Really ? Not original claim ?
No i was wrong with that claim but can you find any information about widespread history of T-64/72 autoloader “Biting off pieces of crew” if you so gracefully decided to protect that man claims ?
1 Like
About the only thing they have. And that is just a marginal increase in mobility. Nothing really stands out.
One of the rounds with worst pen. And you know that spall is calculated by residual pen, right? So it is a round with the worst pen and spall, with a 7.1 second reload.
Worse armor than the Abrams isn’t just average.
3BM60, DTC10, KE-W, etc aren’t bad rounds just cause they’re not DM53 and M829A2.
VT-4 has notably better armor than Abrams.
ZTZ-99A has on-par.
False image. That was taken prior to the ZTZ-99A’s model being fixed, it doesn’t account for the size difference of the tanks, and it’s over-exaggerating the turret area of ZTZ-99A.
I’ll do another comparison when I play the game later
“Limbs could be easily caught in the machinery, leading to horrible injuries and deaths. A sleeve unknowingly snagged on one of the autoloader’s moving parts could also drag a crewman into the apparatus upon firing.” (text shown with an explicit parenthetical citation: Perrett 1987:42).
However, you might say that’s an evil biased Western publication. What do Russian sources have to say?
Не так двинулся, не так взялся, не так положил – и, как минимум, синяк на руке или прищемил палец. А можно и что–нибудь сломать или порвать или растянуть связки кистей рук. … Неправильно разместил руку при досылании, растопырил пальцы – и слово “прищемил” здесь уже не подходит. Раздробление. Ампутация.»
Source: Topwar (same article / comment thread that outlines practical loading risks).
Move the gun wrong, grip it wrong, place it wrong—and you’ll get at least a bruise on your hand or a pinched finger. Or you could break something, tear something, or strain the ligaments in your hands. … Position your hand incorrectly while chambering, spread your fingers—and the word “pinched” doesn’t even apply. Crushing. Amputation.
Oh dear. Fun fact, open up any Russian forum thread where T-64/72 autoloading comes up, particularly experiences. Note the not-infrequent occurrences of the phrase жрали руки.
“Ate my hands”
What about experiences of actual users? Surely none of them have any concerns? Erm…
Yes, unfortunately, that’s true. The thing is, the machine gun holds all the shells, and it loads them into the gun. If you stick your hand in there, it’ll think it’s a shell too and try to load it.
So to summarise. Western sources reference the safety issues of autoloaders. Russian sources reference safety issues (particularly hands) of autoloaders.
BOTH sides of the Iron Curtain have references to the same basic issue. Big mechanical thing in small turret, crew placed immediately next to big mechanical thing. Big mechanical thing devoid of safety features.
I can’t really simplify it much more than that.
1 Like
What the heck is this ? Can you give full link to the source or name of it ?
A commentary from news article ?
Where is the proof of it ?
Where is the source ?
Link to site with JOKES this is just impossible. Even the animals could tell that was complete nonsense.
2 Likes
💀I told you what an assist loader is. The T-10M has one.(‘manual assist loader’ as you state doesn’t mean anything by the way)
The AMX-13 has what’s called a semi-automatic autoloader. The reload process has to be initiated by a button press/lever push but the loading itself is entirely mechanical and automated once that’s done.
When even topwar.ru(a pro Russian website) disagrees with you about France doing it before Russia, it might be time to call it quits my man:
“Первым носителем автомата заряжания считается французский легкий танк AMX 13, разработанный вскоре после окончания Второй мировой войны.”
→
“The first carrier of the automatic loader is the French light tank AMX 13, developed shortly after the end of the Second World War.”
Anyway, if you still can’t understand that, I’ll let other people with more patience than me continue this discussion.
i mean as i can see you shot so high you actually cound hit a UFP so no pen is okay.
Tho same usually does not occure on Leopards or Abramses, they also have some “no damage” penetrations to side armor, mainly damaging only turret baskets
same as sweden remain having best tanks ingame tho.
USSR can keep up with tanks so they have good air.
When the US cant keep up with tanks, they also have good air (hello Walleye A-4).
There’s no logical fallacy to point at
Autoloader definition isn’t even set in stone
You have a mechanism that takes the shell from magazine to the chamber without any crew member having to touch the round. It does the job of a manual loader, which is why AMX-13 can be so low profile and only has 3 crew members. That’s all there is to it really.
1 Like
@UNN_Daedalos By the way, fun fact but when Scorpion said that about composite armor
Even that isn’t really correct 💀.
The first country to create a working composite was the USA in 1957-58 with the T95E6. It was steel–fused-silica–steel sandwich plates made specifically to provide better resistance against HEAT. The US ended up not mass producing the design because they judged that the trade-off in quality-number wasn’t worth it. They chose more tanks on the field with steel armor rather than less with composite.
So while the USSR was the first to mass-produce it on a service tank, the US had a tested, working, full-scale design ready for production before the USSR.
Not the doom turtle, but this:
1 Like
There is also the pilot XM60 hull as well.
1 Like
https://youtube.com/shorts/xnD7c_lO2q4?si=uFAkma9Vfkrdblcn
This is what a manual assist loader is. This is on the Merkava Mk4. See how a crew member still has to manually load the shell into the breech.
1 Like
Yes, Russia wasn’t the first to play with this. I’ll do some shameless self-quoting :
The problem I have with UniqueScorpions is that he’ll take one of the steps that leads to a technology being fully developped to justify russia inventing it. And invent its own criterias, such as the autoloader. Nothing says an autoloader doesn’t require human action, the definition isn’t even set in stone. It just loads the round for a human.
Arguably, basically every country making tanks got involved in the development of these technology at one point or an other.
USSR, focusing more on tanks in its doctrine, did a lot in the last step, which i would call integration and mass production. But it didn’t “invent” by itself
By the way, what i mentionned earlier does not come from my own mind, it’s a documented process :
Sources :
1 Like
Well, the Russians also donated around 500 tanks during the conflict. You could say that Russia has donated more tanks than the entire West combined.
This war has shown that drones are the greatest danger in warfare, and that’s why everyone will do whatever it takes, however minimally, to protect the vehicle. That said, it’s always better to be in a vehicle that has a chance of saving the crew than in one where you could be 100 meters above the ground at the slightest provocation.
1 Like
Wow both sides adapting to a weapon they both field? Must be one side copying the other. Anyway this is getting off topic so lets bring it back to the game and not an IRL conflict.
Says the man complaining about a tank i dont even know existed, sit down and continue to play the game that you so despise, and on top of that. Says “go outside” when he plays a tank that most dont even know probably exists and yaps abt it on a forum like his highness has better things to do. LOL
But no, be a clueless brit main and barge into convos without reading like you said. Funny it hasnt worked out well enough
1 Like
Having now recently play’d both. Until the Chally gets the increased HP seen in the dev server rn, it is the worst MBT I have ever play’d by far. The Ariete at minimum has an ok acceleration to it. Of all the tanks I’ve play’d, Russian and Japanese tanks preformed the best. Leopards were great for awhile but that turret basket addton has killed any joy in playing them or the Abrams.