• GuyIncognito@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 day ago

    This is the correct answer. The autoloader also enabled them to remove one crew member, thus reducing interior space and increasing armor thickness for the same weight. Contemporary western tanks like the M60 didn’t have blowout panels either, so the argument that ‘the Bolshevik hordes have no regard for the lives of their peasant conscripts, while the enlightened west spares no expense to protect its precious troops’ holds no water

    • Yeather@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      11 hours ago

      That is until you compare the T-90M to a modern NATO tank it’s supposed to contend with. The T-90 entered service in 1992, the US had the M-1 Abrams enter in 1980. Most M-60’s were retired by 1995.

      • GuyIncognito@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 hours ago

        It’s cheaper, easier on logistics, and it does its job fine. The Ukraine war has proved, once again, that no tank is invincible, and the greatest danger to tanks is from dedicated antitank weapons rather than other tanks.