@@LexTenebriseven they still fully keep the 30s drivetrain technology looking at today's Russian Army T-72s and T-90s, I mean what country that has the balls to still put both 3 pedal manual transmission and dual tiller steering on tanks if not Russia, I bet those tanks are pain in the ass to drive
@@rosemaryfriedw124a8 I suppose it really depends on what you're used to. I kind of like the 3 pedal transmission and I definitely like dual tiller steering as an interface, but I have been known to be somewhat questionable in my decision-making processes. I would give up the transmission. But the steering - come on. Sometimes you've just got to be reminded that you're driving a Russian tank.
@trackjack269 "Which means the gunner looses PID (positive identification) after every shot." Wrong, the sight is independent just like in Leopard 2. The cannon goes exactly where the gunner is looking at through his sight after loading. ~ T-72M1 gunner.
@fener4e my understanding is that there are different modes of operaing. Before contact, Loader is head out as part of observation team. After contact, he drops down to service the gun when it is fired. He also, in many tanks, services the coax machinegun (the Gunner aims and fires it) The US M-103 in early 1960s had a 120mm gun with two loaders, so one would have his head out, the other would stay down to service the gun, with the "upper loader" dropping down to load the powder charge.
The M-84's actually proven itself in battle. The 35th Fatah Brigade of the Kuwaiti Army used it in the liberation of Kuwait in 1991. There's some trippy photos that look like T-72s painted in Coalition markings. They changed a lot of stuff on it: the thermal sight's different, and I think they wanted a French diesel, but I don't know if they ended up getting it.
22 rounds in the autoloader's carousel are protected from above by cover which is also turret's floor and it is under 1m high from the ground so there's low probability of direct hit (unless in urban warfare or so). However some of the remaining rounds and propellant charges (usually 20) are completely unprotected (you can see some of them at the beginning of video in the right upper corner) and these are the main problem.
@@xboxgorgo18 some of the older versions have that, T90M and T80BVM have their ammo stored differently and their carousel auto loader is completely shut off from the crew.
@trackjack269 I'm not sure about how it works in a T-90s gun sight but I heard (and its only a heresay) that on them sight itself is disengaged from the cannon in terms of that sight can maintain the aiming while the gun it reloading and automatically points to where the sight it aimed. My respect to you and congratulations on a good career :)
Wit training ammo I didnt mean that the shell is diferent, but the powder unit (the bigger half of the ammo) is weak. We used 30% powder unit for safety purposes. We used to do a lot of stupid thinks, as all young soldiers do. Like we used to shoot at eachother with machineguns, it could scare a sht out of you. One gunner accidently pulled right button instead of the left one and shot the AP round instead of MG, the round didnt penetrate the armor, turret was damaged, no one was harmed.
during the last decade of the Cold War to determine how effective such weapons would have been against these examples of modern Soviet tank design. Our results were completely unexpected. When fitted to the T-72A1 and B1 the 'heavy' ERA made them immune to the DU (Depleted Uranium) penetrators of the M829A1 APFSDS (used by the 120 mm guns of the Cold War era US M1 Abrams tanks), which are among the most formidable of current tank gun projectiles. We also tested the 30mm GAU-8 Avenger (the gun
The bad thing is that ammo is storaged around the turret ring. So one hit and whole shit blows up. Russians had those experiences from Chechen Wars. But perhaps in newer models like armata that problem is solved.
They knew it gonna make the turret fly away right at the beginning while preparing blueprints for the construction. That is kinda local issue to purchase such minor defects.
Actualy it has no any problems with accuracy, as so as it can launch ATGM which is 10 times more accurate than APFSDS. And during operation autoloader is closed with steel shielding so you can`t put an arm there even if you want. You can load carousel or do something there only when safety swich is on. Autoloaders is future that we use 40 years
Trajectory is flat because the velocity is high. Velocity is directly related to kenetic energy/penetration. I've seen a M-829 round fired at 2,600 meters enter the turret of a T-72 and exit through the engine compartment. At shorter ranges there are reports of M-829's penetrating one T-72, exiting, then penetrating a second T-72. As a further example of the accuracy revolution, 125mm rounds fired at M-1's infrequently hit their target (thank God), and never penetrated. Things change...
@MadIgor1 Actualy Soviet tank designers knew all that - that is why T series have powerfull HE-FRAGs and canister rounds And T-80U/T-90 have Ainet system that sets HE-FRAG to explode on exact waypoint. and Shtora that determines source of laser emmition on protected tank and automaticaly turns turret - guner just needs to puch a button Plus - in full scale war - enemy positions will be barraged by MLRS - so 90% of infantry will be dead or injured
@mst3k4evur Exactly. In case you didn't know, the terrain the Abrams was made to fight in as well as tactics of its use were centered on desert battles (relatively smooth terrain) and hull-down (stationary) fighting which dictated its design. Who is going to load the shells if the Loader suffers from contusion after a hit? Auto-loader doesn't care. For the conditions the M1 is made to fight in its perfectly fine, but it'd fail miserably if applied to Russian tactics. So would T-72 with US tactic
Technology is often trumped by tactics. As I've said, if I don't need to lase to a target less than 2000 meters away because the trajectory of the round will not pass above or below the target, why lase at all? Just shoot. Also, If I'm in the defence and I know the range to fixed points in my area of fire, why lase? "That tree is 2500 meters away, and the enemy tank is next to it. Set range 2500, fire..." Lastly, there is no "match" tank ammo, but every round is hand made...
@broadjumper1 As implemented in the T-64/T-72, the main disadvantage of the autoloader is the gun has to move away from the last firing position to full up for loading. The French AMX-30 had an autoloader which carried the ammo in the turret bustle, and tracked the movement of the gun. The AMX paid for that with a sad shot trap at the front, which the T-64/T-72 don't have. I like manual, there is plenty to do in combat, and the loader provides observation and security when not loading.
1. In early year of autoloader, that will be a bad thing but modern days when you have advance FCS, is that really a problem? 2. Good luck trying to spot a target from 2000m away with your eyeballs with no thermal imager.
@@divinesan7786 I refer you to the Battle of 73 Easting, in which many targets were spotted, fired on. and killed from excess of 2000 meters. T-72 tanks with autoloaders didn't get even a single round to strike on the M-1 Abrams tanks.
@@DonMeaker i don’t give a shit if it is a 100 years old bruh. I mean if that “old information” is wrong then. I like how this is your respond which is hilarious. Also fun fact: I didn’t complain, it is called ‘debunk’.
@Waltham1892 You are in delusion. Smoothbore gun was first introduced on service tank in T-62 as so as APFSDS rounds - it was in year 1961 Since 1973 all Soviet tanks have ballistic computers with laser rangefindres that measure temps of round, charge, barrel atmosphere, pressure wind target speed target range e t c - i remind you it was in 1973. T-80 had even more advanced FCS in 80s and not both of them are constantly upgrared + they also have thermalsights since 1989
I found in shooting 120mm ammo that the battlesight range (the range at which the trajectory of the round was neither above or below the target, meaning no range correction is needed), was 2000 meters. This means the only error which would result in a miss on a moving target was lead error, which the ballistic computer adjusts for. As for absolute error, a match rifle will shoot an 8 inch group at 1000 meters. 24 inches at 2000 with a 120mm APFS round is in line with that.
Not meaning to disagree with a Marshall, but it has been my experience that both the 105mm gun on the M-60A3 and the 120mm gun on the M-1A1 will put a APFDS round within 24" of point of aim at 1200 meters. ATGM'S, who tend to "wander" in flight are far less accurate at shorter ranges and are more accurate only at much longer ranges, 2000 meters plus...
And penetration power of 950mm for Invar-M is more than enough - less than 30% of M1 front armor capable to withstand. Actualy even if there will be no penetration - tank will be crippled - its gun can be damaged by explosion, it can have mobility loss, its optics and vulnerable thermalsights can be damaged e t c - so T-90 can kill or cripple enemy tanks at 7 km and then safely close in and finish the job with APFSDS or even HE-FRAG rounds. As so as T-90 can defend against helis and jets
Jukov read more precisely pl. I said that the doctrine was to buld the T72 as cheap as possible to outnumber the western armor by 4:1. I didnt said it was inferior, in opposit I stated that its on pair with western tanks (and that after rheinmetal gun introduction). The doctriune of WP was to have 3:1 advantage for succesfull attack and 4:1 for decisive victory, read the tanker guide book from that era or ask your dad.
You wrong, we had plenty of T64s and T72s Urals in Czechoslovakia, dont you remember that after invasion in 1968 we had here constant "protection" soviet contingent equiped with T64s and T72s (mostly Ural). They even left some armor here when they withdraw. I remember we used two pcs for driver training. I remember how hard was the Oil filter change in comparison to M. True is that russian made M had inferior armor, but not the Czechoslovak nor Yugoslavian, duno about Polish one.
I think your memory is shorter than mine. The M-551 and M-60A2 used a gun/missile system. The gun had to be made 152mm to fit a missile that would penetrate armor. Of course, when firing conventional ammo the recoil was fierce and the fire control system couldn't take the beating. The Soviets went the other way, keeping the gun a reasonable bore while ending up with a missile too small to penetrate a tank in the frontal arc. Every weapon is a trade off...
Desert storm wasn't stand-off between tanks. FCS also can't predict the opponents tanks next turn. You shoot where the tank WILL BE but it may not go there and may go somewhere else. If you are stationary - you are dead. You ALWAYS move. If you have no APS then if opponent can fire ATGMs (LAHAT, AT11, KOBRA) then you are gone irrespective of what you do since they are guided. Ever tried to load a heavy shell into breech when tank moves in all directions when you are tossed all over the place?
Jukov I disagree at this point, 1972-3 was the year of introduction of T72 which had binocular range finder only, no laser no computer. The version M introduced the laser range finder ant this was at early 80s if I right remember. I served as a tank commander and tank platoon leader on T72, never saw a life combat (lucky me) with tank. Saw firing test of T72 vs Abrams in 1995, both tanks where on pair at that time, ERA giving T72 some edge in protection.
Waltham1892 your last interventions clearly show your TRUE face ,and naturally your complete impossibility to sustain an high level discussion with knowledgeable persons . Remeber that the next time you attempt to persuade someone that western tanks design is better ,citing the usual IDIOCIES ,like i have proved with FACTS from the gretaer WESTERN names in the field (for the chronicle i am a western citizen too...but at contrary of you i have the knowledges and intellectual honesty
It might be so, if the round has real flat trajectory then you need less balistic computing. Then the question is does the AP round have enough energy to penetrate the armor at 2000m+? You have to keep in mind that T72 has very low profile with steep angle on turret. Saw test back in 1995 when engeneers (from Chrysler?) claimed that Abrams have edge over T72 and can destroy T72 at 3000m distance, which they didnt achive with 5 test AP rounds. Yes they did hit the targed, no they didnt destroy it
all possible resources and will lead in about 10 -12 years from its introduction to the phasing out of T-72 series. The same principle of sparing resources and wait for operationalize much efficient equipments has been applied also at Air Forces . RuAF has avoided to mass introduce a wonderful aircraft like SU-30M /M2 ,exported instead to India ,China, Malaysia etc..,to introduce instead SU-35 S and of course to have the funds to complete R&D of PAK-FA and mass produce it within 7-8 years .
Not during normal operation. That rumor got started from the T-64, whose early autoloader was unreliable. Trying to clear a jammed autoloader improperly could result in ones arm getting caught in the autoloader. Just like any piece of heavy equipment, if you work on it improperly, it will hurt you.
I was an M-60A3 Tank Commander, M-60A3 Platoon Leader and Tank Company XO, and the Asst S-3 in an M-1A1 Tank Battalion. Most of my adult life has been spent in and around armor, in both peace and combat. I would guess that you have no experience in armor, because anyone who had crewed a modern MBT would know that a 20% hit rate at 2500 meters under any conditions is foolishly low. A crew that turns in a less that 75% hit rate should be reclassified into cooks and clerks.
Im sorry Waltham, Czechoslovak and later Slovak Army. We tested a lot of western armor in effort to join Nato. So the M1A1 for firing/driving tests was in new condition and we had two M1s as a targets, didnt examine them if new or wrecked. The intention was to rearm, outcome was that we can build 5 T72 M1 for same price of a single M1A1 which was on pair with the T72 M1 in our territorial suroundings. So it was decided to modernize the T72 design, check out the slovak T72 M2.
... when we did the actual tests, and Abrams was knocked of by single AP shot at 1500m distance (that was the standard test distance for all our tests). I saw some T72s in Iraq few years after the desert storm, but all of them where killed by guided misiles (Hellfire I think). And yes I saw at least one soviet made T72 there for shure, not polish nor Iraqi. As far as I know soviets didnt export the full armor version. I still belive that Sadam gave some training ammo to his crews.
Passing at HEAT - APFSDS efficiency you have the idea a little confused. The only Russian tanks design problem,at now,is with new generation APFSDS,absolutely NO with HEAT and it has NOTHING to do with gun barrel limitations but with lenght limit of the autoloaders not designed ,of course, at the time of its introduction to accept APFSDS of the lenght of the new types. The main problem is economical (and only in part of engineering) amd linked to the cost -benefits in retrofit no new generation
"As long as the Serbian parade was going NORTH ,they could have had elephants in it for all i cared...." For what YOU cared ...but the tghing is MUCH different if you are called USAF and even only 2 weeks earlier you had OFFICIALLY declared to have destroyed 69-74 % and that event CARE even more to it after the survey of European inspectors finded that some events described by USAF to be COMPLETELY INVENTED....We call of a thing very important Waltham1892 : The efficiency of Air Forces
I haven't thought of a snappy reply to put here, but I figure as long as I deny you the last word you are going to post something in reply. Saves me time doing it this way....
I remember an Iraqi Brigade Commander who said he lost 7 tanks to two weeks of air attacks, and 45 in the two hours he was in combat with a US Armored Cavalry unit.
Soviet tanks were built on a completely different doctrine than nato counterparts. You can’t just go off of western propaganda and simply call it “stupid”
APFSDS against an apparentely identical target, observing it having pratically no effect at all !!! and testing instead for the first time the HUGE difference among an half propellant 3BM17 and a 3BM42 APFSDS or a 3VBK16 and a 3BK25 HEAT. I remember to you that Leland Ness exstensive live experimentation tests involved ONLY effect of K-5 !!, the tanks in question,in fact was deprived of any weapons (like At-11 or APFSDS and HEAT) and any type of FCS or tracking systems because them was used
yes I heard that first hand from Col. Jason Black (not shure if I do remember it right), that one of his Abrams was bottomed and attacked by a platoon of Iraqi T72s. The Abrams was hit by first T72, then was knocked of by Abe, then second T72 was same story, and after that the crew abandoned the third one. He claimed that the first hit was sub 500m range and T72 cannot harm Abrams. We said that they must have used some inferior ammo, he was laughing. You should see his face next day.....
enjoy a similar advantage in the Bomber department.. USA enjoy an advantage in radar technology (since HEMT- High Electron Mobility Transistor - and Gallium- Arsenide / Nitride semiconductors and the derived AESA designs), while Russian enjooy a similar one in Rocketry with HTMV and High Energy /coheisive beam spatial propagation computations ("stealth" technology or for better say PTD developed by russian and adopted by USA has been a subproduct of that field of research). Like you can see
@Waltham1892 ATGM is not supposed to be a short range weapon and also Russian ATGM are usefull at 500 meters Of cource may be you can put APFSDS in 24" - but into STATIONARY target - you will not have that luxury with moving targets like tanks aspecialy at 2000+ meters - and here comes guilded missiles
@@RugalBernsteinOfficial We had threaded comments. Just not on TH-cam. In a sense, I miss those days. Actually, more specifically, I miss the days before comments at all on TH-cam. Any commentary had to be done on another site with a link to the original video, that site was generally intended for ease of communication, and populated by people who probably cared what you had to say. Now - not so much. But I'm still the same guy who suggests that USENET was a far better design for social media interfaces than anything we've seen since.
@@LexTenebris We did? Hard to remember as I was just a kid on my early days on the internet, I can only remember 5 star ratings and didn't comment at all back then
@@LexTenebris Actually I remember that in order to read a conversation from a video you always got redirected to a page with all the comments from that video, don't know if that's the same thing you are talking about
You bring up a good point that no one talks about much. The Soviets made two families of tanks, an infantry support tank (the T-62/T-72), and the dedicated tank killer, (the T-64/T-80). The West went with a single design, the MBT. I'd thought the Russians went with T-72 for economic reasons, and possibly because the factories were in Russian territory. As for the T-72 being lighter, I'll take the extra weight in armor...
Well, all tanks are armor killers, some are just better than others. (Note, I'm talking about armored fighting vehicles that are designed to engage other armored vehicles) The T-62 was a stop gap between the T-55 and T-64, made to go up against modern western MBTs. The T-62 was actually a modified T-55 hull.
The problem about catching a tank from the flank is that your target is very often uncooperative. Even if your target does decide to turn flank on to you his wingman, the other two tanks in his platoon, and the other platoons in his company, and the other companies in his battalion may decide not to play along. Life is very short for soldiers trained to be lucky...
to Jukov: I dont remember that i saw any T72"Ural" with laser rangefinder. Also I saw that Iraqi army had soviet made T72s, saw one by person down there, altrought it migth be some lover armored version. With iraqi ammo you are right, I think that they had some old or some trainings ammo, or no AP rounds at all.
Nation of Europe and i can assure you that ,if i go out a city, i have ENORMOUS difficulties to find potiential battlefields for a such war with ranges inferior to 3,5 Km ,and often much more !!! That is exactly as the question of autoloader ,we have attempted to engineerize an efficient one for ours MBT,failing...and after the human loader has becomed more efficient, an IMMENSE IDIOCY !!! Ah Ah
IDR's Pentagon correspondent Leland Ness explained that US Army tests involving firing trials on 25 T-72A1 and 12 T-72B1 tanks (each fitted with Kontakt-5 explosive reactive armour [ERA]) had confirmed NATO tests done on other former Soviet tanks left behind in Germany after the end of the Cold War. The tests showed that the ERA and composite Armour of the T-72s was incredibly resilient to NATO anti-tank weapons.... "During the tests we used only the weapons which existed with NATO armies
Heavier tank doesnt mean it has better protection. If you ask me, I tend to prefere the T72 doctrine as a MBT supported by infantery. Its the best for European battlefield. There is no modern MBT which can survive atack of other MBT sub 1500m. The real treath is infantery and Choppers with guided missiles, so we need infantery around to be safe. Tank killers are heavy dead meat. In desert the situation might be different since there is more open space..
I don't know what your experience is, but I've always found that APFSDS is the most accurate munition on the battlefield at any given range due to its flat trajectory and short time of flight. Missiles come into their own not due to accuracy, but due to the loss of killing power of APFSDS rounds as its kinetic energy bleeds off. Also, missiles can be fired by anything, even man-portable units, while a main gun requires a massive platform to manage recoil.
Lttle correction,in my copyof the article after... GAU-8 the gun i have missed .... of the A-10 Thunderbolt II Strike Plane), the 30mm M320 (the gun of the AH-64 Apache....ok ? Good reading
@Spetsnazovets what sucks about auto-loaders is that the gun has to go back to 0 (zero) elevation after every round. Which means the gunner looses PID (positive identification) after every shot. Also, because tanks are on tracks, the crew isnt "constantly rocking, tilting, raising up and down at high speed" because tracks provide a smoother riding platform than tires, i prefer a human over machine main gun loading ANY day. Trackjack; 12 years M1A1 Tank Commander KFOR, OIF, OEF Vet.
5 second about average for manual load sometimes even faster. Repitive rate is what an autoload excels at though. After 5 or 6 shells at 4 secs you are spent.
@ RufusT Easy way to resolve the argument. They can provide a clearly defined video showing the 'cover'. Problem is that every video showing the interior of the a Russian tank shows no such cover, even when the gun isn't being filmed firing.
@ RufusT "There are valid arguments for an against keeping the ammo in the hull" True enough, mainly that they have no other option since Russian tanks are notoriously cramped inside. But the Russians have never been that focused on crew safety.
@MadIgor1 T-64 and T-72 for domestic use DO havelaser rangefinders and many other interesting stuff. You could not see T-72 Ural because for export was only T-72M`s which had nothing. T-64 never exported at all.
@MadIgor1 NATO tested actual Soviet T-72B with K-5 ERA with M829A1 and similar rounds - and it remained NOT PENETRATED - even at 200m - point blank And its FCS was similar to T-80BK T-80U abd T-80UM as so as T-90 have same effective FCS In addition since 1976 - all Soviet tanks including retrofited T-55 have gun launched ATGM - which extents its range up to 7 km with 0,9 hit probability even at moving targets And -7 +13 degree elevation angle is more than enough for any MBT
Jukov I didnt mention T80 a single time, never saw one in person. You are wrong that T64 was never used outside of USSR. I saw at least one Guardovyj platoon with T64, and there was NO balistics computer there! Most soviet troops where equiped with T72 Ural, I saw first laser T72 around 1980 again at soviet base. The soviet builded T72M is not equal to Czechoslovak or Yugoslavian (maybe Polish too) so dont compare it. You should mabe read more closely your tank forums.
ok , but the use odf autoloader and eliminate 4th crew mwmber lead to reduce mass of tank , because weak of russian engines lead to reduce mass tanks to 50 tons. and on battlefield , usually you wont want more speed of reloading because you can handle oly up to few targets at minute. rate o fire on t-90 fit with it
As I said this might be true but with stationary shooter/target, or the target has to have continuos axial trajectory. But all russian tanks today do have laser sensors, so when you do the target aquiring, they know from which direction, and its very hard to hit manuvering taget at 2000m+ range. They can even set the system to automatic smoke granade discharge when lased. The claim of 8in group at 1000 meters might be true, but not with mil ammo. Abrams doesnt use match ammo, does it?
tanks with autoloaders (like those mounted on T-90 series) to allow them to fire APFSDS of the type 3BM44M or 2BM48. Russians stimed that type of measure not cost-effective ,above all considering that,at now, theirs tanks with AT-11M, with a penetration value (against no heavy ERA equiped targets) in the order of 870-950 RHA, would enjoy a CRUSHING power / kinematical advantage on theirs western counterparts and the mass production of the new MBT (unofficially called at now T-95) will require
The reason our projects for a gun launched ATGM failed is the same reason your probably has. The ability of a HEAT warhead to penetrate armor is a function of its diameter, which is limited to the size of the bore. In tanks of Soviet/Russian design there is a further limitation, the auto-loader system can only handle rounds of a certain length. Right now the US is developing a gun ATGM system that is KE based, and not HEAT, because it gets around that problem.
US Doctrine called for infantry to screen for infantry anti-tank weapons (RPG'S, man portable ATGM's, mines). All direct fire anti-tank work was left to tanks with a little support from ground and air launched TOW and Hellfire missiles. A less well protected vehicle would NOT have worked for us. Also, to be frank, the US put crew survival as a higher priority than the Warsaw Pact did...
"The problem about catching a tank from the flank is that your target is very often uncooperative.". Waltham that is true only if the main weapons of the two opposed tanks have more or less the same engagement ranges, when your opponent can engage you at MOST THAN DOUBLE the effective range of your main gun ,being attacked at your flank (and in case of russian doctrine at both your flanks or at front /flank, by two ATGM to negate to you your only hope to avoid a side hit ..) become
@ikillyouhahahalameo Stop to load if terrain is too rugged. Or at least slow down substantially. If the battlefield is not a smoothish one - forget fast firing with manual loading.
First of all, what is your experience with armor? If you have no experience now is the time to say so. Secondly, you can leave type messages until you fingers break. I'm not responding to 14 of them.
Ground Force's structure enjoy a crushing kinematical and power advantage on theirs western counterparts ,that is a FACT ceckable by anyone. If you search a branch in which NATO (or for better say USA) is LARGELY ahead of Russia see the Navy (USA Navy would be likely capable to confront the Navy of the other nations COMBINED and probably even win !! ). In the Air Force branch USA enjoy a numerical (and in the case of F-22 also a quality advantage) in the fighter department while Russia
" First of all, what is your experience with armor?" I am a physicist ,and my interests are above all in technical solutions adopted in the designs (and i can assure to you that ,between books and publiations by the greater names at world in the field...and some collagues..., i can count various HUNDREDS of them ) . I have instead the sad impression that you has very limited knowledges on the subject ; What has indirect fire and the presence of other assets on the battlefield to do with what
had parity (or probably even superiority) in armour. Clear Waltham1892 ? The famous "Silver Bullet" of Gulf War would have been a Glass Bullet against the ORIGINAL , CONTEMPORARY soviet T-72B and that was EXACTLY what soviet had planned !! Image the horror on the face of USA's tank's gunner veteran of Gulf War, that would have been the luck to reach its gun engagement range (after dozen and dozen fellows of its division was destroyed by never confronted ATGMs) and would have fired its M829A1
I want to add some elements to the discussion : 1) When Leland Ness 's equipe tested K-5 it don't examined only its monstrous efficiency against all main HEAT and APFSDS rounds operative at the time on western tanks (in particular M829A1 ) but also the principal anti tank artillery and air delivered ammunition (TOW and AGM-114 of various version included) and autocannons (like the A-10's GAU-8 Avenger and the AH-64's M320 ) ALL with the same result of no penetration or very little damages !!!
Unfortunately, I don't think that was part of the original footage. But there is a whole lot of really good exterior footage of T-72's firing that show that hatch in awesome detail.
,in ex DDR at the beginning of '80 years, as whole "hosts" to tests the systems before theirs operative introduction (is probably just for that motivation that Russian had losed track of them in theirs collection of any sensible equipment from ex DDR. If you are curious i give to you the "solution" of my challenge Lieutenant John A. Nagl, "A Tale of Two Battles: Victorious in Iraq, An Experienced Armor Task Force Gets Waxed at the NTC," Armor, Vol. CI, No. 3 (May-June 1992), pp. 6-13 . Read it
Since the introduction of the M-1A1 there has been a revolution in accuracy. Smooth bore cannon, the M-829 round, second generation thermal sights, third generation computer (the M-1 measures the temp of its ammo and 11 other factors),have resulted in level of accuracy I could only have dreamed of in the M-60A3. The Germans are doing even better with a new gun barrel that gives better accuracy/velocity. You have to see it to believe it.
to inflict significative damages to ground forces has been ALWAYS twisted ,multiplied from 6 to 20 times and that is NOT a detail ,above all if you consider that in all those operations NATO Air Forces have operated against enemy equiped of SAM systems 20-30 years older than theirs aircraft,totally devoid of ANY type of ground based ECM systems (as you well know 7-8 times more powerful that theirs airborne counterpart) and with Air Forces outnumbered 9 - 14 :1 and composed by aircraft very old
it's not that hard to do actually, and besides which there's no advantage to maneuvering when your enemy's fire control is good enough. Modern tank engagements are usually stand-off duels.
Welcome, algorithm traveler. Get a little bit of rest here, till you continue on your journey.
No, no, this is my stop, thank you though.
Have you seen how old some of these comments are a few of them are 10+ years.
Thank you, but I believe this is my stop. Althoug I shall take your place, until someone takes mine and I continue my path of knowledge.
Gotta catch em all
Thank you for the offering
I love how this footage of a tank from the 70’s looks like it’s from the 30’s
To be completely fair, a lot of the mechanics are almost the same as Russian tanks from the 30s.
@@LexTenebrisexcept the auto loader was invented in the 1960s
@@LexTenebriseven they still fully keep the 30s drivetrain technology looking at today's Russian Army T-72s and T-90s, I mean what country that has the balls to still put both 3 pedal manual transmission and dual tiller steering on tanks if not Russia, I bet those tanks are pain in the ass to drive
@@rosemaryfriedw124a8 I suppose it really depends on what you're used to. I kind of like the 3 pedal transmission and I definitely like dual tiller steering as an interface, but I have been known to be somewhat questionable in my decision-making processes.
I would give up the transmission. But the steering - come on. Sometimes you've just got to be reminded that you're driving a Russian tank.
@@LexTenebris yeah, dual tiller system is actually okay but you just can't do the neutral steering
Damn the comment section is so fucked you can really tell its an OLD video
Yes
17 now
*Emergency turret ejector at work
Pretty much every cook off was due to ammo stored outside the caroussel, not a single T90M has had a turret ejection because of the new ammo storage
16 Years ago WoW
Yeah, been a day or two.
Ахахах, это реально самое старое видео, которое отправлял мне ютуб)
@trackjack269 "Which means the gunner looses PID (positive identification) after every shot."
Wrong, the sight is independent just like in Leopard 2. The cannon goes exactly where the gunner is looking at through his sight after loading. ~ T-72M1 gunner.
wouldn't this one be the very early versions?
@@kalsten2236 I do not believe so, seeing as the T-62 had this long before and the T-55 with their stabilised weapons.
Finnish?
@fener4e my understanding is that there are different modes of operaing. Before contact, Loader is head out as part of observation team. After contact, he drops down to service the gun when it is fired. He also, in many tanks, services the coax machinegun (the Gunner aims and fires it) The US M-103 in early 1960s had a 120mm gun with two loaders, so one would have his head out, the other would stay down to service the gun, with the "upper loader" dropping down to load the powder charge.
The M-84's actually proven itself in battle. The 35th Fatah Brigade of the Kuwaiti Army used it in the liberation of Kuwait in 1991. There's some trippy photos that look like T-72s painted in Coalition markings.
They changed a lot of stuff on it: the thermal sight's different, and I think they wanted a French diesel, but I don't know if they ended up getting it.
22 rounds in the autoloader's carousel are protected from above by cover which is also turret's floor and it is under 1m high from the ground so there's low probability of direct hit (unless in urban warfare or so). However some of the remaining rounds and propellant charges (usually 20) are completely unprotected (you can see some of them at the beginning of video in the right upper corner) and these are the main problem.
youre right
Exactly
Tell that to Ukraine NLAWs
@@xboxgorgo18 some of the older versions have that, T90M and T80BVM have their ammo stored differently and their carousel auto loader is completely shut off from the crew.
@@xboxgorgo18its clear OP was right since if a NLAW pens the turret what do you think is gonna be hit first?
Leaving my signature behind so everybody knows I'm really cool
If anyone ever asks, I'll pass it on.
@trackjack269 I'm not sure about how it works in a T-90s gun sight but I heard (and its only a heresay) that on them sight itself is disengaged from the cannon in terms of that sight can maintain the aiming while the gun it reloading and automatically points to where the sight it aimed.
My respect to you and congratulations on a good career :)
Yes, that is true for most modern tanks (starting in the 50s or so)
Even some non-stabilized tanks like the AMX-30 have a decoupled sight.
Wit training ammo I didnt mean that the shell is diferent, but the powder unit (the bigger half of the ammo) is weak. We used 30% powder unit for safety purposes. We used to do a lot of stupid thinks, as all young soldiers do. Like we used to shoot at eachother with machineguns, it could scare a sht out of you. One gunner accidently pulled right button instead of the left one and shot the AP round instead of MG, the round didnt penetrate the armor, turret was damaged, no one was harmed.
during the last decade of the Cold War to determine how effective such weapons would have been against these examples of modern Soviet tank design. Our results were completely unexpected. When fitted to the T-72A1 and B1 the 'heavy' ERA made them immune to the DU (Depleted Uranium) penetrators of the M829A1 APFSDS (used by the 120 mm guns of the Cold War era US M1 Abrams tanks), which are among the most formidable of current tank gun projectiles. We also tested the 30mm GAU-8 Avenger (the gun
My great and abiding pleasure. :)
damn, this is the oldest comment that i have ever seen, nice bro.
@@akumazakazaki9510 I have talents beyond human reckoning. :)
@@LexTenebris holy shit 14 years, the algorithm has sent me into the stone era of youtube
@@Tales41 Technology is an amazing thing. :)
@@LexTenebris respond pleeease!
The bad thing is that ammo is storaged around the turret ring. So one hit and whole shit blows up. Russians had those experiences from Chechen Wars. But perhaps in newer models like armata that problem is solved.
They knew it gonna make the turret fly away right at the beginning while preparing blueprints for the construction. That is kinda local issue to purchase such minor defects.
@@HanSolo__ minor defects? it's the biggest flaw in Russian tanks as am enemy commanders no if they shoot the turret area that tank will be no more
@@makripper123 Well. I know mate. I know. I've been joking a little bit.
Actualy it has no any problems with accuracy, as so as it can launch ATGM which is 10 times more accurate than APFSDS.
And during operation autoloader is closed with steel shielding so you can`t put an arm there even if you want. You can load carousel or do something there only when safety swich is on.
Autoloaders is future that we use 40 years
Trajectory is flat because the velocity is high. Velocity is directly related to kenetic energy/penetration. I've seen a M-829 round fired at 2,600 meters enter the turret of a T-72 and exit through the engine compartment. At shorter ranges there are reports of M-829's penetrating one T-72, exiting, then penetrating a second T-72. As a further example of the accuracy revolution, 125mm rounds fired at M-1's infrequently hit their target (thank God), and never penetrated. Things change...
@MadIgor1
Actualy Soviet tank designers knew all that - that is why T series have powerfull HE-FRAGs and canister rounds
And T-80U/T-90 have Ainet system that sets HE-FRAG to explode on exact waypoint. and Shtora that determines source of laser emmition on protected tank and automaticaly turns turret - guner just needs to puch a button
Plus - in full scale war - enemy positions will be barraged by MLRS - so 90% of infantry will be dead or injured
@mst3k4evur Exactly. In case you didn't know, the terrain the Abrams was made to fight in as well as tactics of its use were centered on desert battles (relatively smooth terrain) and hull-down (stationary) fighting which dictated its design. Who is going to load the shells if the Loader suffers from contusion after a hit? Auto-loader doesn't care. For the conditions the M1 is made to fight in its perfectly fine, but it'd fail miserably if applied to Russian tactics. So would T-72 with US tactic
Technology is often trumped by tactics. As I've said, if I don't need to lase to a target less than 2000 meters away because the trajectory of the round will not pass above or below the target, why lase at all? Just shoot. Also, If I'm in the defence and I know the range to fixed points in my area of fire, why lase? "That tree is 2500 meters away, and the enemy tank is next to it. Set range 2500, fire..." Lastly, there is no "match" tank ammo, but every round is hand made...
@broadjumper1 As implemented in the T-64/T-72, the main disadvantage of the autoloader is the gun has to move away from the last firing position to full up for loading. The French AMX-30 had an autoloader which carried the ammo in the turret bustle, and tracked the movement of the gun. The AMX paid for that with a sad shot trap at the front, which the T-64/T-72 don't have. I like manual, there is plenty to do in combat, and the loader provides observation and security when not loading.
1. In early year of autoloader, that will be a bad thing but modern days when you have advance FCS, is that really a problem?
2. Good luck trying to spot a target from 2000m away with your eyeballs with no thermal imager.
@@divinesan7786 I refer you to the Battle of 73 Easting, in which many targets were spotted, fired on. and killed from excess of 2000 meters. T-72 tanks with autoloaders didn't get even a single round to strike on the M-1 Abrams tanks.
@@DonMeaker you realize that they are T-72M right? I mean using T-72 Gulf war as an example is really bad way to prove your point.
@@divinesan7786 You responding to a 10 year old comment, then complaining about 'old information' is even more amusing.
@@DonMeaker i don’t give a shit if it is a 100 years old bruh. I mean if that “old information” is wrong then. I like how this is your respond which is hilarious. Also fun fact: I didn’t complain, it is called ‘debunk’.
@Waltham1892
You are in delusion. Smoothbore gun was first introduced on service tank in T-62 as so as APFSDS rounds - it was in year 1961
Since 1973 all Soviet tanks have ballistic computers with laser rangefindres that measure temps of round, charge, barrel atmosphere, pressure wind target speed target range e t c - i remind you it was in 1973. T-80 had even more advanced FCS in 80s and not both of them are constantly upgrared + they also have thermalsights since 1989
I found in shooting 120mm ammo that the battlesight range (the range at which the trajectory of the round was neither above or below the target, meaning no range correction is needed), was 2000 meters. This means the only error which would result in a miss on a moving target was lead error, which the ballistic computer adjusts for. As for absolute error, a match rifle will shoot an 8 inch group at 1000 meters. 24 inches at 2000 with a 120mm APFS round is in line with that.
Not meaning to disagree with a Marshall, but it has been my experience that both the 105mm gun on the M-60A3 and the 120mm gun on the M-1A1 will put a APFDS round within 24" of point of aim at 1200 meters. ATGM'S, who tend to "wander" in flight are far less accurate at shorter ranges and are more accurate only at much longer ranges, 2000 meters plus...
And penetration power of 950mm for Invar-M is more than enough - less than 30% of M1 front armor capable to withstand. Actualy even if there will be no penetration - tank will be crippled - its gun can be damaged by explosion, it can have mobility loss, its optics and vulnerable thermalsights can be damaged e t c - so T-90 can kill or cripple enemy tanks at 7 km and then safely close in and finish the job with APFSDS or even HE-FRAG rounds. As so as T-90 can defend against helis and jets
Jukov read more precisely pl. I said that the doctrine was to buld the T72 as cheap as possible to outnumber the western armor by 4:1. I didnt said it was inferior, in opposit I stated that its on pair with western tanks (and that after rheinmetal gun introduction). The doctriune of WP was to have 3:1 advantage for succesfull attack and 4:1 for decisive victory, read the tanker guide book from that era or ask your dad.
You wrong, we had plenty of T64s and T72s Urals in Czechoslovakia, dont you remember that after invasion in 1968 we had here constant "protection" soviet contingent equiped with T64s and T72s (mostly Ural). They even left some armor here when they withdraw. I remember we used two pcs for driver training. I remember how hard was the Oil filter change in comparison to M. True is that russian made M had inferior armor, but not the Czechoslovak nor Yugoslavian, duno about Polish one.
I think your memory is shorter than mine. The M-551 and M-60A2 used a gun/missile system. The gun had to be made 152mm to fit a missile that would penetrate armor. Of course, when firing conventional ammo the recoil was fierce and the fire control system couldn't take the beating. The Soviets went the other way, keeping the gun a reasonable bore while ending up with a missile too small to penetrate a tank in the frontal arc. Every weapon is a trade off...
same turrets but diffrent shells. its like standard amonition and armored persing bullets results are diffrens.
Desert storm wasn't stand-off between tanks. FCS also can't predict the opponents tanks next turn. You shoot where the tank WILL BE but it may not go there and may go somewhere else. If you are stationary - you are dead. You ALWAYS move. If you have no APS then if opponent can fire ATGMs (LAHAT, AT11, KOBRA) then you are gone irrespective of what you do since they are guided.
Ever tried to load a heavy shell into breech when tank moves in all directions when you are tossed all over the place?
Jukov I disagree at this point, 1972-3 was the year of introduction of T72 which had binocular range finder only, no laser no computer. The version M introduced the laser range finder ant this was at early 80s if I right remember. I served as a tank commander and tank platoon leader on T72, never saw a life combat (lucky me) with tank. Saw firing test of T72 vs Abrams in 1995, both tanks where on pair at that time, ERA giving T72 some edge in protection.
Madlgor1, you should listen to Private Jukov. He saw a picture of a tank once, so he is an expert.
Waltham1892 your last interventions clearly show your TRUE face ,and naturally your complete impossibility to sustain an high level discussion with knowledgeable persons . Remeber that the next time you attempt to persuade someone that western tanks design is better ,citing the usual IDIOCIES ,like i have proved with FACTS from the gretaer WESTERN names in the field (for the chronicle i am a western citizen too...but at contrary of you i have the knowledges and intellectual honesty
It might be so, if the round has real flat trajectory then you need less balistic computing. Then the question is does the AP round have enough energy to penetrate the armor at 2000m+? You have to keep in mind that T72 has very low profile with steep angle on turret. Saw test back in 1995 when engeneers (from Chrysler?) claimed that Abrams have edge over T72 and can destroy T72 at 3000m distance, which they didnt achive with 5 test AP rounds. Yes they did hit the targed, no they didnt destroy it
all possible resources and will lead in about 10 -12 years from its introduction to the phasing out of T-72 series. The same principle of sparing resources and wait for operationalize much efficient equipments has been applied also at Air Forces . RuAF has avoided to mass introduce a wonderful aircraft like SU-30M /M2 ,exported instead to India ,China, Malaysia etc..,to introduce instead SU-35 S and of course to have the funds to complete R&D of PAK-FA and mass produce it within 7-8 years .
Not during normal operation. That rumor got started from the T-64, whose early autoloader was unreliable. Trying to clear a jammed autoloader improperly could result in ones arm getting caught in the autoloader.
Just like any piece of heavy equipment, if you work on it improperly, it will hurt you.
That is a mith :v
I was an M-60A3 Tank Commander, M-60A3 Platoon Leader and Tank Company XO, and the Asst S-3 in an M-1A1 Tank Battalion. Most of my adult life has been spent in and around armor, in both peace and combat. I would guess that you have no experience in armor, because anyone who had crewed a modern MBT would know that a 20% hit rate at 2500 meters under any conditions is foolishly low. A crew that turns in a less that 75% hit rate should be reclassified into cooks and clerks.
Im sorry Waltham, Czechoslovak and later Slovak Army. We tested a lot of western armor in effort to join Nato. So the M1A1 for firing/driving tests was in new condition and we had two M1s as a targets, didnt examine them if new or wrecked. The intention was to rearm, outcome was that we can build 5 T72 M1 for same price of a single M1A1 which was on pair with the T72 M1 in our territorial suroundings. So it was decided to modernize the T72 design, check out the slovak T72 M2.
@mst3k4evur What I tried to say was that it was made for smoother battlefields then rugged ones
looks like a smart design
The great ejector.
It's like projection but with more casings.
... when we did the actual tests, and Abrams was knocked of by single AP shot at 1500m distance (that was the standard test distance for all our tests). I saw some T72s in Iraq few years after the desert storm, but all of them where killed by guided misiles (Hellfire I think). And yes I saw at least one soviet made T72 there for shure, not polish nor Iraqi. As far as I know soviets didnt export the full armor version. I still belive that Sadam gave some training ammo to his crews.
Passing at HEAT - APFSDS efficiency you have the idea a little confused. The only Russian tanks design problem,at now,is with new generation APFSDS,absolutely NO with HEAT and it has NOTHING to do with gun barrel limitations but with lenght limit of the autoloaders not designed ,of course, at the time of its introduction to accept APFSDS of the lenght of the new types. The main problem is economical (and only in part of engineering) amd linked to the cost -benefits in retrofit no new generation
well... T-72 is bad now... but back in the day it was the big dog in the yard... now the T-90 is the best!
Not really, with upgrades it will be as strong as T-90
"As long as the Serbian parade was going NORTH ,they could have had elephants in it for all i cared...." For what YOU cared ...but the tghing is MUCH different if you are called USAF and even only 2 weeks earlier you had OFFICIALLY declared to have destroyed 69-74 % and that event CARE even more to it after the survey of European inspectors finded that some events described by USAF to be COMPLETELY INVENTED....We call of a thing very important Waltham1892 : The efficiency of Air Forces
I haven't thought of a snappy reply to put here, but I figure as long as I deny you the last word you are going to post something in reply. Saves me time doing it this way....
I remember an Iraqi Brigade Commander who said he lost 7 tanks to two weeks of air attacks, and 45 in the two hours he was in combat with a US Armored Cavalry unit.
Interesting footage of the turret ejection mechanism at work, I'm sure the Russians wont make that same mistake again
Soviet tanks were built on a completely different doctrine than nato counterparts. You can’t just go off of western propaganda and simply call it “stupid”
@@M4_Sherman587 funny enough, their Leopards eject their turrets just the same way)
Heard horror stories about that Auto Loader. How it would grab you and try to jam your arm into the breach
That wouldn't happen unless you deliberately put your hand into the loading tray
APFSDS against an apparentely identical target, observing it having pratically no effect at all !!! and testing instead for the first time the HUGE difference among an half propellant 3BM17 and a 3BM42 APFSDS or a 3VBK16 and a 3BK25 HEAT. I remember to you that Leland Ness exstensive live experimentation tests involved ONLY effect of K-5 !!, the tanks in question,in fact was deprived of any weapons (like At-11 or APFSDS and HEAT) and any type of FCS or tracking systems because them was used
yes I heard that first hand from Col. Jason Black (not shure if I do remember it right), that one of his Abrams was bottomed and attacked by a platoon of Iraqi T72s. The Abrams was hit by first T72, then was knocked of by Abe, then second T72 was same story, and after that the crew abandoned the third one. He claimed that the first hit was sub 500m range and T72 cannot harm Abrams. We said that they must have used some inferior ammo, he was laughing. You should see his face next day.....
enjoy a similar advantage in the Bomber department.. USA enjoy an advantage in radar technology (since HEMT- High Electron Mobility Transistor - and Gallium- Arsenide / Nitride semiconductors and the derived AESA designs), while Russian enjooy a similar one in Rocketry with HTMV and High Energy /coheisive beam spatial propagation computations ("stealth" technology or for better say PTD developed by russian and adopted by USA has been a subproduct of that field of research). Like you can see
@fener4e In the Abrams he has a seat, a machinegun, and an assigned sector.
Hello a decade from the future.
@Waltham1892
ATGM is not supposed to be a short range weapon and also Russian ATGM are usefull at 500 meters
Of cource may be you can put APFSDS in 24" - but into STATIONARY target - you will not have that luxury with moving targets like tanks aspecialy at 2000+ meters - and here comes guilded missiles
At first I was like "Who the hell are these people in the comments arguing with?" Then I realized how old the comments are...
Welcome to the ancient era of the internet, which probably predates at least some of the audience which has subsequently watched it.
@@LexTenebris Yeah, to remember how we didn't use to have "chained" comments back in the day, everything was a mess but we didn't mind, lol
@@RugalBernsteinOfficial We had threaded comments. Just not on TH-cam. In a sense, I miss those days. Actually, more specifically, I miss the days before comments at all on TH-cam.
Any commentary had to be done on another site with a link to the original video, that site was generally intended for ease of communication, and populated by people who probably cared what you had to say.
Now - not so much.
But I'm still the same guy who suggests that USENET was a far better design for social media interfaces than anything we've seen since.
@@LexTenebris We did? Hard to remember as I was just a kid on my early days on the internet, I can only remember 5 star ratings and didn't comment at all back then
@@LexTenebris Actually I remember that in order to read a conversation from a video you always got redirected to a page with all the comments from that video, don't know if that's the same thing you are talking about
You bring up a good point that no one talks about much. The Soviets made two families of tanks, an infantry support tank (the T-62/T-72), and the dedicated tank killer, (the T-64/T-80). The West went with a single design, the MBT. I'd thought the Russians went with T-72 for economic reasons, and possibly because the factories were in Russian territory. As for the T-72 being lighter, I'll take the extra weight in armor...
Well, all tanks are armor killers, some are just better than others. (Note, I'm talking about armored fighting vehicles that are designed to engage other armored vehicles)
The T-62 was a stop gap between the T-55 and T-64, made to go up against modern western MBTs.
The T-62 was actually a modified T-55 hull.
The problem about catching a tank from the flank is that your target is very often uncooperative. Even if your target does decide to turn flank on to you his wingman, the other two tanks in his platoon, and the other platoons in his company, and the other companies in his battalion may decide not to play along. Life is very short for soldiers trained to be lucky...
It is weird to be here...
Tis video exudes an ominous atmosphere somehow
And yet, here we are.
Think of it as ongoing education.
@@LexTenebris AAAAAAHHHH IT'S ALIVE IT'S ALIVE IT'S ALIVE RUN FOR YOUR LIVES
@@Horesmi The terror knows no bunds! I remain a functional cognition-engine!
to Jukov: I dont remember that i saw any T72"Ural" with laser rangefinder.
Also I saw that Iraqi army had soviet made T72s, saw one by person down there, altrought it migth be some lover armored version. With iraqi ammo you are right, I think that they had some old or some trainings ammo, or no AP rounds at all.
Nation of Europe and i can assure you that ,if i go out a city, i have ENORMOUS difficulties to find potiential battlefields for a such war with ranges inferior to 3,5 Km ,and often much more !!! That is exactly as the question of autoloader ,we have attempted to engineerize an efficient one for ours MBT,failing...and after the human loader has becomed more efficient, an IMMENSE IDIOCY !!! Ah Ah
IDR's Pentagon correspondent Leland Ness explained that US Army tests involving firing trials on 25 T-72A1 and 12 T-72B1 tanks (each fitted with Kontakt-5 explosive reactive armour [ERA]) had confirmed NATO tests done on other former Soviet tanks left behind in Germany after the end of the Cold War. The tests showed that the ERA and composite Armour of the T-72s was incredibly resilient to NATO anti-tank weapons....
"During the tests we used only the weapons which existed with NATO armies
Heavier tank doesnt mean it has better protection. If you ask me, I tend to prefere the T72 doctrine as a MBT supported by infantery. Its the best for European battlefield. There is no modern MBT which can survive atack of other MBT sub 1500m. The real treath is infantery and Choppers with guided missiles, so we need infantery around to be safe. Tank killers are heavy dead meat. In desert the situation might be different since there is more open space..
I don't know what your experience is, but I've always found that APFSDS is the most accurate munition on the battlefield at any given range due to its flat trajectory and short time of flight. Missiles come into their own not due to accuracy, but due to the loss of killing power of APFSDS rounds as its kinetic energy bleeds off. Also, missiles can be fired by anything, even man-portable units, while a main gun requires a massive platform to manage recoil.
heh
Lttle correction,in my copyof the article after... GAU-8 the gun i have missed .... of the A-10 Thunderbolt II Strike Plane), the 30mm M320 (the gun of the AH-64 Apache....ok ? Good reading
@Spetsnazovets what sucks about auto-loaders is that the gun has to go back to 0 (zero) elevation after every round. Which means the gunner looses PID (positive identification) after every shot. Also, because tanks are on tracks, the crew isnt "constantly rocking, tilting, raising up and down at high speed" because tracks provide a smoother riding platform than tires, i prefer a human over machine main gun loading ANY day. Trackjack; 12 years M1A1 Tank Commander KFOR, OIF, OEF Vet.
You have FCS
why is this being recommended to me
Well, did you watch anything about tanks or Soviet/Russian tanks recently?
5 second about average for manual load sometimes even faster. Repitive rate is what an autoload excels at though. After 5 or 6 shells at 4 secs you are spent.
@ RufusT
Easy way to resolve the argument. They can provide a clearly defined video showing the 'cover'. Problem is that every video showing the interior of the a Russian tank shows no such cover, even when the gun isn't being filmed firing.
@ RufusT
"There are valid arguments for an against keeping the ammo in the hull"
True enough, mainly that they have no other option since Russian tanks are notoriously cramped inside. But the Russians have never been that focused on crew safety.
hm yes, the fastest way to die on war thunder
@MadIgor1
T-64 and T-72 for domestic use DO havelaser rangefinders and many other interesting stuff. You could not see T-72 Ural because for export was only T-72M`s which had nothing. T-64 never exported at all.
@MadIgor1
NATO tested actual Soviet T-72B with K-5 ERA with M829A1 and similar rounds - and it remained NOT PENETRATED - even at 200m - point blank
And its FCS was similar to T-80BK
T-80U abd T-80UM as so as T-90 have same effective FCS
In addition since 1976 - all Soviet tanks including retrofited T-55 have gun launched ATGM - which extents its range up to 7 km with 0,9 hit probability even at moving targets
And -7 +13 degree elevation angle is more than enough for any MBT
Jukov I didnt mention T80 a single time, never saw one in person. You are wrong that T64 was never used outside of USSR. I saw at least one Guardovyj platoon with T64, and there was NO balistics computer there! Most soviet troops where equiped with T72 Ural, I saw first laser T72 around 1980 again at soviet base. The soviet builded T72M is not equal to Czechoslovak or Yugoslavian (maybe Polish too) so dont compare it. You should mabe read more closely your tank forums.
@mst3k4evur Let me see you load heavy shells fast when running at high speed over rough terrain with tank constantly moving over all 3 axis :)
ok , but the use odf autoloader and eliminate 4th crew mwmber lead to reduce mass of tank , because weak of russian engines lead to reduce mass tanks to 50 tons. and on battlefield , usually you wont want more speed of reloading because you can handle oly up to few targets at minute. rate o fire on t-90 fit with it
As I said this might be true but with stationary shooter/target, or the target has to have continuos axial trajectory. But all russian tanks today do have laser sensors, so when you do the target aquiring, they know from which direction, and its very hard to hit manuvering taget at 2000m+ range. They can even set the system to automatic smoke granade discharge when lased. The claim of 8in group at 1000 meters might be true, but not with mil ammo. Abrams doesnt use match ammo, does it?
cool
tanks with autoloaders (like those mounted on T-90 series) to allow them to fire APFSDS of the type 3BM44M or 2BM48. Russians stimed that type of measure not cost-effective ,above all considering that,at now, theirs tanks with AT-11M, with a penetration value (against no heavy ERA equiped targets) in the order of 870-950 RHA, would enjoy a CRUSHING power / kinematical advantage on theirs western counterparts and the mass production of the new MBT (unofficially called at now T-95) will require
The reason our projects for a gun launched ATGM failed is the same reason your probably has. The ability of a HEAT warhead to penetrate armor is a function of its diameter, which is limited to the size of the bore. In tanks of Soviet/Russian design there is a further limitation, the auto-loader system can only handle rounds of a certain length. Right now the US is developing a gun ATGM system that is KE based, and not HEAT, because it gets around that problem.
US Doctrine called for infantry to screen for infantry anti-tank weapons (RPG'S, man portable ATGM's, mines). All direct fire anti-tank work was left to tanks with a little support from ground and air launched TOW and Hellfire missiles. A less well protected vehicle would NOT have worked for us. Also, to be frank, the US put crew survival as a higher priority than the Warsaw Pact did...
"The problem about catching a tank from the flank is that your target is very often uncooperative.". Waltham that is true only if the main weapons of the two opposed tanks have more or less the same engagement ranges, when your opponent can engage you at MOST THAN DOUBLE the effective range of your main gun ,being attacked at your flank (and in case of russian doctrine at both your flanks or at front /flank, by two ATGM to negate to you your only hope to avoid a side hit ..) become
@ikillyouhahahalameo Stop to load if terrain is too rugged. Or at least slow down substantially. If the battlefield is not a smoothish one - forget fast firing with manual loading.
First of all, what is your experience with armor? If you have no experience now is the time to say so. Secondly, you can leave type messages until you fingers break. I'm not responding to 14 of them.
Ground Force's structure enjoy a crushing kinematical and power advantage on theirs western counterparts ,that is a FACT ceckable by anyone. If you search a branch in which NATO (or for better say USA) is LARGELY ahead of Russia see the Navy (USA Navy would be likely capable to confront the Navy of the other nations COMBINED and probably even win !! ). In the Air Force branch USA enjoy a numerical (and in the case of F-22 also a quality advantage) in the fighter department while Russia
" First of all, what is your experience with armor?" I am a physicist ,and my interests are above all in technical solutions adopted in the designs (and i can assure to you that ,between books and publiations by the greater names at world in the field...and some collagues..., i can count various HUNDREDS of them ) . I have instead the sad impression that you has very limited knowledges on the subject ; What has indirect fire and the presence of other assets on the battlefield to do with what
had parity (or probably even superiority) in armour. Clear Waltham1892 ? The famous "Silver Bullet" of Gulf War would have been a Glass Bullet against the ORIGINAL , CONTEMPORARY soviet T-72B and that was EXACTLY what soviet had planned !! Image the horror on the face of USA's tank's gunner veteran of Gulf War, that would have been the luck to reach its gun engagement range (after dozen and dozen fellows of its division was destroyed by never confronted ATGMs) and would have fired its M829A1
I sure wouldn't want to sit on top of one of these
It won’t kill you lmfao
@ RufusTAardvark
Damn little thought. If they're counting on terrain to protect them, that sure hasn't been an effective strategy in desert warfare...
I want to add some elements to the discussion : 1) When Leland Ness 's equipe tested K-5 it don't examined only its monstrous efficiency against all main HEAT and APFSDS rounds operative at the time on western tanks (in particular M829A1 ) but also the principal anti tank artillery and air delivered ammunition (TOW and AGM-114 of various version included) and autocannons (like the A-10's GAU-8 Avenger and the AH-64's M320 ) ALL with the same result of no penetration or very little damages !!!
No, it's not. This is an educational stand operation video, not a real tank footage, that's why ammo is exposed.
As long as the Serbian parade was going NORTH, they could have had elephants in it for all I cared...
...you cut out the best part, the small hatch on the back of the turret, that the spent shell casings are ejected through...
Unfortunately, I don't think that was part of the original footage. But there is a whole lot of really good exterior footage of T-72's firing that show that hatch in awesome detail.
,in ex DDR at the beginning of '80 years, as whole "hosts" to tests the systems before theirs operative introduction (is probably just for that motivation that Russian had losed track of them in theirs collection of any sensible equipment from ex DDR. If you are curious i give to you the "solution" of my challenge Lieutenant John A. Nagl, "A Tale of Two Battles: Victorious in Iraq, An Experienced Armor Task Force Gets Waxed at the NTC," Armor, Vol. CI, No. 3 (May-June 1992), pp. 6-13 . Read it
Since the introduction of the M-1A1 there has been a revolution in accuracy. Smooth bore cannon, the M-829 round, second generation thermal sights, third generation computer (the M-1 measures the temp of its ammo and 11 other factors),have resulted in level of accuracy I could only have dreamed of in the M-60A3. The Germans are doing even better with a new gun barrel that gives better accuracy/velocity. You have to see it to believe it.
Yes, and Superman can kick Batman's ass....
to inflict significative damages to ground forces has been ALWAYS twisted ,multiplied from 6 to 20 times and that is NOT a detail ,above all if you consider that in all those operations NATO Air Forces have operated against enemy equiped of SAM systems 20-30 years older than theirs aircraft,totally devoid of ANY type of ground based ECM systems (as you well know 7-8 times more powerful that theirs airborne counterpart) and with Air Forces outnumbered 9 - 14 :1 and composed by aircraft very old
@mst3k4evur more often then not they stop for that. That tank is more a desert tank then anything else.
it's not that hard to do actually, and besides which there's no advantage to maneuvering when your enemy's fire control is good enough. Modern tank engagements are usually stand-off duels.
Was this like one of the first videos uploaded on TH-cam?
It kind of felt like it. Certainly early days.