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

To: SpeedyInTexas; archy; xzins; SandRat; HarleyLady27; ducttape45; BlackFemaleArmyColonel; ...

An amazingly accurate article (especially for CNN) on the main design failing of Russian, aka Soviet designed, tanks in combat in the Ukraine. It is definitely worth reading it in full. And good photos too.


67 posted on 04/28/2022 10:08:27 AM PDT by GreyFriar (Spearhead - 3rd Armored Division 75-78 & 83-87)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: GreyFriar

During the development and design of the T-72, the chief of the Soviet Defense Ministry in 1976, Dmitriy Ustinov said that the T-72 represented a “step backward in Soviet tank development” and put a cap on production and development of the T-72 in favor of deploying the more modern T-64 and T-80 tanks with improved fire control and protective measures for units facing NATO in Germany. The T-72 would be envisioned for utilization by second line units and for export sales.

The soviets were well aware of the problems with the T-72 after the 1982 Lebanon War. The Syrians provided the Soviets with captured Israeli tanks and M111 APFSDS ammo fired from M48A5 tanks. The shocking test results led them to initiate a crash program to refit the T-72 with applique armor and other defensive innovations as a stop gap measure.

These “improvements,” their success with export sales, along with the cheaper cost of the T-72 caused the Soviets and later the Russian Federation to keep in in place and to elevate it to the status of a main line battle tank, having lulled themselves into a complacent sense of security by dint of these “modernizations.”

The Russkis have never considered ergonomic comfort, nor the survivability of their AFV crews as a prime consideration in their designs until the T-14. They have always seemed to rely on mass and brute force steam roller tactics to overwhelm their enemies.


86 posted on 04/28/2022 10:58:10 AM PDT by DMZFrank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies ]

To: GreyFriar
I've watched videos on the same thing. In order to have only 4 crewmen per tank, they got rid of the loader by going with an auto-loader machine. That required the ammo to be stored near the top of the tank, the weakest part of the tank armor.. So, when the top is penetrated by something like a javelin, it sets of the tank's own ammo, and that isn't survivable for the crew or tank.

I imagine they'll now fully armor the top with some kind of hydraulics to open the far heavier hatch.

123 posted on 05/03/2022 3:35:12 AM PDT by xzins (Retired US Army chaplain. Support our troops by praying for their victory. )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | 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