I don’t speak French, but I’m pretty sure cranking over the drum loader is an assisted loader no?
Please find a source for this “autonomous” Loading system.
Also, wasn’t implying Russia was the first to use 3 man crews if it came off that way.
They didn’t use it as a main power plant :)
They used as an auxiliary I believe for the hydraulic system.
Russia came up with the concept, and began to test it. It was stalled up until the advent of RPGs being all over that prompted them to restart the project, additionally yes Israel did make their own, but they came out about the same time, with the Israel development taking less time, likely from looking at others’ past experiences
? This Claim makes no sense, HEAT “threats” had propagated for almost four decades at that point.
- Explosive Lensing, was conceptually developed in the 1790’s (by Franz von Baader)
- Shaped Charges were Empirically demonstrated in the 1880’s (by von Foerster)
- Mid 1939 sees the first batch of 7.5cm HEAT shells delivered to the Germans
- The Bazooka sees service in North Africa starting 1941(Half a Million are built by the end of the war and subsequently supplanted by the M72 in 1963 as war reserves are expended, though supported by the M31 rifle grenade, until replaced at a squad level by novel 40mm HE-DP designs fired from the M203)
- Panzerfaust follows shortly afterwards(more than 8 Million of all types are built in the following three years).
By 1975 the M47 Dragon(FGM-77) enters service so you also get to consider actual tactically useful man-portable SACLOS launchers (200,000 rounds were built by 1981, and the SS.10 NORD (similar to AT-3 / 9M14 Sagger) is really only a minimum viable product) so its not as if there was no threats to be seen prior to 1980.
And that doesn’t even touch on systems like the BGM-71 TOW turning up in '72 in numbers.
4 Likes
The Strv 103’s gas turbine was the primary power plant.
It had a 2nd engine for redundancy and fuel savings when stationary.
This argument never makes any sense - I can sit in my CR2 any day of the week and acknowledge that the T-80 does everything my tank does and better in-game. Your T-80 can point anywhere on my tank except the absolute middle of my turret cheeks, and pen it. You can pen any part of my UFP, LFP, and I have a gaping mantlet that isn’t a volumetric hellhole. I’m also massive, fat, slow and have the second worst top tier round(and have a sub-400mm pen round stock).
Your T-80 has worse reverse speed and marginally less gun depression - hardly relevant when your tank has the lowest silhouette of any MBT, is very nimble, and excels in both close and long range maps.
I wish you Russia fanboys would either:
A) Wake up and smell the coffee
B) Force yourself onto a truly bad MBT, like the Ariete/CR2/Leclerc, then see what it actually means to be a bad MBT.
Won’t be replying to the slurry of arguments when I wake up
2 Likes
You do realize i dont give a damn about those tanks lmao, and youre telling me? I dont care about russian tanks being good or bad. Ive never compared any tank in this thread. Alot of useless words were written, maybe useful for someone else but go to the others who were yapping about abrams vs T-80 whatever.
And really isnt my issue when almost every nato country has a good relevant leo line up in their non german techtree. And are a better pick for tournaments than T-80s solidifying that “skill issue” is at the top of the problem with any of the players in this thread.
Just a reminder i never really spoke or compared with it abrams i just laughed at this thread and players not with russian tanks talking about them as if they have more knowledge.
1 Like
Ahh, i see why i was cherry picked to respond to, that message of mine had been liked by 5 russian mains and it pissed off а British main?
@ron_23 you see how people are in this thread? I probably have the least amount of involvement for any tank v tank related comparison and bro brought me out as if I am the one who’s complaining about russian tanks being bad… in any or shape.
1 Like
Its primary engine was the diesel…?
@ 8:45
You:
Me:
also nothing is worse than the Arietes
Chally is vastly better than those. And is kinda on par with t-80s and such tbh
4 Likes
you:
I:
It’s funny because you don’t own any of the vehicles you mentioned, only challenger. Saying Leclerc is bad is the height of madness. I haven’t played much with them and I found them extremely good at everything they do. How can you talk about those vehicles without even owning them? I even have the Challenger 2 and it’s a great vehicle. I suspect a skill problem.
5 Likes
I speak French. Here’s what they say:
14:15: “To allow greater fire rate and avoid complicated movements in the turret, it exists a system of two revolvers feeding the gun automatically”
14:40: “The tank commander activates the revolver(pushes the lever), the shell falls in the slide.”
14:45: “The tank commander activates the ramrod(pushes second lever), the shells is introduced in the chamber, the breech closes.”
So, instead of pressing a button like more modern technology allows, it is simply a mechanical system requiring the push of two levers. Nonetheless, there is no human loader and at no point does the Gunner or TC manipulate the shells, the loading is entirely mechanical and automated. it is a complete autoloader, albeit with 1952 tech.
Once again, assisted loading is something else. A good example of a tank with assisted loading is the T-10M. later T-10 had a mechanical rammer implemented to ease loading of the 122 mm gun but the loader still had to do the bulk of the work.
All in all, just admit you were wrong and move on. It’s not like you’re being paid by the hours/posts to defend the honor of Russian tanks.
4 Likes
Even worse, even if he owns it he will still be dogwater in them and fail to see their advantages and disadvantages due to his sheer incompetence.
5 Likes
There are plenty of people that did and still do well in said bad MBTs.
These tanks not being so good is still no excuse to almost go 0.5 in them.
2 Likes
If you go by that definition, every “autoloader” is an assisted loader since you need human input to start the reload sequence.
While the rotation is mechanical, it doesn’t make it any less of an autoloader, since contrarily to assisted loading like on T-10, you don’t need a crew member specifically for this task at all (Commander does it in AMX-13), and no crew members has to handle any round.
Neck autoloader is also the one that makes more sense because there is less parts. It disappeared momentarily after it was found out that oscillating turrets could not protect against NBC, but came back right after when gun neutral position was implemented.
This architecture is now on Leclerc, Type 90, Type 10, K2, and the upcoming KF-51 if i’m not mistaken
Nobody went for the carroussel arrangement
The americans were also experimenting a lot with oscillating turrets in the 50s, but tbh i don’t know how all their loaders work exactly.
In any case, trying to give paternity for an invention to one country or even one person only is usually impossible.
Let’s imagine a random imaginary equipment :
- Someone discovers the concept
- Someone makes an experiment with it
- An other pushes the experiment a bit further and makes it more viable
- Then finally some people deploy it on a large scale
Who made said equipment ?
Arguably : all 4 of them
3 Likes
Ever heard of “A fool with a tool is still a fool”? A powerful tool is still a useless tool if the person using it lacks the necessary knowledge and skill to apply it correctly. They are like those dumb lottery winners who manage to blow through their millions in such a short time lol no matter how big the amount they win
5 Likes
Spoken like someone who doesn’t have a clue.
BN and CR2E are alright.
Leclerc is a very good tank and i will take it over T80 anywhere.
4 Likes
This myth keeps on being regurgitated.
Russia was not the sole creator of the concept of reactive armour. They were not the first to employ it and develop it in a practical way that was actually useful. Israel led the way with Blazer. The US were playing around with the concept in the 1950s, Picatinny Arsenal IIRC.
As with most forms of tech - the Russians can usually be relied upon to be a generation behind the rest of the planet and furiously claiming to be leading the pack.
ERA. Composites. Regen steering. Thermals and related EO systems (using French TI hardware until sanctions). NERA (which I don’t think they can get the hang of even to this day). Autoloaders that don’t eat bits of crew and act as turret ejection systems. Even pallets. Yes, palletised logistics are still not in use. I kid ye not.
That’s just the ground domain. In the air, with a few notable exceptions of ‘oh crap - that might be good’ moments (MiG-29, Su-27 on first appearances) they are similarly hobbled. At sea their ships and submarines seem to be very adept at sinking themselves in peacetime without any external assistance.
You know, this all the usual basic military technology that the West worked out in the 1960s/70s. This is all public information, so don’t take my word for it - have a look in any relevant book…
If the events of 2022 onwards have illustrated anything - it is that Russian military technology really ISN’T as good as the sales brochures say. Innovative. Sure. Interesting. Certainly. World-beating? No. Not by quite a margin.
To try and claim otherwise is up there with thinking the moon is made of cheese.
3 Likes
Сlaiming smarter than every one and repeating stupidest myths in one sentence the bar was so low and even with that you failed.
2 Likes
Saying everyone else is wrong except for him, might just be the best unintended example of the dunning Kruger effect lol
1 Like