It really is not. Look at the profile views- The T-72 is smaller yes, but it still presents a target. Second, it is not protected by a lot of armor in T-72.
It doesn't need to be protected by a lot of armour... a 5mm sheet of aluminium would stop hot burning fragments from landing on the propellent stubs... the photo shown is from the drivers compartment... the vast majority of hits on modern tanks are the turret... that is why the turret front is the most heavily armoured part of a modern conventional tank.
There is the metal plate over the autloader- does it look like good protection to you? It is not even meant as armor, just for loader mechanics.
to an amatuer it looks inadequate to stop even a pistol bullet.
To an expert... it doesn't have to stop pistol bullets... just hot fragments that would be stopped by metal sheet seen.
Neither is the T-72s. Look @ the pic above. Yes, there is marginally more protection by the shield, but anything serious will go right through it anwyays. Plus, I am not aware of Russian Army specifically reporting that AZ was more prone to explosions than MZ during Chechnya.
The fact that they stopped carrying ammo outside the autoloader suggests there is a difference in safety with ammo in the autoloader and ammo not in the autoloader...
Obviously the idea is not to have your armour penetrated in the first place, but when penetrated the most common area penetrated is the turret... which means exposed propellent stubs on the floor of your turret is an enormous health risk that only exists in the T-64 and T-80.
In fact the Russian Army did not report it found the T-80 more vulnerable than the T-72 did : if they did not have an issue with it, when both tanks sufered losses, who are we to tell them they are wrong?
First of all the protection on late model T-72s was better than any model T-64. the T-80 is expensive to operate because of their gas turbine engines and the fact that penetrations of their armour led to explosions due to the exposed ammo in their autoloaders.
T-80 and T-72 were both used. There was not found to be a difference in practical survivability.
Why did the T-72 crews operate with only 22 rounds of main gun ammo loaded?
Often enough actually. One of the three Russian tanks lost in 8-8-8 as a T-72 that suffered ammo detonation upon being penetrated by an RPG in a Georgian Ambush.
Too small a sample for any conclusive result... if the other two vehicles destroyed had been missed your conclusion would be that 100% of the time they explode when hit. How many dozens were hit but continued operating? An RPG is hardly a precision weapon, so the results will be rather variable.
The other T-72 however blew its ammo upon penetration.
And can you tell us how it was loaded? Did it only have 22 rounds in its autoloader, or were extra rounds loaded?
First of all, it is an older tank that has thinner armor than T-72B from the start, so you can expect it to fare worse when hit.
Poor logic... an RPG hit to a light vehicle can result in the plasma beam going right through and not actually killing anything or setting anything on fire.
Plus- for the comparitively small numbers, we have seen a LOT of T-72s with blown off turrets IN DONBASS! So what does that say about the design? Nothing good, if we apply the same logic from the T-64. T-72B3s too, plenty were blown up, when you consider how few the losses were overall.
You seem to think a blown turret is the result of the penetration rather than the subsequent fire.
A turret blown off is a natural result of the tanks ammo exploding all at once, but that does not mean all the crew will be killed instantly.
Might come as a shock to you but your beloved western tanks would also detonate when their ammo burns.
The T-80 stories about Chechnya are myths. The Russian army withdrew them because of gas turbine fuel consumption, nothing to do with autoloader design.
No, they are not myths... the Black Eagle design was intended to remove the ammo from the base of the turret to the rear turret bustle to eliminate the threat of exploding ammo blowing off the turret.
The more exposed turret bustle location for the ammo was rejected immediately by the Russian Army, yet surely removing the ammo from the base of the turret is the obvious solution to preventing turret tossing.
the fact is that with only 22 rounds in a T-72s autoloader and no loose ammo in the vehicle that if the vehicle explodes from fire it will be after burning for 10-20 minutes by which time the crew will be long gone or already dead.
In what tests exactly did the T-90 outdo the T-80U? I would take the T-80U any day over the original T-90, barring the high fuel consumption.
To be frank the improvement of T-90A over the 15 year younger T-80U is pretty miserable. Only with Armata are we moving forward at all.
They could have easily developed a diesel engine for the T-80U if it was really better than a T-90.
the fact of the matter is that the Russians could have chosen a T-80 or a T-90 and they chose the latter.
Once again, who is preferring the T-90 to the T-80U can you show credible reports?
Duh... the Russian Army chose the T-90 over the T-80.
Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
