Looks like it, probobly somewhat modified due to the changes. But still, in what world is that “unreliable evidence” if its from a video???
Yea but the video was never supposed to be used to show how quickly it reloads, it was just to show that you CAN reload from inside the tank.
No idea, at that point just take a screenshot from the video and use that as evidence lmao
At least the balance “excuse” is understandable
1 Like
There is a label down there and Even during the interivew they were talking about this being a direct access to the ammo compartment if you rally took time to read anything whatsoever you would notice all the indications
It states that the autoloader can store ammunition from the front and rear.
3 Likes
Gaijin probably already knows that, remember reload and ready rack replenishment is used a balancing tool.
I sometimes worry that people who make those memes might actually take them seriously and believe it.
I also worry that they think an Abrams weighs as much as it does because of composite armor, and not the fact that it’s a massively larger vehicle.
1 Like
Well, M1A1 weighs 59 tons and M1A2 SEPv2 weighs 64 tons (without TUSK II), and they are both the same size. And, in terms of size, M1 weighs 55 tons.
Those 5 additional tons the Abrams tank gained between the Chobham-armored M1A1 and the 3rd gen DU-armored M1A2 SEPv2 may be related to the composite armor… (and before the additional equipment is brought up, we must not forget about all the weight saving measures that came with it precisely to avoid it having an impact on the weight.)
Between its first and last iteration, the Abrams went from weighing 55 tons (M1) to 67 tons (M1A2 SEPv3), an 12 ton difference, all under the same dimensions beyong the turret cheek enlargement associated with, well, the additional armor thickness.
also its kinda funny people think its impossible the type 10 its that light but the type 10 its more tiny than a russian tank in everything except height
T80-B
lenght: 9.9 M
width: 3.4 m
height: 2.202 m
Type 10
Lenght: 9.485 m
width: 3.24 m
height: 2.30 m
I think it is a mix of:
- Overall distinction between Western and Soviet mbts.
- Previous vehicle have quite similar profile to most nato mbts.
- Type 10 is overall really “Western”-like on its first glance.
yeah for the most part it follows western philosophy but with the good parts of soviet philosophy
the more tiny the harder to be found and the harder to be found the harder to kill, it follows the survivability onion scheme, a tiny target its obviously harder to kill and find
1 Like
At this point, we could really use a visual comparison for this lol.
That way we can just reply with an image instead of having to write it out.
well that would be kinda complicated imma use paint lol
1 Like
Fair enough XD
2,3m is to the roof of turret not gunner sight.
read it dosnet count sight its the cupola the commander cupola of the type 10 its quite high
ill have to re do it anyways i didnt count on picture quality wait
The weight saving measures didn’t achieve that much in the end though, around 680kg.
The composite armor of an M1’s hull only makes up around 1841kg (5% of the total weight), whilst the entire running gear assembly weighs 6690kg, which IIRC was reinforced on at least one of the subsequent models.
There’s also an absolutely massive list of minor elements added to these vehicles that, when added up give a not insignificant gain in weight too.
height: from cupola
Spoiler
lenght: its measured from exactly the back to the front and its a huge difference
Spoiler
