There is something called not taking ammo in the hull willingly and crew initiatives. Something that the Russians clearly haven’t learned.
1 Like
Neither do Russians carry ammo outside the auto loader anymore.
2 Likes
It is still in the hull and will create the new class of cosmonauts
That’s correct, Russia itself didn’t hide this from anyone. UVZ (UralVagonZavod) has already conducted studies, and they themselves stated that the detonation was caused by the ammunition being outside the autoloader and by the propellants. The T90M solves this by placing the ammunition in a protected area behind the turret and adding extra armor to the carousel, which, remember, is located at the bottom of the vehicle. But it seems some people can’t use all their brainpower to understand this. I’m not saying it can’t explode; it can, just like many others can.
3 Likes
Drones aren’t cheap.
They are not using 100 dollar drones off Temu.
They need to be large enough to carry a payload, they need to have larger battery, they need EW protection and in some cases the ability to change aerials to get around jammers.
All of this technology costs money, yes you can 3d print the chassis but the key parts cost money Ukraine like Russia flat out lies about the cost of their drones Lancet as an example is on the 3rd variant and yet it was still offered at 25K when Lancet 1 was used in Syria. Since then Lancet has an upgraded engine, an upgraded thermal camera an upgraded DL and upgraded payload, upgraded control system and EW and an upgraded launcher. The Lancet cannot cost 25K it is probably closer to 60K The same cost as the much maligned Switchblade drone.
Back to Ukraine FPV drones Ukraine quotes 400 dollars per drone. It is simply a lie, Ukraines FPV drones are closer to 1500 - 3000 dollars because if you use off the shelf equipment Russia can track and jam them with ease and send a missile/artillery shell to destroy the operator and the stash of drones.
So we are at a point now where a Laser that has no expense per shot, has no moving parts, requires no maintenance and can reliably intercept threats at the cost of well nothing is going to somehow be inadequate.
except the ammo in the carousel is still much more spread out, and is much more likely to be hit than ammo in other tanks
Not in the way it was before.
It’s now in the lowest part of the tank vs spread out around the whole tank.
It drastically reduced 1 hit kills by up to 42%
1 Like
Um… abrams? Leo?
1 Like
Now we’ve arrived at the real crux of the matter: where do these tanks operate? What geography do they operate in? What’s the mentality behind them? Do you know why no tank will be perfect nowadays? Even if you’re hit and survive, the moment you get out of that steel can, there will be thousands of drones hunting you in open terrain. You’ll die anyway. If drones didn’t exist in the form we see them today, we would truly see tanks in action at their full potential, and that’s why I hate drones. Is it so hard for people to understand this? Do some of the people here suffer from some kind of mental block imposed by the media or simply by hating one side? NATO tanks will operate differently, fighting in different terrain.
2 Likes
U didn’t show any advantage of NATO tanks over russian tanks.
It doesn’t exist.
On the contrary the turret ammo storage is extremely stupid and makes the tank regardless how advanced fpv lancet fodder a dead end design.
Technically, if we consider only MBTs, then the advantage of NATO tanks is reverse gear
Yes we have and that is the intrinsic design flaw of the current Russian Federations tanks.
They are designed to be a lower profile being harder to hit, back in the 70s that was viable but now not so much. NATO has always prioritised crew survival and comfort ergonomics.
Now the T-90/T-80 and T-72 are modernised but still have cramped crew conditions, poor visibility and the inability to really fight from defilade. The T-14 is a complete redesign from these classic Soviet/Russian design ethos, prioritising crew protection and as a result enlarging the tank to bring it more into line with NATO tanks. I do see massive wholesale changes to the T-14 and with experience gained in facing and capturing NATO tanks.
What purpose does it serve though semms like a minir detail
However, reversing is far more important than anything else, as it allows you to retreat without wasting time or return to base without turning around.
NATO use inert charges so the ammo doesnt explode…
DM-73 will mean that even in direct fire and a direct hit the ammunition will not burn, cook off or explode.
Yes those tanks exploded but we know the CR2 crew escaped after the tank was disabled (we have interviews from crews that operated in Kursk and fell back after the idiotic offensive.
Leopard 2s have exploded Kornets were a nightmare for Turkish Leopard 2s
My point is every tank can explode and it can kill the crew the difference is the likelihood of that happening. Leopard 2 may explode 1 in 10, T-72 is exploding 1-5
I doubt there would be any advantage that someone could show that would convince the biggest russia nr1 irl fanboy on this forum (you).
They don’t reverse all the way to base
ability to load better ammo
russian autoloaders massively limit the length their APFSDS rods
1 Like
What are the advantages of NATO tanks? Besides the speed of reversal? The only tank that has an advantage in survivability is the Abrams; the others don’t, especially your beloved Challenger 2, which is the worst tank of the NATO standard. Poor visibility? What tank in this world has perfect visibility? I agree that the T80BVM and T72B3 lack visibility for the commander, but that’s far from being the problem currently because no tank will venture out into an environment saturated with drones. The new T90M2 will have APS reversal and cameras installed around the tank. Honestly, I won’t waste my time anymore.
Yes, the T14 Armata will probably undergo many changes.
1 Like
This is obsolete. Idea from the cold war tank vs tank