Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: sukhoi-30mki

On the body of the tank, what appears to be reactive armor seems to be painted on graphics instead. The front of the turret appears to have real reactive armor. If that’s reactive armor on the sides of the turret it is very thick. Given the apparent dimensions I’d say they also are painted on. Slab sides in the modern battlefield without reactive armor are suicide.

The machine gunner is exposed and his life expectancy will be limited in battle.

The undercarriage appears to have a lot of exposed mechanicals that might prove vulnerable.

Based on what I’m seeing I’d rate this tank lower than most everything else in current manufacture.


8 posted on 09/02/2015 6:15:33 AM PDT by Gen.Blather
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Gen.Blather

That might just be a prototype of course.

One never knows.


11 posted on 09/02/2015 6:24:31 AM PDT by GeronL (Cruz is for real, 100%)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

To: Gen.Blather

The tanks is built well enough to run over civilians.


17 posted on 09/02/2015 6:41:56 AM PDT by pleasenotcalifornia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

To: Gen.Blather

The ‘machine gunner’ is the tank commander. He wouldn’t ride into battle exposed like that. On the M-1, that machine gun can be fired and moved remotely, with a periscope sight...this probably has the same.

All that stuff on the undercarriage looks like a mount to me - to connect to a mine roller or plow.


20 posted on 09/02/2015 6:51:41 AM PDT by lacrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson