tank models performing the same role.
The T-90s in Ukrainian service perform more or less on par with their Western peers.
This is bullshit. You're dumb and should feel bad about your Russian bias.
The *T-72* is an okay tank for what it was created for.
It was created for an environment where they were expected to take 15,000+ losses in a nuclear war where they would literally get nuked and if there was a single penetration the crew was going to die to the nuclear dust in the air anyway.
It is not designed to protect the crew, because the crew was expected to die even if just shrapnel penetrated the null anyway, let alone direct hits from ATGMs.
It was deemed pointless to try to protect the crew in a nuclear war so the tank was designed to be a small target and to be made cheaply.
The T-90 was an updated T-72 created outside that global reality and is a bad tank and is an extremely poorly designed (and manufactured) tank for a conventional war.
The T-64 and T-80 are decent tanks for the realities of current wars. A lot better than the T-72 and T-90. T-90 is garbage.
>The *T-72* is an okay tank for what it was created for.
>This tank is shit
> No, you dont understand, this tank was build as shit on purpose so its actually a decent tank
No its dont its fricking shiet either way
I think he meant the tank was good at following the doctrine, but the doctrine was insane bullshit that sucked ass which is still haunting ziggers to this day
The T-90 has better protection, horsepower, range/endurance, optics, fire control and stabiliser than any of its predecessors, while still having production numbers in the hundreds annually and crew safety good enough that they could all get away even when their tank is disabled and under attack by 3 IFVs. What's "garbage" about that?
It's garbage compared to every other tank that's still produced like it is.
>still produced like it is.
Which is what, the other Russian tanks that are inferior to it and Chyna's untried array of tanks which are basically upgraded T72s themselves? What tank of greater capabilities is being manufactured in remotely comparable quantities?
>Abrams
>Over 5k produced
>T-90
>less than 2k produced
lol
And how many completely new Abrams were produced in the last 5 years, anon?
>Boneyard Abrams are still better than brand new T-90Ms
That's even worse, you know.
Leaving aside the question of whether or not that's actually true, considering that video of the Ukrainian Abrams with its stabiliser malfunctioning and moreover the fact that they haven't been deployed to the front, the lack of new production is likely a significant factor in why the AFU received so few of them. Which is, after all, what really matters in a world where there aren't any tanks which cannot be disabled by a modern ATGM or FPV drone.
Man, Americans just can't do stabilisers can they
Sheesh. It's a wonder they can tie their shoes.
I don't know, but it depends on whether the Americans wanted to settle at 5k thinking it's enough to frick the entire planet raw (it is), or if they wanted to blanket their entire landmass in composite armour.
>What's "garbage" about that?
>production numbers in the hundreds annually
May we see them?
Back in the 2000s UAZ was building what, 100~ every year? Since then every open-source indication is that they've allocated many more resources to tank production (imports of crucial machine tools, expansion of the factories, defence contracts increasing, etc) and the Russians claim production of the T90 tripled since 2022.
Absolutely true, which is why the ex-warsaw pact countries who delivered them don't have many left to give.
>using russian claims as evidence for anything
anon, plz
>They haven't increased production from verifiable pre-war numbers despite significantly increasing defence spending and possessing the industrial capacity to use that spending because... they just haven't, ok?
Come on lads, you're better than that.
they obviously increased production after shit went off, the question is by how much
>Russians claim production of the T90 tripled since 2022.
anon that is just pure twaddle, considering that UVZ was running triple shifts and barely keeping up even before the war
>anon that is just pure twaddle, considering that UVZ was running triple shifts and barely keeping up even before the war
Not necessarily. Aside from the fact that they could, you know, hire more people, UVZ wasn't just making tanks before the war, but also a variety of civilian products as well as other kinds of military hardware, and much of that production was handed off to other factories through 2022 and 2023 so that UVZ could focus on tank production. It is definitely not impossible for T90 production to be >200 annually.
>Aside from the fact that they could, you know, hire more people
The biggest bottleneck in tank production is the machinery needed for it and not manpower
Its like construction sites were 20 dudes are standing around doing nothing while only one person is doing work because they only have one machine to do the thing they need
>then just buy more machines
All of them are basically made in the west
>The biggest bottleneck in tank production is the machinery needed for it and not manpower
They've jacked up their import of machine tools significantly too, mostly from china. Though as we've seen, they import plenty of western stuff through third parties too.
>verifiable pre-war numbers
>possessing the industrial capacity to use that spending
>Come on lads, you're better than that.
They really, truly are not.
>Russians claim
There's certainly still relatively large number of eastern bloc tanks left.
>Since then every open-source indication
Puts the soviet T90(A and M) production at ~130 vehicles per year.
what do you mean failing? T-90 operations have tripled the size of the russian cosmonaut corps!
Tanks in general are dependant on combined arms to cover their weaknesses and both Ukies and Ziggers are failing at combined arms.
After 2 years I think I can count the times I have seen actual combined arms with dismounts moving forward of armour and holding for the armour to move up on contact on one hand.
The T-90 is a shit tank but I don't think we are seeing better tanks making a major difference with how they are being used.
I saw quite a few videos of the Ukrainians doing it anon. Including a few with tanks and APCs supporting each other. I think we're seeing less of it because the required force to break through the enemy lines is way too high for either side to stomach.
Well maybe Russia can stomach it but they're moronic and just feed BTRs into minefields piecemeal. My point is that Ukraine is abstaining from it out of caution, not inability.
>My point is that Ukraine is abstaining from it out of caution, not inability.
Have people forgotten the summer offensive already? Anon, they did do it, and it failed. They can no longer do it because they don't have the aviation or the artillery to perform combined arms operations any more.
The offensive failed because they didn't have the airpower, artillery or mine clearing/engineering vehicles/troops required to clear minefields of enemy activity then clear said minefields. Realizing this then abstaining from that course of action until you can build up enough forces to try it again is not "lacking the aviation/artillery to perform combined arms operations ANY MORE", it's simple prudence. Are you a vatnik or something?
>Realizing this then abstaining from that course of action until you can build up enough forces to try it again
Build up enough forces from where, exactly? What stockpiles are going to be emptied to build up the AFU again that weren't emptied the first time? How will they be built up enough to create a reserve to support offensive operations while also holding off Russian attacks along the entire front? And materiel aside, despite being in a war with the survival of their state at stake, they've been vacillating over signing the next big mobilisation into law for months it's so unpopular.
The summer offensive was the best chance they had to achieve the goal of reclaiming territory. There will be no more large ukrainian offensives.
Ah, you are one. Please make it more clear anon. Go frick yourself.
Solid analysis, anon. I can tell that you truly understand the factors at play and definitely aren't just believing the things you want to be true.
I have no interest in having a discussion about this with someone who is obviously partisan. Again, go frick yourself.
You go on believing that, anon. Hopefully you'll understand one day that not everyone is out to get you.
> the last native /k/ anon trying in earnest frustration to have dialogue with the newly imported redditors
Poor bastard
if the last native /k/ poster takes his victimcomplexposting with him then Fricking Good
>that weren't emptied the first time
No western stockpiles have been "emptied" outside of vatBlack person delusions.
>while also holding off Russian attacks along the entire front
The way they're doing it right now, by one-sidedly slaughtering every such russian attack while suffering minimal to no losses in return.
> they've been vacillating over signing the next big mobilisation into law for months because their lossesw have been so low that they're flush with manpower as it is
FTFY
The "summer offensive" was only the first step signalling the turning of the war, and it's "failure" was far mroe costly and devastating for the Russians than it mwas for the Ukrainians. There will be more large ukrainian offensives. And they will be evne more devastating for Russia. And they will continue until every single last zigger has been cleansed from holy ukrainian soil. And there is nothing you or your slavemasters in Moscow can do to stop it, ziggie. Deal with it.
How many litters of kittens I must have with that bratty cat to fix Ukraine dwmographic problem?
Assuming litters of 6, about 100,000 litters every year
Because it's a T-72 with a different name
The T-90M is by far the best Tank Russia has. It's the only one that doesn't seem to just get completely vaporized when hit in the wrong place by a drone
>he doesn't know
I don't, post WEBM or GTFO
Does next to nothing T-72s don't at an unjustifiably higher cost they can't accommodate domestically anyways. The entire premise of the design is predicated on giga intermediate range/yield nuke spam and exploiting it with conscript moron mass; current year NUssr has deficient conventional forces for the same reason, just with more corruption. It's not worth dumping more R&D money with top down & loitering munitions popping turrets off for fun regardless.
It's a t72 with a new turret, no way around the ammo storage issue
You mean
>Why Is The T-90 Failing So BRADLEY In The Ukrainian War
The tank isn't great but the crews are even worse
question for everyone, is there a chance russia's facing a "tofo dreg" situation with their modern equipment? A lot of the stuff they have been sending out to the front has failed miserably in real combat, preforming way below what their supposed to be able to do on paper. That vid of the two bradleys slaughtering a T90 really hammed this home, i am willing to bet the metal those tanks are made from isnt even really "armor", someones been skimming off the top.
That tank wasn't really destroyed by those Bradley's, the crew panicked and bailed. As well the tank wasn't supported by anyone else, not infantry or other tanks. So in this case it was more of a training failure.
oh ok that makes sense, i never saw that part of the video where the crew bails.
The crew bailed not because of specifically training failure but due to certain systems being disabled on their tank due to the 25mm fire like optics and etc
Even though it didn't turret-toss, the tank was undeniably a mission-kill. Neutralized is neutralized.
Ultimately, even with solid training and support, there's not a lot to be done once you've reached the point of "Spotted, targeted, and currently being hit over and over with AP fire." The mistakes you needed not to make were made quite a while ago by then, and now you're testing the second to last layer of the threat onion a little over three times a second.
At that point, short of an absurd amount of composure and luck, to keep fighting and also not have your tank's sighting and optics knocked out, there's nothing you can do but bail and survive to see another day.
Here's what that T-90, and its support SHOULD have done.
>Hang back several hundred meters in a treeline
>wait for infantry to advance and provoke contact
>wait for recon to locate threats in the area
>look to see if the M2s enter range and line of sight
>smack them with 125 from as far away as possible
>
Russian equipment hasn't failed in real combat, that's a preposterous statement. Not least of which because the AFU uses exactly the same vehicles, including a few captured examples of the modern ones which in most cases are just developments of the old ones anyway, and they haven't reported any substantial issues. And that's without mentioning the captured examples sent to Britain and the US, one assumes we would have released that kind of embarassing information if we had it.
It was also struck by FPV drones iirc, which would explain not firing back. I do find it a little curious how frequently both sides have been operating single vehicles on their own in this war, especially given situations like this.
>not firing back
It fires twice in the long video, it just misses because the Bradley is maneuvering and targeting the gun and sights of the T90.
But we know their shit can, at the very least, perform how you expect a big block of armor, engines and cannon to perform...
We know it because the Russians have spent the last 60+ years diarrhea spraying their weaponry across the shitskin world and we ourselves have had to fight the same materiel on many occassions.
Tofu dreg projects are fricked from their creation, what we're seeing is stuff that was fine at first but has been allowed to turn to vodka-stained shit by several decades of worthless snowBlack folk being left to their own devices without the firm hand of a communist officer holding ready to shoot them in the back of the head.
I still believe that the t-90m should have won the engagement
>but muh shot out optics
Every modern tank has 3 optics
Commanders optics which can be used to aim via commander override
Gunners main gun sight (located on the left side of the turret in the t90ms case, aka on the side that wasnt being shot at by the bradley)
And then the gunners auxillary sight which is also placed on the gunners side (aka on the left side of turret) and is the hardest to hit optic out of the 3 due to being placed inside the armor array while being pretty durable against explosives
>inb4 muh crew dazed and etc from 25mm hit
Modern tank crews in training have the equivalent of a 155mm artillery shell detonated a few meters away from them to prepare themself for this and use modern headgear to reduce the affects even more
Even in ww2 tank crews continued to operate under intense fire
>Modern tank crews in training have the equivalent of a 155mm artillery shell detonated a few meters away from them to prepare themself for this and use modern headgear to reduce the affects even more
Probably not these poor Russian bastards. I think they were under-trained and panicked under fire. A veteran crew would probably have turned to face the incoming fire and if they had a line of sight that wasn't obscured by smoke use the backup sight to fire at it. Then pull back because of the damage to their optics and whatever else. Of course they don't seem to have had any support either which was another huge problem.
>Modern tank crews in training have the equivalent of a 155mm artillery shell detonated a few meters away from them to prepare themself
Uh-huh
>Modern tank crews in training have the equivalent of a 155mm artillery shell detonated a few meters away from them to prepare themself for this and use modern headgear to reduce the affects even more
>Even in ww2 tank crews continued to operate under intense fire
yea that's the theory. but in reality the vatnig crew is poorly trained, on krokodil and has alcohol fetal syndrome so you're wrong.
Skill issue
>Why Is The T-90 Failing So Badly In The Ukrainian War?
actually when has the t-90 ever been "good"?
Well played sir
Because it's a T-72 in denial.
T90s have managed to mission kill all munitions fired at it.
It is the best tank in the war.
>Why Is The T-90 Failing So Bradly In The Ukrainian War?
it's doing just fine, tanks get fricking rekt in near peer conflicts, they are the loudest,biggest,most intimidating, target on the battlefield. They are hard to miss when you shoot at them.
Those are monkey domestic models with untrained Russian crews. Export models with proper Arab crews would do much better.
This seems like the right thread to ask, how much cannon smoke is it acceptable to produce inside the turret after firing? I don’t think I’ve ever seen this in western tanks, at least not this much, as you can see the Russians are having to fire with their hatches open to let it air out.
canca
i don't remember where i heard it so do your own research, but it was some thing about how loaders on ac-130s would get parkinsons-type symptoms from breathing the heavy metals from the primers.
Acute lead poisoning due to breathing in a frickload of lead salts, AC-130 crews are supposed to wear respirators but a lot of them don't because PPE is for pussies, real men get nervous system damage and die in their 40s
AC130 is notorious for giving its operators lung conditions because it's practically a Black person rig project someone came up with on acid (lmao guys let's stick a bunch of tank cannons on the side of a plane so we can shoot the ground really hard).
If they'd designed a plane from the ground up for that role they'd probably have considered actually ventilating the fricking thing properly.
Does anyone know if those gasses are flammable? I keep seeing videos like this, one little FPV explodes near the top and the whole tank disappears in flames. I’m thinking the gasses are flammable and they accumulate and then one small explosion sets off everything?
Ammo hit, most russkie tanks have ammo exactly where they hit.
The autoloader only store 22 rounds, while everything else is scattered around the hull and turret. Right between the small trap-door that ejects the spend casing( don't know the term in english, but it's called stopor) there are powder charges and AFPDS shells locked on the back of the turret wall. The fuell tank at the back of the hull and the two fuell tanks on either side of the driver are also used as wet stowage
Oh shit, wrong image. Here is the loose ammo on a T-80
imagine the smell
>Failing
No such thing happened, the superlative Russian machine remains unbeatable.
The Ukrainian objective is TZD. The crew survived. Therefore, Russia attained victory. Simple.
>Why Is The T-90 Failing So Badly In The Ukrainian War?
Failing To Bradley
The T-90 is doing "well" in Ukraine — meaning all tanks are being squandered in piecemeal fire support actions after being driven hopelessly into defenses (mines and AT weapons). The T-90M isn’t doing significantly worse than any other tanks used in that manner.
because just like every other russian tank, they're utilizing it poorly. notice how the majority of tank destruction vids showcase a lone MBT in an open fricking field, just waiting to get blown up.
all memes aside, russian MBTs aren't bad per say, they certainly have drawbacks compared to western ones, but they also have advantages. none of that matters though if you ignore combined arms and send individual vehicles to war thunder their way around the enemy's line before being blown up by an FPV drone.
>but they also have advantages
Honestly, yeah. Lower manning, they're quite small, the T-72 is a bit smaller than an Abrams and a lot lighter, you get the idea. They're morons for how they use them though, the Ukrainians pulled off a very good and very underrated defense using tanks NE of Kyiv in early 2022, and those were just T-62s.
true, but size is less of a boon nowadays. modern drone recon, thermals, and fire-control-systems means kepping your actual silhouette size small isn't as important. even the Russians have acknowledged this, hence why the t-14 is frickhuge compared to their earlier tanks.
idk if the next gen of western mbts will switch to autoloaders or not, even if they do, they might keep a 4th man as a "drone operator" or something, because crews seem to like having a 4th dude.
>idk if the next gen of western mbts will switch to autoloaders or not
With the way recruitment is right now? Absolutely they will.