“Stunning that the Ruskies carried this flaw into each next generation. What on earth were they thinking?”
Russian design philosophy has always been aimed at cost and producibility. The idea was to overwhelm the enemy. Casualties don’t matter. The lack of concern for casualties is because of the political system. Russia has three hundred thousand anti-riot police. If you’re not worried about what the great unwashed masses think about the way you are conducting a war, then you aren’t concerned with casualties. As the article stated and I can confirm, having worked on the Abrams and a lot of other armored vehicle designs, the number one concern for every design feature is, what does it do to crew survivability? Even just taking the practical consideration, highly trained tank crews can’t be produced by just a few weeks of training and reading the course material. The US had an investment in every service person, and they protect that investment. But the number one thing protecting the lives of US service members is that we elect our leaders.
“highly trained tank crews can’t be produced by just a few weeks of training and reading the course material.”
Yea that very important point was made at the end of the article.
“and I can confirm, having worked on the Abrams and a lot of other armored vehicle designs, “
Was that while serving or as a contractor?
And was not this the whole idea of an armored vehicle in the first place? Someone forgot the basic reason for a tank.
Sort of. Doesn't completely explain why we stuck with the gas-fueled M4 Sherman when we knew that the Tigers and the Panthers and most of the German antitank weapons easily defeated them and turned them and their crews in funeral pyres. Or for that matter, why they pushed an unfinished and incompletely tested M16 on us while we were in combat. Left a lot of friends dead because of that travesty.