Thread 64252117

one have small planes but big tanks
others have big planes but small tanks
why such crossroad

Those aircraft are not counterparts to one another
Regarding the tanks, the Soviets and Americans had different beliefs regarding the important aspects. Soviet design philosophy held keeping a tank small improved survivablity, while the Americans though that a largert tank with more interior space for crew and equipment would be more effective.

>>64252117 (OP)
why are you comparing a F-16 with a SU-34?
The Western analog would be a F-15E

>>64252149
Well.. my point still stands

heck even the smaller mig29 is bigger than f16

USSR planes were enormous because their engine tech was trash and Russia is fucking huge, so they need giant planes that carry an enormous amount of fuel.

Russian tanks were small because they figured that small size improved survivability, and because lighter tanks are all else being equal far superior in terms of logistics and maintenance.

In comparison, western aircraft are usually going to be operating from friendly airbases, aircraft carriers or with tanker support so they don't need ridiculous range, and late cold war era western tanks are designed to slaughter the godless hordes of small evil communist armour so their tanks are chonky bois who will absolutely bully soviet tanks in a remotely even fight with their excellent armour, superior sensors and faster reload time from using a manual loader. The cost per individual tank being a lot higher is an acceptable tradeoff since crew and supporting infrastructure is a lot more expensive than the tank itself when you aren't shoving vodka addled conscripts into your vehicles and actually have to pay your crews and mechanics a decent wage.

>>64252163
>twin engine plane is bigger than single engine plane
incredible

>>64252166
>because their engine tech was trash
But i thought russian rocket engineering is one of their best aspects? Arent they the only to use plane engines that have full effectivness (so their afterburner is blue) also nasa still uses their engines right?
Also your rant about tanks sounds biased even if you are right

Abrams need to be even bigger

>>64252182
Well what if its 1 big engine instead of 2 small ones
Mig19 vs mig21 type situation

>>64252193
I feel like abrams dosent need a loader, they could use a autoloader and be fine, they could save on crew costs and maybe make it smaller

I wonder if abram crews huff bad shit while they're sitting in tanks. Goes for all tanks I guess.

>>64252191
>rockets
>jet engines
Huh?

>>64252191
Russian engines are so bad that the Chinese got stuck reverse engineering their AL-31 for 30 years

>>64252209
People used to shit and piss in empty tank shell casings but now they combust so idk where they deal with that

>>64252191
Rockets aren't jet engines.

The vehicles in OP's pic are all late cold war designs. By that time, Russia had begun to seriously fall behind in a number of technological areas, and the west had made great strives towards countering Russia's massive numerical superiority. If this was an early cold war discussion then I would be a lot less positive towards western designs since some Soviet hardware was legitimately competitive with western gear in the early years or even better in some cases. But Abrams and F16 came about specifically to counter the SU's advantages at a time when the SU was falling apart at the seams and couldn't keep up.

Abrams needs to be 3x times bigger like a Ford truck where you can't see anyone in front of you.

>>64252213
>>64252214
>>64252219
>>64252224
Well i mean both the jet engines and rockets, that seems to be the best they got. Again, why are they the only ones with blue afterburners?

>>64252149
Isn't the Su-34 more like an F-111?

>>64252245
No that would be su24

>>64252238
Cause it rolls coal on every other scenario

>>64252117 (OP)
Hmmm

>>64252251
Thats not a su34
Im pretty sure these variants have different engines

>>64252255
>Now they make a big tank
What changed in their doctrine?

>>64252232
The driver of an Abrams actually has better frontal visibility than a current F-150.

>>64252232
>>64252271
Chinese tank driver has the best visibility, he can see through armor with his HUD

>>64252263
>>Now they make a big tank
>armata
>make
wishful thinking

>>64252275
No one asked for you to be here chinkshill

>>64252117 (OP)
if anything the Su-27 is the exception, soviets preferred light fighters majority of the time because they are cheaper and easier to get right, less reliant on high technology and their goals in the air were quite modest.

same idea with tanks - a small tank is cheap and can be more numerous so the numbers look good on paper.

>>64252223
empty MRE bags, probably

>>64252263
They changed their tank design instead of reskinning the same old t72s.
Everyone in the t14 sits in the hull, no one is in the turret.
Meanwhile the Leo and abrams chassis have the commander and loader mostly in the turret

>>64252238
>that seems to be the best they got
that doesn't make it good

>>64252299
Unfortunately >>64231760

>>64252238
USA's PW-220
Specific fuel consumption:
0.73 lb/(lbf·h) dry
1.94 lb/(lbf·h) wet*
TWR:
7.4:1 (dry)
12.0:1 (wet)
*I couldn't find wet specific fuel for the 220, but the 229 has similar numbers in other stats so I'm using that instead

>Soviet Union's Saturn AL-31F
Specific fuel consumption:
0.78 lb/lbf/h dry
1.96 lb/lbf/h wet

Thrust-to-weight ratio
4.93 (dry)
8.22 (wet)
As you can see, the US engine and the Soviet engine are almost identical in fuel efficiency per unit thrust...but the soviet engine is about 50% heavier for the same thrust. This isn't very impressive when you consider that Soviet engines also needed to be constantly overhauled every few hundred hours compared to thousands of hours for mature western designs.

As for why the afterburners glow on Russian jets, I'm not a jet autist but I *think* that this is fuel being thrown out the back of the jet engine i.e. it is waste. It certainly isn't desirable, at the very least.

>>64252312
Not arguing that point, but everyone were only discussing the difference between a single engine fighter vs double engine and nothing about the tanks

>>64252166
>Russian tanks were small because they figured that small size improved survivability
this was basically a fringe benefit and not a main consideration
the difference in size between a M4 and a t-34 essentially presented a sub 10% increase in hit probability, and cold war guns were even more accurate and so size was less likely to matter

>and because lighter tanks are all else being equal far superior in terms of logistics and maintenance.
this was the main reason

>>64252328
Absolutely wrong
All afterburners glow blue, but because when the afterburner is activated it throws some of the fuel out, not burning it all, a chemical reaction changes its flame color to orange basically making a impurity in the flame, so when it glows blue it means its using 100% of the fuel for thrust, so its better (in that specific category)

>>64252117 (OP)
Soviet Union big and stronk!
Much land and need big stronk big airs lots of fuel and pew pews!

>>64252447
Besides that soviet engines suck ass

>>64252191
Rockets don't make good aircraft engines. The Krauts tried.

Differing priorities in design, which affected how they spent their weight budget and how much weight budget they even had to spend

>giant turret
Soviets wanted the smallest possible turret with the highest protection
The frying pan shape is both highly compact and delivers the best all-around protection from multple angles, but the dome shape is inefficient for packing internals in and is heavily front imbalanced
The M1 abrams has the pentagonal shape, which offers excellent protection frontal but a lot less protection of it turns
The long ammo bustle makea the turret much heavier and further reduces how much of it can turn its turret before protection is compromised, but places ammo in the safest part of the tank and helps balance the gun barrel for faster and smoother target acquisition

Soviets put weight reduction and efficiency of protection at a much higher priority
US were more willing to increase weight to meet design goals

>>64252193
Based architect

>>64252561
>which offers excellent protection frontal but a lot less protection of it turns
The actual turret is one third narrower because of the space turret side armor occupies, which the T-72 lacks. They're functionally almost the same.

No refueling and less use of fuel tanks.
The Flanker was some kind of "super MiG-31/25", but for air superiority instead interception. The MiG-29 was constrained by retarded requirements that decreased the capacity of its internal fuel tanks.

>>64252191
Rockets and jet engines for planes are different.
Soviet rocketry was great, but that doesn't mean that far more delicate jet engines for fighters were just as good.

>>64252869
Well. muh blue planes

>>64252869
>Soviet rocketry was great
late soviet LOx engines were great, everything else varied from lackluster to absolute garbage

>>64252892
They used V2s briefly, those were pretty good for the time

>>64252892
>late
The NK-9/15/33 were pre 1970s engines and unlike anything of its time, meanwhile the engine of the Soyuz was the typical soviet "exact copy, even if it's a retarded design and with mistakes".

>>64252191
He's right about tanks though. Soviet tanks aimed for the lowest hull profile possible and as soon as practical switched to autoloaders, so they could remove the fourth crewman and field more tanks with the same number of people.
Basically when it comes to protection they bet a lot more on the don't be seen, don't be hit idea. Rather famously the carousel autoloader design they prefer means that ammunition isn't kept in 'wet' stowage, which is to say it's all sitting in the primary fighting compartment.
Western tank design is built more around survivability, because the assumption was generally that with a smaller but more professional force you want to make sure that you're replacing tanks more often than you're replacing crews.
A good example of this is the reason for the fourth crew member in most. The manual loader serves as an extra set of eyes, an additional person helping or posting security during repairs, so on. The other main advantage is that it makes 'wet stowage' easier. Primary ammo storage in a modern western tank is kept in an isolated compartment that's only opened when a round is actually needed. Rest of the time the door is closed. If a round penetrates the fighting compartment, a single unlucky piece of shrapnel won't be able to set off the magazine. If a round penetrates the magazine, it's isolated from the crew and in most cases also has a 'blowout panel', a deliberately weaker section designed to give out before anything else to relieve the pressure. Until relatively recently there wasn't really a reliable way to have an autoloader retrieve ammunition from wet stowage, they had enough reliability issues without needing to transport ammunition from a seperate compartment of the vehicle.

If you want to see these principles in action, take a look at Ukraine. AFU crews have been singing the praises of western light and heavy armour because even a total hull loss is less likely to mean a crew loss. Happier soldiers, less attrition.

>>64252978
The US is looking at autoloaders for their tanks at last
But more because future tank rounds will be too hard too long for humans rather than to reduce size
And because bustle-loading designs are a thing now

>>64252993
>bustle-loading designs are a thing now
>now

>>64253002
Real turrets only.

>>64252993
unless chinks or russians actually start fielding some next gen armor the whole idea will end up the same way the previous iteration of the concept went.

it's more likely that an unmanned turret will be considered again, supported by an autoloader.

>>64252255
Sadly big good russian things don't exist.

>>64252978
I should add you can expand the same concept to western military procurement and even doctrine more broadly. It's pretty pragmatic too, not just out of the goodness of our collective hearts. Spending more per soldier means it also makes sense to spend more to protect your investment, retain experience that would've been lost and sending less bodies home means less political cost to the same action.

Soviet tank designers were constrained by a strict 50-ton weight limit due to the limitations of European bridges, as they would be on the offensive in any European War and would need to be the ones advancing across those bridges.

NATO tanks could be larger and heavier because they would be mostly fighting defensively.

>>64252628
the long bustle limits how much it can turn before exposing weakpoints
the sides of the M1 turret has to be very thick to compensate for how they could be revealed with even slight angling

>>64254180
>Soviet tank designers were constrained by a strict 50-ton weight limit due to the limitations of European bridges
optimistic for them to think they'd capture bridges intact

>>64252149
False. The Russian plane has no analog in the world!

>>64252146
no. soviet tanks ware designed for zerg rush. Thus the autoloader, painful to reload, thus the smaller crew, the smaller silluette, emphasis on speed.
Is it even worth commenting here.
>t. drunk ex-soviet state boomer

>>64254245
You have to be optimistic if you are gona do something insane as invading western europe after 1946.

>>64252117 (OP)
>others have big planes but small tanks
Soviets couldn't make compact electronics or a new diesel engine

>>64254820
>A v12
>A v12
>A v12
>A v12
But their horsepower is drastically increased isint it

>>64252117 (OP)
Because the expensive part of the jet is the electronics and munitions, and material science was good enough by the 70s that you weren't making maneuverability trade offs like you had to for planes like the F-111, MiG-25, or F-14 with a larger airframe. Other than RCS, which goes to shit with any external stores on a non-VLO plane, the marginal costs of a bigger airframe are outweighed by being able to carry more munitions and having an easier upgrade path with more internal space for bigger radars and so on.

>>64254245
It's easier to build a bridgehead or bridglelayer for 50ton tanks than 70ton tanks.

>>64254230
>the sides of the M1 turret has to be very thick
they are, they are over 1ft thick plus the bustle in the back is isolated from crew compartment and isn't as crucial to protect because of that.

>>64254858
it's exactly the same engine though, they just pump progressively more air into it through super and turbocharging. naturally there are downsides to it, india couldn't operate theirs at all at altitudes of >3000m iirc.

>>64254858
Yes but not.
They increased the max speed from 1800 rpm to 2000 rpm (since the T-72), the volumetric efficiency (since the T-55) and boosted the pressure by +0.60 or +0.80 bar.
By comparison the German MTU are designed for 2200 - 3000 rpm and boost pressure of from +0.8 to +1.45 bar. The Lecrec (idk if they are using variable or low compression ratio) is boosted to +3.4 bar.
The Leclerc has more engine power with 16.5L of displacement, the MTU with 27L.
That V-2 engine was designed to be light, actually for aircraft/tanks (people thought about replacing gasoline with diesel during the 1930s for aeroengines), but it's reliability, oil consumption, life and complexity are terrible for a pure tank engine. Their BMP engines would be a better basis for their tanks but you know, the carousel and that engine are a dogma in russia.

>>64254921
>but it's reliability, oil consumption, life and complexity are terrible for a pure tank engine
cpmpared to their experiences with the T-64 and T-80 engines this one has world class reliability though, lol

>>64254951
By the 1980s they were comparable, except for the retarded induction cooling of the T-64. That gives an idea about how bad are those V-2, it's obsolete.
The T-90 has an engine life of 800-1000 hours and a oil consumption (gr/kWh) ~10 times higher than a normal diesel engine. (Russian posted those specs but I'm not gonna try to find them again).
The should scrap and unify their engines using the BMP with more cylinders...

>>64254951
Post the next page where the T-64 reliability got fixed.

>>64254969
>The should scrap and unify their engines
they couldn't even scrap the t-80s, they'll only do it once Ukraine scraps all their tanks for them, and they probably won't be producing a replacement for them anyway.

>>64255003
Infact I will post it myself.
>When the T-64 does infact redeem itself but you decide to ignore it and build the T-72 and T-80 anyway
>Get stuck with 3 tanks identical in firepower, similiar in protection, some difference in FCS depending on model but all 3 have different road wheels, different tracks, different engine, different transmission, only 2 of 3 share same autoloader.
>" A crime against the state"

Imagine if the bongs built 3 different versions of the chieftain, the murricans or germans doing the same to M1 or Leopard 2 respectively. It is a pure waste of money and a logistical nightmare.

>>64255108
Don't forget the "stopgap" T-62 that was produced in parallel to the T-72 and T-64 for years and added yet another problem with its unique caliber that they never phased out.
Isn't the T-80 transmission just a T-64 transmission with an extra speed reducer to match the turbine?

>>64255108
>some difference in FCS depending on model
it's mostly the T-72 that was stuck with just a basic laser rangefinder and some sort of manual lead computer, the T-80 straight up copied the fire control from existing models of T-64 prior to the T-80U
>the murricans or germans doing the same to M1 or Leopard 2 respectively.
I think the MBT-70 would be a more apt comparison.

>>64255136
afaik t-80 offers the smoothest ride out of the three

>>64255192
>I think the MBT-70 would be a more apt comparison.
Thank god the americans and germans decided to cancel the whole thing. Imagine the cursed timeline where the MBT-70 program goes on and it faces the soviet big 3 MBT's.

3 similiar nato MBT's vs 3 similar soviet MBT's.

>>64252255
why does the non-abrams tank always have the same silhouette? what a shitty graphic

>>64252117 (OP)
Russian is correct.

No reason not to have big plane and lot of reasons for.

Lots of reasons to keep ground equip as small as possible, and lots of reasons not to have big stuff. See failed Booker program.

>>64252117 (OP)
fake image.
Abrams tank roof height 2.37m
T-72 roof height 2.23.
Put line where T-72 roof should be .

Another thing see tanks together. T-72 hull roof height is teh same as Abrams forward part of the hull roof height. It only goes high on the engine deck.

>>64252993
US had been looking at autoloaders since the 50's, but have always preferred manual loading.

>>64254245
Well it was also for their domestic bridges. They made sure to build bridges that soviet tanks could use but NATO tanks couldn't.

>>64252191
Their ROCKET engines were fairly impressive, in some areas they actually surpassed western engines for a while.
Jet engines are an entirely different story, soviet engines have always been high maintenance, low lifespan, barely adequate performance pieces of shit.

>>64255231
How did a joint program go so horribly wrong from the get-go?

>>64258509
Because neither of the actual defence organisations responsible actually wanted it, essentially. McNamara thought West Germany was cool and their tanks were cool so combining them with American tanks would make a double cool tank, and made it happen despite everyone telling him it was a bad idea.
So from the jump you have both sides neither seeing why they're working together or having any particular interest in at all compromising or changing their minds on things to make a joint venture work.
Only way something like this can work is if everyone's on the same page and either already wants the same thing or is willing to be flexible.

Leave the steppes horde to me

>>64258509
Imo it didn't. Sure, we did get neither of the tanks but we got both the M1 and the Leo 2 which both mog the competition.

turrets are for faggots, I give you the stank

https://kremlin.enterprises/post/792334211188244480/strv103alike-renaissance-when

>>64259735
>the term people default to when describing a turret-less tank-shaped-object is casemate but i don’t think that fits. there’s no case. there’s no superstructure. it is a hull with a gun poking out of it. that gun is welded to the hull directly! i’ll say it again! that gun is welded to the hull directly!

>being able to control, precisely, where the gun is pointing is kind of a huge deal with tanks. what a shocker. when the gun is welded to the frame, how do you do that? what does the gunner even do? does he just wait for the driver to accidentally get the gun on target and press the single button present at his station to fire? on a casemate you have a generously-sized slot cut in the turret for the gun, meaning you can finely-adjust the point of aim in the azimuth* (left or right) several degrees. the driver has to point the tank in general direction of what you’re shooting, and fine adjustments can get you on target

>but again, the mofo is welded on! how did it work? it’s simple. you just neutral-steer (having one track move forward and the other in reverse, such that the vehicle rotates in-place like a forklift, essentially giving a turn radius of zero). that is how you position the gun left or right. neutral steering is a capability that stems from the vehicles transmission, of course. the forty three ton vehicle’s transmission. the forty three ton vehicle in service through the late 1990s when engagements were expected to happen at distances well over a kilometer. at those ranges, the difference between a shot landing on target and missing is less than a degree. something measured in arc-minutes or whatever. yes, the same transmission built to accomplish the already-very-difficult-and-numerous criteria necessary for a main battle tank, also needs to operate with the precision and delicacy of a swiss watch. and the stank did that. seriously.

>>64252117 (OP)
Aircraft carriers

>>64255663
Are you retarded?

>>64255136
the T-62M wasnt a bad idea, it was a cheap way to keep old tanks that still, on paper, made up 50% of their tank fleet somewhat effective
it was a deeper modernization than the M48A5, which just slapped the M60 gun and internals on the M48

the M60A3 getting no additional armor was probably a sorespot, the eyebrow armor on the T-62 gave protection from the M72 LAW and 105mm darts at very long range at least

Big planes because they couldn’t miniaturize tech

Small tanks because it costs less and can have more on paper

>>64258509
Because they spent thousands of hours building a little house for the 20mm cannon to retract into that had a little gun TV infront of a little gun reclining chair and a little gun wife in the little gun kitchen.

>>64261417
You had similar upgrade programs for the Leo1 as well, some of which made it quite potent

>>64261539
the upgrades turned it into a glass cannon
since it got very little additional armor, just some incidental armor increased when switching to a welded turret
but it got pretty much M1 abrams tier firepower, with a thermal sight, digital ballistic computer, long rod ammunition, a new gun stabilizer, and commander override for the gun

>>64261630
It was always a glass cannon, the upgrades were only intended to give a bit of SC protection and better FCS. Although the A6 would have given it quite a lot of protection, had it not been dropped in favor of the A4.
Somewhat comically, the A5 had better thermals than the Le2A4

>>64252245
Yeah it's better to compare twin engine fighter bomber with side by side cockpits

>>64259730
yeah

>>64258468
Malaysian pilot in Su-30MKM and Mig-29 have proven otherwise against USAF F-15/16, USN F-18 and even F-22

For reminder of what happened during the last Cope Taufan, the F-22 lost to the Sukhois by a 3 time lockdown confirmed kills. the RMAF Sukhoi SU-30MKM were be able to detect and locked into USAF Lockheed Martin F-22A Raptor in stealth mode during Cope Taufan 2014 joined USAF & RMAF exercises.

None other than former US Navy pilot Trevor "Gonky" Hartsock is a Boeing contractor who'd trained RMAF Hornet pilots when MLU prog was initiated to bring the Malaysian D++ Nitestrike variant to Mod25X standard.

Gonky's top 5 toughest dogfight:
>1. RMAF BAe Hawk Mk108/208
>2. Northrop F-5
>3. RMAF Su-30MKM
>4. F-16
>5. Boeing F/A-18

As per Gonky's deduction as former USAF Reserve adversary pilot and former Boeing contractor, the RMAF Su-30MKM is considered as a formidable fighter in the air giving great opportunity for USAF pilots to hav a feel on their potential opponent.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duejFDL04P0

The F-22 never comes around Malaysia anymore because China doesn't like the idea of Su-30MKM which is more advanced than their basic J-15 being used by Raptor pilots to develop countermeasures.

>>64254283
The Russians have all the anal in the world!

>>64262115
Nothing against any of the pilots, aircraft or airforces involved but I really don't think you understand how training scenarios are constructed or run. It's not a head-to-head to determine which plane is better, it's constructing various scenarios to give pilots chances to experience and experiment with certain tactical problems in real aircraft. For training purposes it wouldn't be unusual to say, ask the more capable aircraft's pilot to take it a little easier to allow the less capable one's pilot a chance to actually train things and not just get dunked on.
Additionally, I somewhat doubt the F-22As were being run truly slick. The USAF is very protective of radar profiles and likely would not want Malaysian forces or any nearby observers having access to accurate radar readings.
Plus if it's knife fight distance, a plane being VLO doesn't matter. It might be harder but you're still going to get a lock.

>>64253002
CUTE

>>64252117 (OP)
The T-72 is incorrectly way shorter then IRL.

>>64262389
I had all 5 images combined into one large image but the file size was too big and when I managed to compress it then the overall file height and width was too big.

>>64262319
Book name?

>>64253012
China's newest MBTs are all bustle-autoloaders.

>>64254820
Honestly this argument is dumb, because if we got that way then pretty much every Diesel MBT uses "an ancient engine", Challenger's engine comes to mind since it's "based of" a WW2 engine.

>>64262540
>Honestly this argument is dumb,
It isn't when the basic design of the V-2 was bad and they were trying to make it light for aircraft instead of reliable or easy to manufacture.

>>64252263
cold war there weren't many proper wars and they were starting to think that light tanks are better because they are harder for other tanks to spot and shoot but recent wars have shown armour is more important since infantry have access to atgms now that can easily destroy light tanks

>>64262502
File name

Rolf Hilmes Kampfpanzer published in 1983

>>64262548
Soviet MBT are upgunned medium tanks, they had a hard limit on weight of ~36 tons, preferable less, but they gradually increased the demand on protection. The only way to fulfill those requirements after the T-62 was using autoloader, composite armor and smaller profile.

>>64262583
>Soviet MBT are upgunned medium tanks, they had a hard limit on weight of ~36 tons
Only the OG T-64 with a 115mm gun managed to stay at the 36 tons weight limit.

T-54 is 36 tons
T-55A is 37.5 tons
T-62 is either 37 or 38 tons
T-55AM is 41.5 tons
T-55AMV is 39 tons
T-62M is either 41 or 42 tons
T-62MV is either 40 or 41 tons

T-64A is 38 tons
T-64B is 39 tons
T-64BV jumped up 41.5 tons

First versions of T-72 and T-80 Auto failed the old weight limit (not below 40 tons even), the new weight limit was around 46 tons which is below to the maximum 50 tons weight limit of old bridge layer design fitted to the T-54 +T-55's.

T-72 Ural (Object 172M) - combat weight of 41 tons and an empty weight of 38.6 tons.
T-72A (Object 172M-1) - combat weight of 41.5 tons and an empty weight of 39.0 tons.
T-72B (Object 184) - combat weight of 44.5 tons with Kontakt-1 or Kontakt-5 ERA, and a combat weight of 43 tons without ERA. It had an empty weight of 41.6 tons.
T‑80B combat weight of 42.5 tons
T‑80U combat weight of 46 tons or (46.5)

IS-3 heavy tanks is 48 tons
T-10M heavy tank is 50 tons

>>64252978
Not to mention the fact they're more comfortable and less cramped, which leads to the crew getting tired less which makes them combat effective for longer.

>>64262765
Those 'M' modernizations are from the late 70s early 80s when they increased the weight limit to 40-42 tons.
And yes, they failed to keep the weight when Bongs fielded the 120 mmR and the SACLOS spam was problematic. The T-90 is a heavy tank under their old weight classification

>>64252892
>>64252869
This
Soyuz was great 50 years ago

BUUUUUT NASA USES SOVIET ENGINES

>>64263966
ULA not NASA, the ultra sneed joint company between boingo and locksneed martin.
They brought +100 engines in the 2000s and 2015 for the first stage and refused to pay more for local made engines until they were forced (Crimea 2014)...

>>64263966
ULA not NASA, the ultra sneed joint company between boingo and locksneed martin.
They bought +120 engines in the 2000s and 2015 for the first stage and refused to pay more for local made engines until they were forced (Crimea 2014)...
After that they replaced it by BO's methalox engines.

I saw that

>>64262796
doctrine plays a large part
US wants a high longevity from each vehicle so that they have to be rotated from the front less often
the USSR wanted lots of vehicles so that when one vehicle was exhausted, they could rotate them out immediately with a fresh crew
basically "crews should be able to fight for as long as possible" vs "crews should be able to be replaced on the front as quick as possible"

>>64258443
what the fuck are you retarded
nobody designs bridges with a tiny safety margin
not to mention *multiple* 60 ton euro trucks can cross road bridges in russia just fine

>>64252978
No way they don’t use wet stowage
That’s insane to me! Even the Ww2 Brit’s and Americans realized quickly enough.

>>64266368
And yet cold war tanks before the ~1970s had dry racks minus a few exceptions limiting the rack to individual pipes to isolate each round.
Also, the T-62 has one wet ammo rack but the retarded horizontal carousel is harder to protect.

>>64255136
>Stopgap
Which makes the fact that versions of the T-62 are the only one still in production that much funnier.

>>64266368
The t55 had a wet stowage. They kept the ammo inside fuel tanks. And they use diesel so it doesn't blow up and catch fire

>>64252117 (OP)
I've noticed that this is a problem unique to the board: everyone replies to each other like sassy teen girls.

>>64266514
>And they use diesel so it doesn't blow up and catch fire
Except it does it's harder than gasoline but not hard, especially with compression caused by a round entering the compartment.

>>64252146
>Soviet design philosophy held keeping a tank small improved survivablity
Keeping the tank small meant it was cheaper and easier to produce, and so you could field more in a unit and meet retarded production quotas.

Why use the carousel anyways

>>64266825
Part of it is they can't be bothered to make something new
Part of it is that a turret bustle autoloader would probably require single piece ammo, which would require a bigger bustle. They don't like the idea of the bustle extending that far and being a "weak point" (even though with blowouts it wouldn't be a crew or even necessarily a full tank loss).
There's a massive obsession with the idea of a firepower kill or carrying less ammo, even though with the carousel you have to disengage to replenish anyways. Never mind that a turret bustle can A) be replenished faster by using the blowout hatch to just put ammo in, rather than manhandling it through the fighting compartment and running the loader in reverse, or B) you can design a turret autoloader to be modular in a way where repair after a hit is faster and cheaper.

>>64266825
More compact design and gives you a lower profile.

IMO the carrousell isn't a bad design per se, it's just that Soviet/Russian propellants are abysmal dogshit and will explode if a pebble hits it.