Why do they keep using this design?

>>213826729 (OP)
Because it's superior in terms of safety and size parameters

>>213826729 (OP)
It makes dying in Ukraine more fun.

>>213826729 (OP)

>eurangutans doesnt participate in turret tossing competition
bruh, only american tanks has blowout ammo racks

>>213826729 (OP)
it just werks or something

because soviet tanks are also built to be artillery which is why NATO HE/Frag rounds for tanks suck ass
also NATO tanks store ammo in the hull too, but without an autoloader which makes their fire rate slow as fuck
most if not all future MBTs will have some sort of autoloader
we always end up copying the soviets, literally every single NATO MBT is just a reaction or copy of t-62

>>213826802
I would have put him in the fuel drums, but good effort none the less.

>>213826812
Go to bed, Ivan, you're drunk.

>>213826752
This statement might have had some validity in the 60's and 70's. But by the 80's, when digital FCS became commonplace on NATO tanks, it just didn't make sense anymore, as lower profile didn't offer that statistical advantage anyway. If you look at the soviet prototypes for the tank of the 1990's you can see that most all of the have isolated ammo compartments, with crew seated separately.

So stop making things up, fag.

>>213827673
Lower profile still has immense advantage in weight and weight distribution, stop coping
>If you look at the soviet prototypes for the tank of the 1990's you can see that most all of the have isolated ammo compartments
Weird, considering that it's not ammo that detonated, but ammo filled fuel tanks which have been mostly removed from Russian tanks

>>213827740
>Lower profile still has immense advantage in weight and weight distribution, stop coping
This "advantage" scarcely matters, when practically any penetrating hit is a death sentence to the crew. Moreover, the ergonomic disadvantages are just too much. Not wonder you use Tuvan manlets as crews, those deathtraps aren't made for someone normal heights.
>Weird, considering that it's not ammo that detonated, but ammo filled fuel tanks which have been mostly removed from Russian tanks
Both have tendencies to detonate on soviet and rusgolan tanks. Neither do they have some sort of pressure relief mechanisms, like blowout panels, nor use LOVA/SCBD propellants.

>>213828059
>when practically any penetrating hit is a death sentence to the crew
Source: your gaping asshole
>those deathtraps aren't made for someone normal heights.
T90m with bigger turret is perfectly suitable for 182+ people as tested
>Both have tendencies to detonate on soviet and rusgolan tanks.
Only fuel tanks do
>Neither do they have some sort of pressure relief mechanisms, like blowout panels, nor use LOVA/SCBD propellants.
Most western tanks don't have blowout panels for all ammo, leopards only have it for 15 rounds
3bm rounds propellant is inert kinetically but lights up on high temperatures, which is why fires are the most common cause of tank loss, western tanks burn just as bright and well too

>>213828199
>Source: your gaping asshole
Source: several thousand wrecks of your tanks scattered in the fields
>T90m with bigger turret is perfectly suitable for 182+ people as tested
If one bends his spine and neck perhaps. I'd obviously like to see a source on that one.
>Only fuel tanks do
Considering the amount of videos fo soviet tanks turret tossing or completely disregarding from penetrating hits, I will disagree with this assessment.
>Most western tanks don't have blowout panels for all ammo, leopards only have it for 15 rounds
That's one of the few design weaknesses of Leopard 2 specifically, not a common design feature. New American and European designs, like M1A3, Panther and Leopard 2 A-RC 3.0 do away with it entirely.
>3bm rounds propellant is inert kinetically but lights up on high temperatures, which is why fires are the most common cause of tank loss, western tanks burn just as bright and well too
Again, being hit and penetrated in a soviet tank is almost certain death, while a penetrating hit in a Leopard isn't. Looking at statistical data, despite these tanks being singled out and specifically targeted by your drone operators, their irreversible looses are quite small. They just don't torch like soviet tanks do

Russian tanks are shit

>>213828745
>New American and European designs, like M1A3, Panther and Leopard 2 A-RC 3.0 do away with it entirely.
All 5 units of them made? Implessive
>Again, being hit and penetrated in a soviet tank is almost certain death
Source: your gaping asshole
>their irreversible looses are quite small
Source: unian tv marathone

>>213828905
Better than anything westroons field that's for sure

>>213829125
>All 5 units of them made? Implessive
They are new designs, that aren't in serial production. I'm bringing them up to show that these flaws are known and have been resolved on new models.
>Source: your gaping asshole
>Source: unian tv marathone
If you don't have something to say, you don't have to say anything at all, Sashen'ka

>>213829204
Nah you just take shit out of your head and when someone calls you out you cry, go to warthunder forums or something, there's a ton of accounts of russian tanks surviving penetrating hits, even more than 10, and famed challengers tossing turrets or exploding like fireworks spreading their metal across the field, you're just being disingenuous

>>213829291
>you're just being disingenuous
How can you seriously claim, that a crew of manlets sitting on a literal powder keg and being surrounded by loosely placed munitions and poorly protected fuel tanks is a "good design" in 2025?

>>213829429
Well, I'm not shilling for ukrainian tanks here, we're talking about Russian tanks which are a massive improvement and have many upsides compared to western tanks, from gun, sights, fcs to ammo variety and weight etc

Still better than Leopard 1 with thin armor and ammos right at dront by the driver

>t war thunder expert 9.3 br

>>213829480
>Russian tanks which are a massive improvement and have many upsides compared to western tanks, from gun, sights, fcs to ammo variety and weight etc
Facts don't care about your feelings, Sashen'ka.

But it's all the better for us, that russian MIC would rather continue tinkering with Morozov's designs from the 60's, rather than move on to something that isn't designed to transition you from a tanker to a cosmonaut.

>>213829956
Keep coping, i guess that's all you have left iyc

I don't get why ruzzians always get so defensive about everything ruzzian. I can admit the ariete is a garbo tank without having a meltdown but for them admiting their designs have flaws is simply impossible

impressive that we have so many tank experts here on 4chan.

>>213830076
Because shitriete is garbage while Russian tanks are the best in the world? It's completely incorrect to even suggest to compare them
Just suck it up tard

>>213826729 (OP)
Russians are willing to die for a 30k payout. They dont give a fuck about survivors if the tank is knocked out

>>213830109
Ok Sasha

>>213830142
>I can admit that our shit is shit, but I can't understand why russians don't admit their acclaimed combat proven machines that outmatch western vehicles are shit
Truly, a mystery

>>213830171
>More ruzzian headcanon
Whatever

>>213830211
Oink harder

>>213829480
>and have many upsides compared to western tanks, from gun, sights, fcs to ammo variety and weight etc

The Bait is strong on this one

>>213830249
No, that's pretty much correct
The gun is 125 with higher muzzle energy
Sights are much newer than most western machines, with integrated ballistic computer with target recognition, good resolution quality thermals etc.
Ammo variety, I'm not even gonna explain, HE and GLATGMs are more useful than whole 120mm arsenal
Weight is no comment

>>213826752
It's not even the safest autoloader design... A bustle with blowout panels is much safer.

>>213830707
It's way safer than leopard or abrams tho
>Bustle with blowout panels
How many tanks have it? Leclerc, type 10? That's it

>>213830750
It isn't; have we seen better crew survivability for carousels? No. In the case of Abrams and Leo the ammo is stored away from the crew compartment. The problem is the lower ammo compartment, but even Russians and Ukrainians have been going into battle with reduced loads, so not filling the lower compartment completely seems logical.
The T-72 autoloader is safer in tank-vs-tank combat, but against top-attack weapons or drones it isn't, because of the horizontal load. Which undoubtedly has been the biggest threat to tanks. In that case, the T-80 autoloader is safer.
Ultimately, yes, the Type 10 and Leclerc have the safest autoloader designs, which also have more room to grow for longer penetrators.

>>213831148
and T-84 memeplot of course

>>213826752
>in terms of safety
wanna back that up with crew survival percentage? and then compare with western tanks. You're not gonna like the results.

>>213826729 (OP)
because it is as safe as the next one, but it also has an autoloader, is 15 tonns lighter, 1 meter shorter and 40 cm lower, making it safer for combat vs. other armored vehicles and infantry

and making it able to drive over terrain where hato tanks would just dig mud with their tracks

with modern digital tech and a water source any field can thus be made in a way that allows T's ride right trough, but doesn't allow it for wectern tanks

hence you can only ever see porks using ultralight and basically unarmored bradleys, and wectern tanks can't go off road and are thus quickly discovered and dispatched

>>213831148
>In the case of Abrams and Leo the ammo is stored away from the crew compartment.
Not every abrams and not leo
>but against top-attack weapons
Which have proven to be lackluster
>or drones it isn't
It's actually much safer against drones because ammo bustle isn't exposed
The problem with bustle is that it works in theory, but in prolonged combat it's often not locked properly, the pedal jams, it's not locked for comfort etc, most of the time the fire just spreads from the bustle outside to the engine deck and the whole tank is totalled
The manual for abrams says you're supposed to turn the turret to the side if your bustle is on fire, but who the fuck is going to do that? You can't even go anywhere like that because of all the trees, narrow streets and rubble, most of the time the tank is simply abandoned and burns away, exactly same thing happens with Russian tanks, except it has more chances to tank damage due to era and ammo being in one spot in case of under loading

>>213831390
> crew survived by getting stuck on a dirt road and fleeing

>>213831390
>You're not gonna like the results.
Retard please, there's no such statistics, but i guess western crews get only healthier from being hit in their saint western coffins

>>213831661
meanwhile Russians
>attack in single, long column following a single tank with mine rollers
>lead tank gets taken out
>break off and drive into minefield
>get picked off one by one by drones, mines, artillery and ATGMs
>turn around to retreat because no reverse
>get picked off some more
>blyat the great russian war machine
Actual russian tactics we've seen btw

>>213830076
well the t's flaws are slow rear speed
and low angles of raising the barrel

so it sucks in urban combat, especially when your HQ is full of russophobes who are preparing your every operation to fall into an highrise ambush
(first chechen campaign was won by loss of HQ communications; radios were breaking down, but they were not helpful for anything, so people just stopped fixing them, so HQ had to immediately declare emergency and sign peace, for chechens to not be completely obliterated, as ambushes just ceased to be effective completely)

but we have a comparison here, not flaw discusson, and on comparison abrams and leos are even worse

and whatever ferrari tank you have

>>213832122
it was real in your mind

>>213832222
Nope, we've seen it happen multiple times. Including in the biggest armored assault of the war involving over 36 tanks.
This is your brain on vodka. Never wondered why Russia doesn't do big armored assaults anymore?

>>213832492
Nothing what you said happens there tho, you're retarded

>>213826729 (OP)
It's quick isn't it, gives a smaller crossection of the turret, and allows for one fewer crewmember.

>>213832514
it's what we consistently saw earlier in the war. Even without rollers. Endless assaults of column. Cope more Sasha.

>>213833523
Ambush on column =/= column assault
Stop seething retard

>>213833586
driving straight towards enemy positions in column =/= ambush
Why don't you stop dodging the draft and go back to Russia fucking aids mongrel?