this post was submitted on 09 Dec 2023
60 points (100.0% liked)
guns
2407 readers
35 users here now
Rules (Under review):
-
- NO BUYING, SELLING OR TRADING of guns or accessories. Take that to Reddit and /r/GunAccessoriesForSale or Armslist.com
-
- Censor all personally identifiable information in posts including serial numbers on firearms.
-
- Any post or comment advocating illegal action will be removed and the poster warned. A second infraction will result in a ban.
-
- Unironically suggesting the SKS as a usable rifle in the 21st Century when there are things like the AK and AR that cost only a bit more might result in a ban, it depends on how we feel.
-
- Discussion of hunting is acceptable but please put "CW: hunting" in post titles. Debating the ethicality of hunting is also fine, but keep it civil and don't derail other people's threads.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It’s mostly just large. 4 crew instead of 3 and an auto-loader, and they focus on extra thick composite armor instead of a mix of that and reactive armor. And meanwhile, the t-72’s an extension of old Soviet philosophy that a smaller tank was that much harder to hit, so everything’s packed as tight as possible, while you could almost have a small cookout in the abrams.
/Edit - And as mentioned elsewhere, the abrams is stupidly heavy at this point and has even gained something like 20 tons over the years. A smaller, lighter tank has less problems crossing softer terrain and getting over rickety bridges.
Yeah but does the t72 get half a mile to the gallon like the Abrams? Fuel economy is for commies and women.
It's due to the gas turbine. Soviet T-80 with gas turbine is also shit at fuel economy (and that was why it didn't become a new main tank instead of T-72).
Does all that composite armor stand up to more modern kinetic rounds and tandem warheads? Surely they get some benefit from it?
That’s one of those things where it’s really hard to tell. They all claim different capabilities but the proof is classified (and even somewhat untested). Composite will give you almost no-gap coverage though, and any nearby folks will be happier if you aren’t waltzing around with outward facing explosives all over your tank. But, many Abrams in Iraq added reactive armor all over the less protected sides to help counter RPG’s, so…
I’d mainly say it’s just easier to retrofit an older tank with ERA blocks than it is to design and produce a whole new one with thicker integrated armor.