The Situation in the Ukraine. #10

Remember, I am allowing that carousel only T-72 is safer, I just don't think the difference is gigantic.

I would argue that if the crew is prepared to sacrifice more than half its ready to fire ammo then the difference is significant enough.

And let's not forget one major point that you are leaving out- MZ has 28 round capacity in its carousel, the AZ only 22. That is a major advantage in a carousel only scenario (well, any scenario) for the T-64 and T-80. Rememeber, part of the Russian Army's choice of the 125mm 2A82 vs the 152mm 2A83 for Amrata is because of the former's ammunition load advantage. So clearly it is very important.

But if we are talking about removing ammo that is unsafe in the crew compartment then you would have to take all the ammo out of the T-64 and T-80 for it to be deemed safe so the T-72 would be superior. In that context you could argue that the T-72 with 22 rounds ready to fire should be compared with a T-64/80 with full ammo loads because the latter are vulnerable whether they have all their ammo in the autoloader or not.

For the T-90AM design it was stated that the 22 rounds ready to fire plus 8 more rounds in an armoured box in front of the engine at the rear of the turret were sufficient because of improvements in ammo and fire control systems making hits more likely so less ammo would be needed.

The Armata with a 125mm gun would carry rather more than 22 rounds.

No, I am saying the difference isn't gigantic. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a statistical difference, just not a huge one.

If your life was at stake how important would small differences in safety be?

Fuel consumption is an issue, no doubt about it. My point however was that going by pure performance, the T-90 never demonstrated its superiority over contemporary T-80U (which came before the T-90 by several years in any case). The Russian Army's choice of the cheaper and longer ranged vehicle may very well have been the right decision, but that is another story.

So WTF were the tests for? Why bother shooting at T-80s and T-90s if they were always going to pick the T-90s?

The T-80s have been kept in service for 20 years, there is no reason why they couldn't have kept them operational indefinitely if they wanted to.

the truth is that their thermal sights from Belarus were expensive and not that good. their protection was good but nothing amazing. their sophisticated Fire Control System was from the 1980s and could easily be vastly improved upon with more modern electronics.

No....the turret bustle blows off away from the crew compartment.

and in real combat how often do you think the loader keeps that sliding door closed?

Abram tanks have been destroyed by IEDs outside the tank as light as 50kgs... what chance do you think the crew will have when 35 rounds in the turret bustle explode all at once?

From sides the Abrams turret armor layout extends a "composite" array all the way down the turret side.

A composite array that wont even stop old model RPGs... you posted an image yourself just recently showing the attack angles for tanks showing the front being the target more than 60 percent of the time, with rear attacks being something like 6 percent.

I also thought that myth about T-80 and MZ loader was true, well....apparently it is not. The withdrawal was because of fuel consumption. That is it. In terms of combat performance they performed about as well as T-72s given the tactics and situations they were employed in.

If the tank was OK and just had fuel consumption issues then making a new engine could have solved the issue... or even licence producing a Ukrainian engine... in the 1990s relations with the Ukraine weren't that bad.

I doubt they would make such a decision based on just one factor.

Hell, Russia used T-62s in Chechnya, so the T-80s withdrawal obviously had nothing to do with crew safety.

T-62s have 115mm guns with metal shell cases that are not nearly as vulnerable to hot fragments showering over them...

No, I am flat out saying: if you have good scientific analysis of the respective tanks, their ammo loads, the type of hits they received in Donbass combat, by all means post it. I am going off available info, as in Chechnya...and the T-72s extensive combat history around the world.

And I am going off the design of the autoloaders of the vehicles, with the autoloaders of the T-64 and T-80 being known to be flawed.

And once again, if you call the MZ flawed, then the AZ is at the very least "half-flawed"....since it is not invulnerable to being hit or sparked as a result of turret penetration.

Well no ammo arrangement is perfect, both offer better protection from enemy fire than turret bustle stored ammo, but one offers less protection than the other... get over it.

First of all, I am dubious that all or even most crews operated with only carousel loads. It has become accepted "history" but there is plenty of room for doubt. But, it is certainly possible.

So smokey figures from Georgia and Donbass can be used for conclusions, but evidence from Chechnya you choose not to believe... is that because it does not support your assertions, or is it tea leaves or your crystal ball telling you otherwise...

It was tactics + more competent personnel for the most part IMO.

If by tactics you mean actually using ERA with explosive in it and not carrying loose ammo in the crew compartment, then I can agree.

The Russian Army clearly disagrees, since it rejected 2A83 152mm gun on the ammo question. And it was supposed to have a standard ammo load in the low 20s....sounds similar.

Actually the Russian Army rejected the 152mm gun because of the cost of introducing a new calibre when the existing calibre still has some growth potential with little development of new ammo over the last two decades meaning a few leaps in performance are possible over the next couple of years for the 125mm gun.

The T-90 was initially essentially a T-72....it did not get anything fundamentally new (aside from sights to bring it up to T-80 parity) until the T-90A inherited Obj 187 features.

Late model T-72s were not inferior to T-80s in terms of armour protection... ERA likely was more of a deciding factor than base armour.

If you want my opinion on which is better, well, T-80U had clearly superior mobility, but at the expense of price and fuel consumption.

Expensive to buy means less tanks in service and high fuel consumption means less training... I could already guess your opinion BTW...

What is that even supposed to mean? That is some Van7 level of argument. First of all, I am Russian. Second, the T-80 IS ALSO RUSSIAN. They picked UVZ over Omsk.

Actually The T-64, T-72, and T-80 are SOVIET. The T-90 is Russian.

There were attempts to "fix" the T-80... remember the Black Eagle... a prototype that moved the ammo from beneath the crew compartment to the turret bustle...

The T-72B3 was supposed to be "as good as the T-90 or close" for 1/3rd the price, according to Serdykov. That turned out to be complete BS, and here we are today. And without the T-90AM the Russian army has not received a vehicle fundamentally better than the almost 30 year old T-80U, some modern thermals aside. Also a fact.

Actually with the new gun and new ammo and new thermals and new communications the T-72B3 is light years ahead of any cold war Soviet tank.

the new thermals allows night and all weather training, and the new communications allows practise of all that net centricity stuff plus battle management stuff too and the new gun should allow it to hit what it is shooting at... what more do you want from a stopgap tank? Especially when you already have them and they are cheap.

We are going around in circles at this point.

Indeed we seem to be.

Lets agree that you think there is not enough evidence to separate the T-80 from the T-72 in terms of survivability and I disagree.

There was a cyborg parade in Donetsk today. Captured cyborgs that is. Mostly it was pretty civil and the Novorussian rebels kept order, but I think a few knuckles were thrown and hit home; either at this event or another one recently.

I would normally feel sorry for them and would advocate treating the enemy rank & file with honor.
However if I understood correctly, what these airport defenders have basically been doing is covering for the Ukrainian artillery firing from that location or near it - right at civilian towns and cities.
SO, sucks to be them. Hopefully after they've had their turn at some light humiliation; their families can come and pick them up.

Kyo wrote:On the economic front, IMF admits failure of the original Ukr aid plan. Has been forced to get behind the more generous Soros Plan. Can it work without Russia?

Russia has a good opportunity here. To give the impression that it's potentially interested in a restructuring of Ukrainian debt, and could be willing to wait a little long before calling in that $3 billion loan.. perhaps even extend the Ukraine's gas discount for a few more months.
That might give the Western debtors the confidence needed to agree to the IMF's new plan, and also for some new Western loans to be approved and given to the Ukraine.

Then WHAM! Drop negotiations under various pretexts, demand immediate repayment of loans, dump all Ukrainian assets & bonds, etc...
The Ukraine will be just as screwed, and the IMF's new money would be lost too.