The Situation in the Ukraine. #10

Vann7 wrote:

TR1 wrote:Point out where I said T-72s were deathtraps. Go. Let's see it.
The context matters, let's see if you can back up you claim.

Yes, the T-90 would not have done any better. It has largely similar protection post-penetration for the crew. And the way the Ukrainians used their tanks, the kind of artillery they were subject to, I don't think them having T-90s would have seen a COMPLETE reversal of fortunes. Corked up in the airport, on fire from all sides= burned out T-90s.

In a duel a T-90 will own your lovely NATO tank at 5km distance and it will also do better against
RPG-7 attacks.. so means better for urban warfare.. you are only victim of western propaganda..

If tanks are dueling it means someone really fucked up. Rarely that happens. Prime NATO and Russian tanks would have troubles defeating each other from the front. It would like featherweight boxing, loads of punches and no KOs.
Well NATO prime tanks sure look nice, but how many of them are in service? I doubt that tanks could actually engage each other from such distance as it's hard to find such terrain that would allow it. And Russian and NATO tanks are not really good for urban warfare. I would rather be in Merkava with Trophy than any of these tanks. What it lacks in conventional war it compensates in low intensity war. I have bad feeling that after Armata all new tanks will be almost identical.

higurashihougi wrote:@TR1: what about Uk's T-84 series, for example the newest BM Oplot ?

Same thing- AZ autloader, though modified somewhat.

Oplot does a good job of heavy ERA all over the tank, should reduce penetration chance in the first place. However the ERA itself is ironically a really inefficient kind that is very heavy for the protection it grants (mot ERA is really weight efficient). NII Stali has been pretty critical of it. But in terms of coverage it is pretty good, and is certainly a big leap over almost everything post Soviet.

Even T-90MS/MA does not have such good all round hull coverage as Oplot has shown. The ERA it has on the hull sides are much lighter and less bulky, but certainly won't offer protection from kinetic energy penetrators directly from the sides...likely only from "frontal arc" degrees and then some.

sepheronx wrote:

TR1 wrote:

sepheronx wrote:

TR1 wrote:Point out where I said T-72s were deathtraps. Go. Let's see it.
The context matters, let's see if you can back up you claim.

Yes, the T-90 would not have done any better. It has largely similar protection post-penetration for the crew. And the way the Ukrainians used their tanks, the kind of artillery they were subject to, I don't think them having T-90s would have seen a COMPLETE reversal of fortunes. Corked up in the airport, on fire from all sides= burned out T-90s.

Well, in previous tests, T-90A was able to survive various RPG type rounds, more than T-80U.  I would figure that the T-90's are vastly superior in protection.

As for who uses them, of course the user will matter most.  Training is key importance as no vehicle is invulnerable.  And from what I am hearing, it appears that Ukrainians are using their MBT's much like Russia used theirs in Chechnya.  Not really ideal.

Those tests were of dubious quality, or rather the results were. That is why Fofanov removed them from his website. Also, that was T-90, not T-90A.

And they were fired on from the front, which is different from the kind of shots most tanks in Donbass have been subject to.

T-90 is certainly not vastly better than T-80U in terms of protection. T-80U was a monster for its time.

Well, the MoD must have viewed the T-90's to be something since they ordered them rather than T-72B upgrades back then.  Now with Armata around the corner, I suspect that no more T-90's.  But as well, India seems to be quite happy with their T-90S compared to the T-72's.  T-80U was a beast for its time, but apparently the T-90 in tests outdid it.  I would presume that the T-80 could have been equally upgraded like T-72B's were, but I guess standardizing the equipment mixed with the engines of T-80 being costly to operate, makes sense to remove it from service.

Edit: And when I said vastly superior, I was comparing it to the T-72B's.  But yeah, obviously it was better than the T-80U's as well.  But seeing as how a T-90 is a T-72B upgraded, I guess they can get to the same performance of the T-90's are without spending a fortune.

The T-90 IS a T-72 upgrade, albeit a heavy one. T-90 was essentially T-72B on roids, T-90 took some design features (turret) from Obj 187.
Plus, they stopped ordering new T-90s after only several years of large scale procurement. Instead we get the "cost-effective" T-72B3, which is petty so-so but I guess it depends how much they are paying for them.

In what tests exactly did the T-90 outdo the T-80U? I would take the T-80U any day over the original T-90, barring the high fuel consumption.
To be frank the improvement of T-90A over the 15 year younger T-80U is pretty miserable. Only with Armata are we moving forward at all.

TR1 wrote:

sepheronx wrote:

TR1 wrote:

sepheronx wrote:

TR1 wrote:Point out where I said T-72s were deathtraps. Go. Let's see it.
The context matters, let's see if you can back up you claim.

Yes, the T-90 would not have done any better. It has largely similar protection post-penetration for the crew. And the way the Ukrainians used their tanks, the kind of artillery they were subject to, I don't think them having T-90s would have seen a COMPLETE reversal of fortunes. Corked up in the airport, on fire from all sides= burned out T-90s.

Well, in previous tests, T-90A was able to survive various RPG type rounds, more than T-80U.  I would figure that the T-90's are vastly superior in protection.

As for who uses them, of course the user will matter most.  Training is key importance as no vehicle is invulnerable.  And from what I am hearing, it appears that Ukrainians are using their MBT's much like Russia used theirs in Chechnya.  Not really ideal.

Those tests were of dubious quality, or rather the results were. That is why Fofanov removed them from his website. Also, that was T-90, not T-90A.

And they were fired on from the front, which is different from the kind of shots most tanks in Donbass have been subject to.

T-90 is certainly not vastly better than T-80U in terms of protection. T-80U was a monster for its time.

Well, the MoD must have viewed the T-90's to be something since they ordered them rather than T-72B upgrades back then.  Now with Armata around the corner, I suspect that no more T-90's.  But as well, India seems to be quite happy with their T-90S compared to the T-72's.  T-80U was a beast for its time, but apparently the T-90 in tests outdid it.  I would presume that the T-80 could have been equally upgraded like T-72B's were, but I guess standardizing the equipment mixed with the engines of T-80 being costly to operate, makes sense to remove it from service.

Edit: And when I said vastly superior, I was comparing it to the T-72B's.  But yeah, obviously it was better than the T-80U's as well.  But seeing as how a T-90 is a T-72B upgraded, I guess they can get to the same performance of the T-90's are without spending a fortune.

The T-90 IS a T-72 upgrade, albeit a heavy one. T-90 was essentially T-72B on roids, T-90 took some design features (turret) from Obj 187.
Plus, they stopped ordering new T-90s after only several years of large scale procurement. Instead we get the "cost-effective" T-72B3, which is petty so-so but I guess it depends how much they are paying for them.

In what tests exactly did the T-90 outdo the T-80U? I would take the T-80U any day over the original T-90, barring the high fuel consumption.
To be frank the improvement of T-90A over the 15 year younger T-80U is pretty miserable. Only with Armata are we moving forward at all.

Meh, upgrade is an upgrade, anywhere they can improve it, for the better.  I would imagine that the T-72B2 upgrade would have been far better than the B3 upgrade and current T-90A's, but apparently it was too expensive.  I presume that the thermal imagers for T-72B's and some improvement in protection is the key what they wanted.  T-90A's stand around 900 as rumored which is a decent amount but yes, not total upgrade of armed forces.  I don't know why you would take T-80U over T-90 upgrade really, but all is preference and seems the ones who used both, preferred the T-90's.  Now, I imagine it is all just upgrading current T-72B's to be more modern while they use whatever saved from purchasing newer tanks for Armata.  I think it is the smart move as Armata, as you mentioned, is the only way moving forward.  Sorry to say, but many countries are starting to fall behind on tank production and nothing really new is coming out other than upgrades for what they already have - M1 (1979 design tank going through various upgrades), Leopard 2, etc.  I have high hopes for Armata, but if it does not work out as expected, at least they can fall back on T-90AM and T-72B series designs and move forward with them.  Maybe it is a problem of having only 1 company making/designing tanks for your country (and it being a private company to boot, meaning profits over everything) that causes some lackluster prospects, but I have faith in the company as various countries have shown interest in the T-90S' alone.  I can only imagine what the Armata will turn out to be.

And yes, I know a T-90 is an upgrade of T-72. That is what I said. See bold.

T-90A with slight modifications that are essentially all ready would be at the very least equal in most areas to Rogatka, and superior in quite a few.

The gunner sight is indeed the same as T-72B (Sosna) but the protection is not improved whatsoever from T-72Bs with K-5 back in the late 80s. Rogatka at least had Relikt, plus thermal management.

Once again, who is preferring the T-90 to the T-80U can you show credible reports? Testing results? As for why I would chose it, simply much superior mobility.
Of course I understand the decision to rationalize the tank fleet, but if we are talking pure tank design...until T-90MS Russia made barely any improvement past late 80s T-80U (some electronics and thermals aside, but that is imported until today as well).

Poland new military help to Ukraine.. check this out..




at least was free.. and will be economically cheap in gasoline use too.  
the best touch what the label in front.. ATO...  Poland thought in all the details..
the only thing missing was the anti PUtin logo ...

It really is not. Look at the profile views- The T-72 is smaller yes, but it still presents a target. Second, it is not protected by a lot of armor in T-72.

It doesn't need to be protected by a lot of armour... a 5mm sheet of aluminium would stop hot burning fragments from landing on the propellent stubs... the photo shown is from the drivers compartment... the vast majority of hits on modern tanks are the turret... that is why the turret front is the most heavily armoured part of a modern conventional tank.

There is the metal plate over the autloader- does it look like good protection to you? It is not even meant as armor, just for loader mechanics.

to an amatuer it looks inadequate to stop even a pistol bullet.

To an expert... it doesn't have to stop pistol bullets... just hot fragments that would be stopped by metal sheet seen.

Neither is the T-72s. Look @ the pic above. Yes, there is marginally more protection by the shield, but anything serious will go right through it anwyays. Plus, I am not aware of Russian Army specifically reporting that AZ was more prone to explosions than MZ during Chechnya.

The fact that they stopped carrying ammo outside the autoloader suggests there is a difference in safety with ammo in the autoloader and ammo not in the autoloader...

Obviously the idea is not to have your armour penetrated in the first place, but when penetrated the most common area penetrated is the turret... which means exposed propellent stubs on the floor of your turret is an enormous health risk that only exists in the T-64 and T-80.

In fact the Russian Army did not report it found the T-80 more vulnerable than the T-72 did : if they did not have an issue with it, when both tanks sufered losses, who are we to tell them they are wrong?

First of all the protection on late model T-72s was better than any model T-64. the T-80 is expensive to operate because of their gas turbine engines and the fact that penetrations of their armour led to explosions due to the exposed ammo in their autoloaders.

T-80 and T-72 were both used. There was not found to be a difference in practical survivability.

Why did the T-72 crews operate with only 22 rounds of main gun ammo loaded?

Often enough actually. One of the three Russian tanks lost in 8-8-8 as a T-72 that suffered ammo detonation upon being penetrated by an RPG in a Georgian Ambush.

Too small a sample for any conclusive result... if the other two vehicles destroyed had been missed your conclusion would be that 100% of the time they explode when hit. How many dozens were hit but continued operating? An RPG is hardly a precision weapon, so the results will be rather variable.

The other T-72 however blew its ammo upon penetration.

And can you tell us how it was loaded? Did it only have 22 rounds in its autoloader, or were extra rounds loaded?

First of all, it is an older tank that has thinner armor than T-72B from the start, so you can expect it to fare worse when hit.

Poor logic... an RPG hit to a light vehicle can result in the plasma beam going right through and not actually killing anything or setting anything on fire.

Plus- for the comparitively small numbers, we have seen a LOT of T-72s with blown off turrets IN DONBASS! So what does that say about the design? Nothing good, if we apply the same logic from the T-64. T-72B3s too, plenty were blown up, when you consider how few the losses were overall.

You seem to think a blown turret is the result of the penetration rather than the subsequent fire.

A turret blown off is a natural result of the tanks ammo exploding all at once, but that does not mean all the crew will be killed instantly.

Might come as a shock to you but your beloved western tanks would also detonate when their ammo burns.

The T-80 stories about Chechnya are myths. The Russian army withdrew them because of gas turbine fuel consumption, nothing to do with autoloader design.

No, they are not myths... the Black Eagle design was intended to remove the ammo from the base of the turret to the rear turret bustle to eliminate the threat of exploding ammo blowing off the turret.

The more exposed turret bustle location for the ammo was rejected immediately by the Russian Army, yet surely removing the ammo from the base of the turret is the obvious solution to preventing turret tossing.

the fact is that with only 22 rounds in a T-72s autoloader and no loose ammo in the vehicle that if the vehicle explodes from fire it will be after burning for 10-20 minutes by which time the crew will be long gone or already dead.

In what tests exactly did the T-90 outdo the T-80U? I would take the T-80U any day over the original T-90, barring the high fuel consumption.
To be frank the improvement of T-90A over the 15 year younger T-80U is pretty miserable. Only with Armata are we moving forward at all.

They could have easily developed a diesel engine for the T-80U if it was really better than a T-90.

the fact of the matter is that the Russians could have chosen a T-80 or a T-90 and they chose the latter.

Once again, who is preferring the T-90 to the T-80U can you show credible reports?

Duh... the Russian Army chose the T-90 over the T-80.

TR1 wrote:
Those tests were of dubious quality, or rather the results were. That is why Fofanov removed them from his website. Also, that was T-90, not T-90A.

And they were fired on from the front, which is different from the kind of shots most tanks in Donbass have been subject to.

T-90 is certainly not vastly better than T-80U in terms of protection. T-80U was a monster for its time.

He did not remove those tests from his side, it is still up there.

http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/TRIALS/19991020.html

And the protection of T-90 (not A) version is superior to T-80U, not just from the better armor but mainly due the better use of armor all-around and with capsuled autoloader, that taking further with A mod.

Regarding Chechnya and this discussion that tanks "pop up" often by hits that is not true and is documented.

http://www.file-upload.net/download-10176706/-------------------------------------.xls.html

This is the tanks lost in Chechnya 95

Like in the table seen of Soldiers lost on tanks it occures only one single time that 3 soldiers were lost out of 30 tanks, meaning ammo detonation.
It also lists 4 soldiers, but not sure probably infantry nearby. With an average of 1,0333 killed in case of penetration, so it clearly shows that "pop up" is not the common case and is vastly overstreched for propaganda purposes and this is results from a very bad performed  with bad tactics or better to say no tactics at all war. They also did not have ERA like it was reported that they have rushed into without ERA tiles filled and ammunition storage was present scattered in the crew compartment and not only autoloader, so that is already the worst case scenario of 1,0333 dead per tank destroyed/defeated in urban warfare.

Surrender TR1.. you have been defeated..
Russians tanks are much stronger and superior survibility that you credit them..
and no less safer than western comparable tanks..but in some ways even better..

Vann7 wrote:

Surrender TR1.. you have been defeated..
Russians tanks are much stronger and superior survibility that you credit them..
and no less safer than western comparable tanks..but in some ways even better..

I think your approach towards this entire discussion and towards TR1 is sliding a wrong way. Discussions are not about determining who is wrong or right, because this would be a personal thing and not about the matter itself, this discussion is of the matter and what is wrong or right and not personal win/defeat crusade of yours.

Werewolf wrote:

Vann7 wrote:

Surrender TR1.. you have been defeated..
Russians tanks are much stronger and superior survibility that you credit them..
and no less safer than western comparable tanks..but in some ways even better..

I think your approach towards this entire discussion and towards TR1 is sliding a wrong way. Discussions are not about determining who is wrong or right, because this would be a personal thing and not about the matter itself, this discussion is of the matter and what is wrong or right and not personal win/defeat crusade of yours.

Debate is finding WHO is wrong.

Discussion is finding WHAT is wrong.

The problem is that, in most cases, our temper goes too high and we fail to keep control of ourself.

So relax and goes back to Ukraina things.

Come on guys relocate this T-72 discussion at least.

Anyway staying on topic.

January 20 Battle Update: Peski and Avdeevka fighting, Right Sector suffers losses.

Novorossia News, Morning 1/20/2015 [Excerpts]

Translated from Russian by J.Hawk

09:42. Ukrainians still claiming a breakthrough into Donetsk—that’s false.

Positions on the Avdeevka sector have come to life, they are firing toward Putilovka. Something has burned for a long time in Peski after our artillery bombardment, probably a Right Sector bus, or some other piece of junk.

From radio intercepts. Peski: Ukrainians have 27 killed, around 60 wounded. Preparing to withdraw. Avdeevka: Ukrainians are begging for help, signs of panic.

A continuous firefight in the north. Ukrainians are pushing into Peski, mostly the Right Sector is dying there.

Meteorological tower: fighting. Avdeevka: our troops are operating in the “old Avdeevka”, it’s an intense clearing operation, long ways toward capturing the city, but the Ukrainians are being pushed out. Pions [203mm self-propelled howitzers] have been spotted on the Kharkov-Rostov highway. 12 howitzers total, and 17 other vehicles, probably with ammunition.

Dmitriy Yarosh writes: “Donetsk, [???], Peski, in just a second. To friends: in the last 24 hours we have lost 80 wounded and 22 killed. You will not see that in the news, since the people who are dying are volunteers who don’t even receive medical assistance, but that’s the Right Sector, we go forward when needed even though the “CTO General Staff” won’t give us a single bullet, the SOBs.”

Around 1:30 in Donetsk, in the south-western part of the Petrovka region there occurred an tank breakthrough attempt through a fortified checkpoint of DPR forces. Preliminary information suggests that about 20 tanks participated in the attack, and some of them were knocked out. The rest have withdrawn but are remaining in the vicinity of the frontline, possibly awaiting reinforcement. Other reports indicate up to five AFU tanks were seriously damaged.

1/15/2015. 01:22. Intensive artillery duels along the line Peski-Airport-Avdeevka, using tube and rocket artillery, and operations by reconnaissance-strike groups. Near Mariupol the militia is attacking enemy fortifications. A “night of long knives” in Donetsk. Counter-intelligence is operating against reconnaissance-strike groups and artillery spotters. As of midnight 6 such groups were detected. Four were destroyed, two are being pursued.
http://fortruss.blogspot.com/2015/01/january-20-battle-update-peski-and.html

Kiev Throws Its (Last?) Reserves into Battle

Translated from Russian by J.Hawk

The situation remains extremely tense. The focus of efforts of both sides remains the Donetsk Airport and its vicinity, Kiev artillery and reserves concentrations around Peski and Avdeevka, Gorlovka, and also the flanks of the Ukrainian forces’ wedge near Debaltsevo.

After the intensification of artillery bombardments of Donetsk, Novorossia Armed Forces [NAF] were able to relatively quickly eliminate the Kiev-loyal forces at the airport. After repelling counter-attacks NAF forces followed the retreating Ukrainian units and began the assault on Peski and Avdeevka. This forced the Kiev leadership to throw part of its reserves from sector B (subunits of the 25th Airborne Brigade) and then the reserves of the entire Kiev grouping in the form of tank and mechanized battalions. Kiev reserves were also brought up to the vicinity of Debaltsevo and Bakhmutka.

The artillery battle has reached its peak, and NAF is able to systematically suppress or destroy Kiev artillery and MRL positions on all sectors; this forces Kiev to bring up new artillery units, and to also use combat aircraft to bomb Gorlovka for the first time since summer.

There are cases of individual AFU, National Guard, and territorial units refusing to follow orders fom the high command; radio intercepts indicate daily requests from unit commanders to be withdrawn from the front line.

Overall, one can draw the conclusion that Kiev’s attempt to escalate the situation is failing: Kiev forces have not scored successes on any sector of the front, and losses suffered during the operations have forced Kiev to bring in reserves to repel NAF counter-attacks and hold positions. The artillery battle is also not going in Kiev’s favor.

The escalation is causing a sharp increase of casualties among the civilian population and the destruction of Donbass housing and infrastructure, which means the immediate NAF task is the elimination of Kiev artillery grouping in the vicinity of Donetsk, or pushback to a distance that would make it impossible for it to fire on Donetsk civilian quarters.
http://fortruss.blogspot.ca/2015/01/kiev-throws-its-last-reserves-into.html

It'd be good if Kiev's bumbling warmachine can finally sputter, stammer and draw its last breath.

They're due for such a damn ass-kicking that they'd be scared to even defend their current positions after this, much less think about any more foolish advances. Hopefully the Novorussians can repel their strikes and start going on the offensive as Kiev morale falters.

Size of battles are so small. Ukraine attacks with 2 tanks, BMPs and few infantrymen. I think they already dont have any big armoured formations in Donetsk theater. If only someone woukd tske their arty out, then city would be safe from any threat. I think we will see breaking point soon.

flamming_python wrote:It'd be good if Kiev's bumbling warmachine can finally sputter, stammer and draw its last breath.

They're due for such a damn ass-kicking that they'd be scared to even defend their current positions after this, much less think about any more foolish advances. Hopefully the Novorussians can repel their strikes and start going on the offensive as Kiev morale falters.

That won't happen until someone decides to take out Kiev itself, after all you can't kill a zombie until you smash and/or blow it's brains out.

Nah, leave Kiev for Maidan v3. It will happen soon. More damage than a tactical nuke

Regular wrote:Nah, leave Kiev for Maidan v3. It will happen soon. More damage than a tactical nuke

I was thinking more along the lines of a NovoBlitzkrieg, but another Maiden will do as well, as long as someone takes them out.

I would also say they should concentrate on artillery pieces with intel and providing coordinates for precision strikes against ukr artillery pieces to eleminate any kind of threat for civilians that will reveal to the dumbest ukrop that fascist Kiew will try to get new artillery or SS missiles to continue their anglo-zionistic job of genocide they were ordered to do.

For the Ukie junta there's no way out now but war

http://t.co/baj9iD9iWJ

But they are still at the airport, right?
Just imagine if Russia really intervenes. They would be crushed in 5 days max.

http://t.co/UdCyaGaIj6

Voentorg

Ukraine is saying they are being invaded by Russia today. So what does this make it? The 30th time now?

Werewolf wrote:

TR1 wrote:
Those tests were of dubious quality, or rather the results were. That is why Fofanov removed them from his website. Also, that was T-90, not T-90A.

And they were fired on from the front, which is different from the kind of shots most tanks in Donbass have been subject to.

T-90 is certainly not vastly better than T-80U in terms of protection. T-80U was a monster for its time.

He did not remove those tests from his side, it is still up there.

http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/TRIALS/19991020.html

And the protection of T-90 (not A) version is superior to T-80U, not just from the better armor but mainly due the better use of armor all-around and with capsuled autoloader, that taking further with A mod.

Regarding Chechnya and this discussion that tanks "pop up" often by hits that is not true and is documented.

http://www.file-upload.net/download-10176706/-------------------------------------.xls.html

This is the tanks lost in Chechnya 95

Like in the table seen of Soldiers lost on tanks it occures only one single time that 3 soldiers were lost out of 30 tanks, meaning ammo detonation.
It also lists 4 soldiers, but not sure probably infantry nearby. With an average of 1,0333 killed in case of penetration, so it clearly shows that "pop up" is not the common case and is vastly overstreched for propaganda purposes and this is results from a very bad performed  with bad tactics or better to say no tactics at all war. They also did not have ERA like it was reported that they have rushed into without ERA tiles filled and ammunition storage was present scattered in the crew compartment and not only autoloader, so that is already the worst case scenario of 1,0333 dead per tank destroyed/defeated in urban warfare.

Fofanov himself on Otvaga said those tests were dubious and should not be taken seriously. You really wanna argue with him?

As for armor, proof please that T-80U was out-armored by vanilla T-90. Most analysis claim they are closely similar in effective protection.

As for tanks popping turrets, yes I am well aware that properly ERA equipped T-72 with good crews and support did a good job. Nontheless there are plenty of photographic evidence of them being torn up in Chechnya, just like the T-80:

WHICH IS THE CRUX OF MY ARGUMENT.

I am not saying T-72 always blows its turret. I am saying the difference from T-72 to T-80 to T-64 isn't huge.

Nikander wrote:
http://t.co/UdCyaGaIj6

Voentorg

Fairly predictable.

As are Ukr's forces likely rout and encirclement within the next 72 hours.

I understand of course why Kiev has ordered the assault. Whether at their own initiative, or at America's, the decision was taken that there should be no coming peace conference in Kazakhstan where Russia and Europe reach some compromises (not that I think Russia should, but that's another topic).

What makes me wonder more though - is that how can the Ukrainian soldiers still so enthusiastically march off into a new offensive, knowing that the result will be the same as before if not worse. They aren't stupid, they surely realize that their leaders are leading them into a folly, using them as bait.

GarryB wrote:

It doesn't need to be protected by a lot of armour... a 5mm sheet of aluminium would stop hot burning fragments from landing on the propellent stubs... the photo shown is from the drivers compartment... the vast majority of hits on modern tanks are the turret... that is why the turret front is the most heavily armoured part of a modern conventional tank.

All Soviet tanks were designed with frontal combat (well, not just Soviet, all essentially nation's vehicles) in mind. The thought was post-penetration crew was done anyways. Can you point to something that states the shield over the MZ had anything to do with protection, and not with auto-loader mechanics? I am not aware of it.

The fact that they stopped carrying ammo outside the autoloader suggests there is a difference in safety with ammo in the autoloader and ammo not in the autoloader...

No, it suggest they realized the obvious that ammo all over the tank is more prone to being triggered than ammo in one contained part. That applies to both AZ and MZ auto-loaders. Btw, Russian T-72 crews in Georgia, and crews in Donbass have been seen with full ammo loadouts, so clearly it has not become 100% policy. Clearly ammo load is considered more important than post-penetration safety in most scenarios.

Obviously the idea is not to have your armour penetrated in the first place, but when penetrated the most common area penetrated is the turret... which means exposed propellent stubs on the floor of your turret is an enormous health risk that only exists in the T-64 and T-80.

As we discussed, when carrying full ammo load it makes no difference in either vehicle. When carrying ammo in just AZ or MZ, yes the T-72s is less vulnerable- but the difference is not massive. See T-80 and T-72 in Chechnya. Fron the front the turret is unlikely to be penetrated by RPGs in any case, so there AZ or MZ makes little difference. From the sides both are vulnerable as hell to hull hits.

First of all the protection on late model T-72s was better than any model T-64. the T-80 is expensive to operate because of their gas turbine engines and the fact that penetrations of their armour led to explosions due to the exposed ammo in their autoloaders.

That is a myth. Russian combat experience in Chechnya (in terms of armor) was analogous for both T-80 and T-72. The myth of ammo storage had nothing to do with T-80 being withdrawn.

Why did the T-72 crews operate with only 22 rounds of main gun ammo loaded?

Why could T-80s not do the same? If they stayed in theater.....they would have. And btw, far from all T-72 crews operated like this.

Too small a sample for any conclusive result... if the other two vehicles destroyed had been missed your conclusion would be that 100% of the time they explode when hit. How many dozens were hit but continued operating? An RPG is hardly a precision weapon, so the results will be rather variable.

Yes, but we have one example of the Russian army using both types in combat (Chechnya). The Army and experience personell said the T-80 did about as well as the T-72. That is all we really have for comparison. In Donbass, T-64s have done poorly but they have been hit by all sorts of weaponry so making a good analysis will be hard for some time. T-72s have popped their turrets as well, in fact in large numbers out of all losses. So what does that say?

And can you tell us how it was loaded? Did it only have 22 rounds in its autoloader, or were extra rounds loaded?

Probably all rounds. But that is the point...tanks tend to operate with their design ammo load. And in any case, take a T-64 and a T-80 with only carousel ammo, and yes, its detonation chance is GREATLY reduced. There was no finding in Chechnya that any penetration of turret led to T-80 carousel detonating.

Poor logic... an RPG hit to a light vehicle can result in the plasma beam going right through and not actually killing anything or setting anything on fire.

How is it poor? an RPG that might go right through a T-64s front plate might struggle with T-72Bs.....and even if it doesn't hit any ammo, it might start a fire that if not put out, will eventually trigger carousel in both tans, throwing their turret to the high heavens.

You seem to think a blown turret is the result of the penetration rather than the subsequent fire.

A turret blown off is a natural result of the tanks ammo exploding all at once, but that does not mean all the crew will be killed instantly.

Obviously, and that applies to both T-64 and T-72 and T-80 now doesn't it? At the end of the day you have absolutely no scientific analysis for AZ auto-loaders being triggered significantly more in combat than analogous T-72 tanks.

Might come as a shock to you but your beloved western tanks would also detonate when their ammo burns.

I never said anything about loving Western tanks, so can you Russia-stronger can the shit please? I am sorry for daring to speak of certain factual issues in Soviet tank design, but that doesn't equate to loving Western tanks.

the fact is that with only 22 rounds in a T-72s autoloader and no loose ammo in the vehicle that if the vehicle explodes from fire it will be after burning for 10-20 minutes by which time the crew will be long gone or already dead.

Possible. Or it hits the autoloader and detonates the whole thing and kills the crew instantly. Everything is possible in the chaos of combat. Generally it takes some times yes. Taking only 22 rounds is a pretty crappy fact though.

They could have easily developed a diesel engine for the T-80U if it was really better than a T-90.

They did. It was made in Ukraine, before the USSR collapsed, so was a non-option for Russia. Taking T-90 was cheaper and easier

Duh... the Russian Army chose the T-90 over the T-80.

A choice that had nothing to do with auto-loaders.

10 characters.