Tank Lovers Group
Hobbies & Interests
This group is for everyone who like tanks, sci-fi tanks, real tanks, funny tanks, you can put here tank mods, tank maps, simply everything with straps, armor and gun :D
T-90MS Tagil Inside Look
Post a comment
Description
I watched the video and I found it very interesting. A very cool and formidable tank. Still don't like the Auto-loader design for its circular, center placement in the hull. As when a round does penetrate, and hit that rack, it blows everything above to high hell.
But, it looks like they have further more improved armor design and ammo protection.
A interesting new upgrade from our rusky friends.
The likelihood of a munition of any sort penetrating deep enough to destroy that central ammo storage would be pretty minimal, and if a projectile managed to destroy the hull storage it would be a safe bet to say that the tank would be well and truly knocked out anyway. The crew would be toast as well of course.
On this tank, yes. But say that to all the T-72's in the Gulf War.
I still don't like the placement of the ammo. At least on the Leclerc, Abrams and the Leopard they have it in the rear of the turret. It gets shot, you might loose all your ammo, but at least your turret won't go flying into the air.
The T-72s faced in the Gulf War (and almost any war in the Middle East for that matter) were Soviet exports aptly named "Monkey tanks" due to their being stripped down to the point of a hulk with a gun and engine, and resembled little of the in service Soviet models. To propagate the myth of the useless T-72 even more was the fact that Iraq even produced its own version of the T-72 Monkeys, named the Asad Babil. These were worse again.
Russian tanks stick to the idea of light and low profile, but to make this viable and still retain the armour of enemy equivalents, the need for on the production line ERA kits is a must. Most of the exported T-72s didn't even have ERA equipped. Combine these factors with poorly trained crew, badly stored ammo, and (by then) old technology, and you have a recipe for complete defeat. Then you have the opposing force with complete air dominance, overwhelming numbers, and better logistics.
I think a few Abrams have had their ammo stowage blown in the past... And I'm pretty sure it was not a pretty sight.
Yeah, I know. Also the Monkey tanks are terrible. And especially with the Iraqi's made the Lion of Babylon. (Or what you said, the "Asad Babil" in their language). We never faced the real T-72 in combat, and we most likely won't for a while. And if we do, its going to be a interesting fight.
T-72B3s and possibly B2s are more than a match for the M1A2 on a tank to tank level, statistics wise. Mind you, it really hasn't ever been hard to do better than an Abrams. Even the CIA didn't have faith in M1A1 when it was being developed. (I can't find the damn report now, but they had one detailing Soviet armour vs. United States, and it was scathing to say the least.)
I respect the T-72 and its new variants. It is most likely equal to its Advanced, American counterparts. I am not attempting to defend the Abrams specifically, or the matter of fact any Western tank.(Should have stated that way before)
But the fact is this:
The systems will only be tested on the battlefield and only then, can this new part of the debate can have purpose. As only war is the determining factor, its why these tanks are made.
Nice to see someone who doesn't dismiss the T-72 entirely!
I don't love it, I don't hate it. I consider it and have a respect for it, as its a weapon of war and its pretty ******* cool anyways. Just like any other tank. Ultimate weapon of war.