Harkonnen

Probably to distribute the load of a large hard brittle package over possible unevenness.

felting

It is very doubtfull that it is close to reality.

2-nd video is not about actual T-90A as it does not correspond in armor array to T-90 or even T72B late.

Moving on a concrete highway is far from being the main way of moving tanks. It is rather an exception.

And where does this information come from, I haven't seen any such records.

If the wheels of the T-64 tank were not suitable, someone will explain why the future 490A and 477 tanks, which were designed with a unified engine compartment for diesel and AGT, had T-64 wheels and moved perfectly well with them?

The topic is called "History of Soviet tanks", I am discussing what is in the topic title. And you seem to have decided to discuss me in this subject. What can you offer in this matter - you apparently have a huge amount of data on the results of comparative tests of Soviet tanks? If the topic "History of Soviet tanks" gives you discomfort and reality somehow contradicts your concepts, why are you here?

The production of 2 or three similar tanks in one country is an inexcusable mistake. Why BRD did not produce KpZ 70 along with Keiler and KpZ III T at the same time? Why not - every one of them has advantages. To make this fraud accusations of low reliability and poor cross-country ability and others were used. I publish them based on the archives. Nobody else but me did not publish the data of archives, the history that is now published is based on justifications of frauds and crimes. But why study the archives if you can stay within the framework of your old concepts.

Why was the T-80 needed when the T-64A was available? Why didn't the US start producing 2 tank programs with a gas turbine Chrysler and GD with a diesel with conplectely different design, then a third main tank from AAI would have been added?

It is impossible to talk about the history of tank building in the USSR from the point of view of logic. This history is not logical. I'll give you an example that doesn't concern the running gear part. There was a production of T-64A turret with combined armor with ceramics. to provide the required resistance to shaped-charge jets. But when the supporters of the of the T-80 won, they demanded that the T-64A turret be made of homogeneous armor. which was worse. Document - https://t.me/btvt2019/11817

Absolutely. Taking into account the title of the topic are meant events and arguments that took place during the appearance of tanks-analogues to understand the historical reasons for their appearance.

Other international T-72 user or generally MBT user say about this? – they have nothing to compare with. T-72 – had. I cited the documents of the top leadership of the USSR where as the shortcomings and justification for the adoption of the T-72 is the poor cross-country ability of the undercarriage of the T-64. Is this justification justified? What do Abrams Leclerc and undercarriage of Western tanks have to do with the events of 1960-1970? What is this conversation about?

Quite eloquent video - https://t.me/btvt2019/8528 Msta-S ( same for T-80 or T-72) - pay attention to the tracks - they are completely clogged with mud and have lost their traction qualities. In essence, the caterpillar tracks are "sliding" on compacted mud.

If there is nothing in the news about leopard-2 passability problems, it does not mean that there is no such problem. The interaction of the vehicle's undercarriage with the ground is one of the most difficult and unsolved problems in tank construction.

The difference would be that they wouldn't be stuck.

Only 2 years passed and everyone forgot dozens of RF tanks stuck in spring mud and abandoned. Why discuss real issues when you can again compare the thickness of armor array or sights. And when there's nothing to say, it's just a lame attempt at sarcasm.

Is it acceptable that tank training can be conducted only on certain seasons, not in spring and autumn? https://t.me/btvt2019/717

In order to allow a retarded copy - the t-72 to go into mass production false claims about the T-64A were invented. One of them was the insufficient cross-country capability of the tank on weak ground. See История танкостроения СССР. Переломный 1973. Письмо Якубовского – поворотный этап Советского танкостроения. Часть 2. But comparative trials of the T-64A and the T-72 were postponed before the T-72 was taken into service. The fact that it was a forgery was known from the beginning, but the military were deceived. After 1973, work began to improve the cross-country capability of the T-72, but everything remained in prototypes.

Sometimes it seems that for many decades, every 1-2 years the same issue that has long been considered is discussed. https://twitter.com/ChungTzuW/status/1666714672505188355 https://twitter.com/ChungTzuW/status/1668365653823361024

Yes, no problems, but this was not known to T-72 users in USSR, maybe DDR had completely different T-72.

Yes, indeed, why compare tanks with the same FCS when you can compare a tank with primitive FCS and a tank with sophisticated FCS.

Political intrigues, envy and desire for honors, weakening of central power and strengthening of regional centers. Many reasons. But the funny thing is that the T-64A tank is attributed the shortcomings of its analogs. Thus, being the cheapest it is called expensive and complicated, being the most cross-country it is accused of poor cross-country ability. All this has been transferred from the false book of UVZ and in Western sources.

The price of the T-64 tank in 1960-70. The T-64A tank was cheaper than the T-72 tank and its modifications throughout its production.