It has nothing to do with the T-72. It's an Iranian upgrade for the T-55.
That makes rather more sense as 105mm ammo would be easier to source than 100mm ammo, and the T-55 already has room for three crew.
It actually says in the description that it is an upgrade of a T-55...
Also, you just assumed the brochure was correct.
The photo is misleading, as is the designation as this tank clearly has nothing to do with the T-72.
Otherwise the details seem to be accurate... a modernised T-55 with a 105mm british gun.
hmm, makes better sense that this is what it really looks like, maybe the Z suffix means going one gen backward tongue . then we could have M1AZ which is actually some M60 clone
Actually the mistake was ours... assuming the T-72 and T-72Z designation had anything to do with the T-72 designation of the Soviet tank of the same designation...
We can claim we were led astray by the photo of course...
You have done a good job of being the exact opposite of US-fanboys, but just as absurd.
The autoloader is a huge factor in reducing the size of the vehicle, and therefore increasing its armour density... these are facts... which in my experience US Fanboys wouldn't recognise with a map and a tutor point things out for them.
Calling the Abrams a weakly armored tank in comparison to the T-72? trying to sound psuedo scientific when mentioning density and area?
Calling the Abrams inefficiently armoured would be fair... the T-90 has comparable protection while being 20 tons lighter. You could say the same of the T-80U, though with the same fuel consumption issues as the Abrams hense the T-80UD.
M1 Abrams side armour was penetrated by T-55 100mm gun
That is perfectly normal for tank armour.
Bradley 20mm gun penetrated the engine chamber of M1 Abrams
Again perfectly normal.
Even the most capable modern MBT has protection over its 60 degree frontal arc to stop MOST OF THE TIME the main gun calibre of the enemy and the majority of their ATGMs. The Sides will generally only stop autocannon fire, so 100mm main gun ammo should still penetrate, and the rear armour wont stop much more than HMG fire if that... so 25mm gun on the Bradley should penetrate.
Side, rear and top armour of M1 Abrams can be penetrated by BMP 30mm gun
another IS suicide bomber truck taken out by the army, huge explosion & shockwave. No one wounded or killed except for the suicide bomber
So pretty good result all round.
Well the Abrams is a mediocre tank in comperision with lot of other tanks.
You need to check the meaning of mediocre... the Abrams is not a bad tank... it is a good tank, but not a great tank... like any tank it has issues... there are no perfect tanks.
It's like a kindergarten in here when it comes to the Abrams, dear lord.
No, the problem is marketing and hype. Just like the Patriot missile downing all those Scuds during Desert Storm and the Abrams being invincible against any Russian or Soviet weapon because the crap that the Iraqi army had in the early 1990s wasn't good enough has led to tales of the US being safe from ballistic missiles and the Abrams being some super tank that no T-80 could defeat... I mean after all the Abrams was sniping T-80s and T-90s in Desert Storm from 5km range... didn't you know that?
As usual the US is a victim of its own propaganda and after crying wolf this has come to bite it in the ass.
they see to now lie out of habit and as you have read here are now no longer believed... they called it an invincible tank so it gets called a mediocre tank... obviously the truth is somewhere in the middle (where else could it be?).
Blame the people here for getting a dose of reality and reacting to Americas bullshit... America does the same with Russia... everything Russia does is wrong because they are the enemy...
for this thread now...
With Iraqi soldiers in Abrams tanks fighting ISIS please do not post drawings showing weakpoints.