No, You just can't deal with the fact that the Abrams has done well in combat and has been statistically safer than the T-72.
It has not done well, not in comperision with what pathetic weapons were used against it of an army under 2 decades of sanctions leaving the military mainly with training APFSDS rounds as their main ammunition and with crew of the "elite" republic army having only 10 rounds per year of training. If it faces anything even remotley to what T-72 has seen in Chechnya, Iran-Iraq, Ukraine, Dagestan or anywhere else even monkey models had to deal with than you can say it did well and is combat proven.
I do well fighting kindergarden kids that does not make me a great fighter.
You are not stating facts, i gave you facts from 1st chechen war statistics where one out of 30 tanks while they had no ERA equipped a
Go ahead and show me some "facts" that prove this claim. 1 out of 30 with no ERA, that were hit? Show me.
Those tanks were under worst conditions, without ERA, against weapons that were on the same level as russia used, without tactics and still there were rarely ammunition cook offs.
Ok, it is 7 out of 41 T-72A/B tanks with one being hit by Artillery round from top for tanks without ERA under far worse conditions any Abrams has ever seen that does show exact oppossite of what you trying to portray here that T-72 are cooking off most off the time, which is not the case.
The T-80 1 out of 35 got penetrated with a cook off, they were used a little bit better and were all better armored in comperision with T-72, T-72A and T-72B.
Wrong again. The turret is turned. You have no idea where it hits. Yes, the Kornet can mess anyones day up from the front, but you don't actually know if it hit the front armor plate.
You have proof the entire crew died? In the Abrams when the ammo goes, the explosion is still mostly controlled out the blowout panels. In the T-72, we have seen what happens when the ammo goes. Entire turret flies off and crew is in most cases incinerated.
Watch the video again.
You can even stop the video at the moment where you clearly see the explosion while it is still on the frontal armor array and not the side armor array, following with flames from coocking ammunition out of the commanders hatch on the left side of the tank turret which excludes that this are the blow off penals which are on the right side.
I have a clear idea where it hits, the turret is standing like that. The Red is cornered the gun and frontal armor array, green is side armor and blue little dot is the missile split second before detonation. Check the video for yourself.
When there is clear and distingtive for ammunition cook off, flames coming out of commanders hatch then we are without doubt that those guys inside the turret had no chance surviving those flames, while the driver probably and most likely survived. Just because the turret did not fly off, because the hatches were open does not let the crew survive ammunition cook off, they are all dead inside the turret unless they wore fireproof suites which they use in melting oven.
We were talking about older RPG weapons, were we not? Kornet can screw up anyone's day. Though I would argue, it would do far worse to a T-72s crew, since you know, IT HAS NO ISOLATION FROM THE AMMO. Incidently, the Kornet is a more modern weapon than was fired against 99% of T-72s that saw combat, so that sinks your argument further.
We are not discussing RPG vs Kornet, we are discussing that you claimed Abrams is proven fighting iraqis which common AT weapons were PG-7 warheads with 260mm RHAe and the most capable AT weapon they had was AT-4 with 350-400mm RHAe pen, while T-72's in Dagestan, Chechnya, Ukraine have seen weapons of shaped charges mono and tandem of minimum of 550mm RHAe penetration with more capable ATGM's with tandem shaped charges like METIS-M with 900mm RHAe. We are discussing your claim that somehow the Abrams did very good against weapons that did not even exist in any serious armor perforation and penetration compared with Weapons that verywell had far higher destructive power than the Tanks were designed to fight against without using ERA, it is this exact contrast you lack to compare.
Wrong, wrong, wrong again.
1.) Even with Relikt the T-72 has plenty of weakspots that could be hit from the front.
2.) We are discussing both tanks vs RPGs essentially from light infantry or insurgents. The Abrams has done very well in this secanrio.
3.) You are once again pulling statistics out of thin air. In 8-8-8 ONE Russian T-72B was hit with RPGs. And ONE was destroyed with its crew. so 1 out of 1, if we go by your approach
1. Weak spots do not matter, they are not the object of our discussion, every tank has weak sposts and there are no exceptions. Armor and kprob in Tank vs Tank or AT vs Tank engagements are always measured by its moderate armor or by its highest protected armor, weak spots are not taken into any weapons development except top attack weapons, but there are no ATGM's that guide themselfs to hit gun mantled or lower hull glacis.
2. Abrams hasn't done well, that is why ARAT ERA was deployed because it was easily damaged and put out of operation by simple PG-7 warheads. I think we have here a big misconception of the level of your education on Iraqi war and equipment. You somehow think that using the weakest weapons of all against a 3rd GEN tank is somehow a better performance for the Abrams rather than the fact that older generations had to face much more modern AT weapons and did surprisingly well under circumstances.
You are comparing horse apples with bananas and claim horse apples are better tasting.
3. What retardation, the entire Georgian war only 3 tanks have been lost only one tank with cook off (T-72B) and of course not only 1 tanks has been engaged or damaged, so your 1:1 would not even work for your little bad argument to ridicule because the joke is only on you.
Hundreds of times doesn't make this any less baloney. The T-72s ammo layouts exactly far more dangerous for the crew.
As for being in a bustle, as combat has shown it hasn't been a huge problem, and that without a bustle the T-72 burns just as easily. Since, you know, it is very easy to penetrate from the sides, from the rear, and from the multiple weakspots in the front. The Abrams has the disadvantage of a larger profile....but those hits has a far less likely chance of killing the crew BY DESIGN in any case.
Neither tank was desighned from the outset to fight insurgencies from all sides in poorly defined battlefields, but the Abrams has kept its crws safer under fire.
No amount of whitewashing by you will change that.
That is not baloney that is a fact, that the ammunition stored behind MAIN armor is much harder to cook off than the unprotected ammunition in ammunition bustle, when cooking off puting the tank out of operation, crew survives but it does not matter to the purpose of you as an enemy RPG team if you can easily cook off the ammunition in the unarmored ammunition bustle and by that neutralizing the threat from the tank. I did not say that it is safer for the crew in case of cook off, i said the likelyhood of ammunition cook off is lower behind main armor as in comperision exposed ammunition bustles, that also show themselfs whenever the turret is turned. The T-72 is far better protect from all sides than Abrams, except front, due the thicker armor of side, top (small weak zones of the turret roof) and it is protected by ERA.
You still pushing this bullshit, Abrams has not kept its crew safer, because no WEAPONS were used in such numbers that would even penetrate it and every single time where Modern AT weapons like RPG-29 or Kornet-E have been used each time the tank got penetrated and one was injured or killed in one case 3 dead from Kornet-E cooking off ammunition in the ammunition bustle, fire entered turret and exit the commanders hatch, no surviving possible, no one tried to climb out of the wreckage.