Question About T-72 Afes

[Stuart Galbraith]

I can't help but notice two things:

1. You make a lot of demands, but feel no obligation to back up your own claims.

2. You seem to have a personal vendetta against T-72s and fantasize about them being destroyed.

 

Anyway...

 

To achieve a 50% probability of igniting the propellant, you need fragments that have approximately 12-14 kJ of KE, equivalent to the ability to penetrate 30-40mm of aluminium plate. (http://btvt.info/5library/vbtt_1981_01_ujazvimost_vistrelov.htm)

 

If you fired a solid chunk of WHA the size of a fire extinguisher at the tank, then yeah, you will get your 500 fragments, each capable of setting off the ammo. But if you were just firing something like M833, you should only expect less than 10 fragments. There's just not enough KE in the residual penetrator, and most of the fragmentation will be particles so small that they turn into sparks, or dust that can barely penetrate skin, or small pieces that can only penetrate a few millimeters of sheet aluminium.

I think the obligation is the other way around, an explanation is due for why so many T series tanks have exploded, whether its in Chechnya or Iraq or Syria, when the protection of their ammunition cassette is so apparently so good.

 

 

Read up on 73 easting. They werent shooting till a brew up, the brew up was happening incidental of how many times they shot at it. From memory it was one shot kills. I can forgive a T72A not standing up armour wise to the latest US Army penetrators, but it still requires explanation of why they brewed up after they were. Its not inevitable on British or American tanks as we have seen.

 

Ive a soft spot for Soviet era tanks. But you cannot escape the idea that something was missed when so many of them explode when they are overmatched by penetrators. Even RPG's, as we saw from the first armoured advance into Grozny.

 

Edited June 21, 2020 by Stuart Galbraith

[Ssnake]

I can't help but notice two things:

1. You make a lot of demands, but feel no obligation to back up your own claims.

2. You seem to have a personal vendetta against T-72s and fantasize about them being destroyed.

 

WRT #2: LOL, No.

WRT #1: I don't know how many fragments would be generated (but you seemed to be so damned sure that it's not 10,000)

• Watching live fire tests on tanks in super slow motion and the resulting spark clouds out of the hatches suggests a very high number of fragments. I will readily agree that most of them will be very small.
• Post-impact photos of the 1991 Danish 105mm DM63 test on a T-72b suggest that there must be at least several dozen, possibly more than 100 fragments capable of pitting about centimeter-sized craters into the turret wall interior opposite of impact locations.
• Assuming that a 3.5kg tungsten penetrator gets consumed by 80% in the armor penetration process before punching through (or maybe just 40% when going through the hull front) and that an equal mass or armor material is added to the behind-armor debris cloud, I estimate the total fragment mass to be in the order of 1,400 ... 4,200 grams.
• I would further expect the fragment masses to conform to an exponential distribution; it is of course unclear what the parameters should be to get a realistic result; computer models will almost always calculate a result but whether it's realistic is a different question, GIGO and all.

What I do know, though, is that an awfully large number of turrets were gas-dynamically ejected from their hulls in Yugoslavia, in Iraq, Chechnya, and currently Syria. Also, for the record, Turkish Leopard 2s in Syria. This suggests that the number of fragments capable of perforating into the propellant and to ignite it there is higher than you think it is, either because the protection isn't so great or because more fragments are being generated than you consider possible.

Since the protection level can be estimated with the highest confidence (known materials with known dimensions), the by far greatest likelihood is that your estimation of the number of fragments is off, or that the heat transfer actually does play a role, contrary to your assertion.

 

Your move.

[Wiedzmin]

don't understand all that "war" but

 

10 000 fragments ? describe what fragment is(mass, velocity, penetrating power) ? paint chips ? what is striking velocity, what type of armour and what alloy you used, angle of inclanation etc

 

 

​

120mm DM33 against L1(red points on blanket is also from DM33 IIRC)

 

well there will be also dust, and maybe all in all there will be "over 9000" fragmenst" as for "metall fragments that can hurt crew or destroy something inside" if you found at leats 350-500 this will be some great behind armour effect.

 

 

and here is 2 120mm KE-WA2 and one M830A1 effect with "great overmatch" against L1 armour.

 

 

as for tanks itself if it's not an M1 family, in real battle you wouldn't have any big difference between them in distance of turret will fly, and even "but CR-1 and CR-2 have 25mm thick armour plates !" T-72B also have armour plate in front of autoloader(on T-72A there was only thin sheet cover)

 

 

.

 

Ive a soft spot for Soviet era tanks. But you cannot escape the idea that something was missed when so many of them explode when they are overmatched by penetrators. Even RPG's, as we saw from the first armoured advance into Grozny.

 

any western tank besides M1A1/M1A2 have similar intense(an sometimes very stupid) combat use as T in Grozny or Syria ?

Edited June 21, 2020 by Wiedzmin

[Stuart Galbraith]

Wiedzman, have you ever read this?

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Main-Battle-Tank-Niall-Edworthy/dp/0141041919/ref=sr_1_3?dchild=1&keywords=main+battle+tank&qid=1592736628&sr=8-3

 

Stupid, no, to give credit to the British Army, they have recognised how useful the MBT is in Urban situations, hence the Royal Tank Regiments current work towards the Streetfighter II. They are writing the doctrine of the future for fighting in FIBUA with tanks.

[Wiedzmin]

Wiedzman, have you ever read this?

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Main-Battle-Tank-Niall-Edworthy/dp/0141041919/ref=sr_1_3?dchild=1&keywords=main+battle+tank&qid=1592736628&sr=8-3

 

 

have some issues with getting books from amazon/ebay, but this books add something about intense combat use of any tank with detailed description ?

 

 

 

Stupid, no

i'm talking about combat use of T series tanks in Chechnya and Syria, there is a lot of stupid/not so smart use during both conflicts

Edited June 21, 2020 by Wiedzmin

[GARGEAN]

B-but there were a lot of sparks!..

[Wiedzmin]

 

and some sort of israely reserach/presentation on 120/105mm HEAT and APFSDS

Edited June 21, 2020 by Wiedzmin

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

Wiedzman, have you ever read this?

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Main-Battle-Tank-Niall-Edworthy/dp/0141041919/ref=sr_1_3?dchild=1&keywords=main+battle+tank&qid=1592736628&sr=8-3

 

 

have some issues with getting books from amazon/ebay, but this books add something about intense combat use of any tank with detailed description ?

 

 

 

Stupid, no

i'm talking about combat use of T series tanks in Chechnya and Syria, there is a lot of stupid/not so smart use during both conflicts

 

Yeah I know what you meant. Im conflicted about how badly run Grozny was. The big battle that supposedly killed about 60 T80's was fought over the space of a few days, not a few hours as I had previously thought. It also didnt help they didnt fit ERA. My own interest is not what is said about the strategy, than the behind armour effects on Russian Armour when penetrated, which are no different from how they have been anywhere else its been used.

 

I thought it was pretty good for what its worth. I dont recall it having much in the way of maps, and its written by a Journalist, not an Armour Historian. But if you use it in conjunction with Simon Dunstans book on the Challenger 2, you will get a reasonable overview of how the British Army fought through Basra. It was a lot bigger, more awkward struggle than they were ever given credit for. Well, the US media wasnt very interested in covering it much for one thing.

[DKTanker]

M829 and M829A1 massively overmatched the T-72M and T-72M hull front armour and particularly the side armour, and it was not uncommon to shoot until the tanks brewed up.

 

Where exactly do you see a contradiction between this and the laboratory results?

One shot one kill, there was very little shooting until they caught fire, because they caught fire so readily. Ask me how I know. Anyway, your thesis is about the amount of penetrator mass required to ignite the on board propellant, and the mass of the penetrators for the M829 and M829A1 are only about 500 grams greater than that of M833 and M900. Moreover, since USSR had been using DU in their own ammunition at the time, the pyrophoric nature of DU should have been well known and accounted for.

 

As for you canard about massively overmatching the T72 armor, that is not relevant as armor wasn't even a consideration in the study you cited.

[bojan]

DK, I think that his point was that in order to ignite propellant fragments, even pyrophoric ones have to penetrate "outer shell" of the propellant charge. Just being in contact with it is not enough. Ofc, with almost any hull hit on T-72 this is most probably going to happen, since ammo is all around the hull, so no matter the number of "large" fragments some are gonna find right target.

It is this ammo all around the tank that is the worst offender in the T-72s tendency to catch fire.

[bojan]

I think the obligation is the other way around, an explanation is due for why so many T series tanks have exploded, whether its in Chechnya or Iraq or Syria, when the protection of their ammunition cassette is so apparently so good.

 

Cmon Stuart, we were already at this - reason is not ammo in autoloader (unless it is directly hit), but the rest of ammo all around the tank.

[bojan]

...The big battle that supposedly killed about 60 T80's was fought over the space of a few days, not a few hours as I had previously thought...

 

Well, to compare, total write-off loses in the Yugoslav wars were something like ~30something M-84s and T-72s and ~150 T-55s. For the almost 8 years of war...

OTOH, compared to Arab-Israely wars of 1967. or 1973. that is a small fish.

[Interlinked]

As for you canard about massively overmatching the T72 armor, that is not relevant as armor wasn't even a consideration in the study you cited.

The other myths have been handled already, so we're left with just this.

 

Well, it's the fragments that actually do things to the ammo. A penetrator breaks through the armour and it generates a number of fragments by breaking apart and by tearing some armour material out (not much). The study talks about the vulnerability of ammunition to such fragments.

 

It's all pretty straightforward. I don't understand why there's any confusion at all.

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

...The big battle that supposedly killed about 60 T80's was fought over the space of a few days, not a few hours as I had previously thought...

 

Well, to compare, total write-off loses in the Yugoslav wars were something like ~30something M-84s and T-72s and ~150 T-55s. For the almost 8 years of war...

OTOH, compared to Arab-Israely wars of 1967. or 1973. that is a small fish.

 

Yeah, there was a LOT made of a particular incident when a Mechanised Brigade was trying to take Grozny city centre, and lost most of its vehicles. Western Journalists at the time seemed to figure it was a giant ambush in which all the tanks were lost at the same time. In fact it seems to have been a slow attritional process, a bit like the Mobile Group in Indochina was cut to pieces in lots of ambushes rather than one big one. It ruined the T80's reputation, completely unfairly because it was no worse a tank (and someways a lot better) than T72. Well, that's politics for you.

 

I get the impression tanks in the Yugoslav civil wars were used akin to mobile artillery for the most part (not unlike how we used armour in Korea), I would imagine that would minimize chances for close range engagements, particularly ones that could penetrate below the turret ring. I dont think the Serbian Army was using DU at the time?

 

 

 

I think the obligation is the other way around, an explanation is due for why so many T series tanks have exploded, whether its in Chechnya or Iraq or Syria, when the protection of their ammunition cassette is so apparently so good.

 

Cmon Stuart, we were already at this - reason is not ammo in autoloader (unless it is directly hit), but the rest of ammo all around the tank.

 

Im sure it doesn't help any. Neither does the small internal space meaning any fragments are going to hit ammunition, whether its in the compartment, or in the cassette.

 

I still keep coming back to that account in the 1973 war of at least one Centurion being penetrated by apparently 115mm fire through the front turret and out the rear turret, without hitting the crew or knocking out the tank. It was even still fightable. That would appear to be an impossibility with late T series tanks. Perhaps its the advent of DU ammunition that has made a difference, but that's not a convincing argument when it keeps happening in places where they dont even use DU ammunition.

[Interlinked]

Im sure it doesn't help any. Neither does the small internal space meaning any fragments are going to hit ammunition, whether its in the compartment, or in the cassette.

 

I still keep coming back to that account in the 1973 war of at least one Centurion being penetrated by apparently 115mm fire through the front turret and out the rear turret, without hitting the crew or knocking out the tank. It was even still fightable. That would appear to be an impossibility with late T series tanks. Perhaps its the advent of DU ammunition that has made a difference, but that's not a convincing argument when it keeps happening in places where they dont even use DU ammunition.

I don't understand the logic of using anecdotes of incredible and highly unlikely events to make broad, sweeping generalizations. Especially when we have (almost) free access to real data.

 

On the contrary, a densely packed space suppresses the angle of the fragmentation spray, so most of the fragments would be absorbed by other stuff, like radios, power supply units, fuel tanks, control panels, etc, and only a narrow cone of fragments can actually proceed to hit something critical. Open spaces allow the fragments to spread freely.

 

Dunno about a Centurion getting hit by 115mm, but by the nature of the damage, it's most likely HEAT. With HEAT, there's very little secondary fragmentation or spalling and you have to rely on the shaped charge jet to hit something. The T-72 is not worse than any other tank in this regard. Unlike a Centurion, it has a spall liner and the two crew members in the turret have a lot of clutter in front of them to absorb fragments, and they're separated by the gun breech, so if one half of the turret is hit from a frontal angle, it's unlikely to affect the other half.

 

This is backed up by data on the losses suffered at Grozny and in other wars. Just last year, Bojan posted some statistics for the M-84.

 

"For all weapons:

 

~1/4 hits will result in penetration

~1/5 penetrations will result in serious damage

~1/3 serious damages will result in total loss

 

I would say that total loss of the crew is likely only in case of tank total loss (in fact less likely, since crew sometimes survived tank total loss, but we don't know exact "ratio), so less than 1/15 penetrations will result in entire crew perishing."

 

Much more here: http://www.tank-net.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=14200&page=303

Edited June 22, 2020 by Interlinked

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

Im sure it doesn't help any. Neither does the small internal space meaning any fragments are going to hit ammunition, whether its in the compartment, or in the cassette.

 

I still keep coming back to that account in the 1973 war of at least one Centurion being penetrated by apparently 115mm fire through the front turret and out the rear turret, without hitting the crew or knocking out the tank. It was even still fightable. That would appear to be an impossibility with late T series tanks. Perhaps its the advent of DU ammunition that has made a difference, but that's not a convincing argument when it keeps happening in places where they dont even use DU ammunition.

I don't understand the logic of using anecdotes of incredible and highly unlikely events to make broad, sweeping generalizations. Especially when we have (almost) free access to real data.

 

On the contrary, a densely packed space suppresses the angle of the fragmentation spray, so most of the fragments would be absorbed by other stuff, like radios, power supply units, fuel tanks, control panels, etc, and only a narrow cone of fragments can actually proceed to hit something critical. Open spaces allow the fragments to spread freely.

 

Dunno about a Centurion getting hit by 115mm, but by the nature of the damage, it's most likely HEAT. With HEAT, there's very little secondary fragmentation or spalling and you have to rely on the shaped charge jet to hit something. The T-72 is not worse than any other tank in this regard. Unlike a Centurion, it has a spall liner and the two crew members in the turret have a lot of clutter in front of them to absorb fragments, and they're separated by the gun breech, so if one half of the turret is hit from a frontal angle, it's unlikely to affect the other half.

 

This is backed up by data on the losses suffered at Grozny and in other wars. Just last year, Bojan posted some statistics for the M-84.

 

"For all weapons:

 

~1/4 hits will result in penetration

~1/5 penetrations will result in serious damage

~1/3 serious damages will result in total loss

 

I would say that total loss of the crew is likely only in case of tank total loss (in fact less likely, since crew sometimes survived tank total loss, but we don't know exact "ratio), so less than 1/15 penetrations will result in entire crew perishing."

 

Much more here: http://www.tank-net.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=14200&page=303

 

Because it represents real life, rather than calculations on a slide rule? Its not even wholly unrepresentative. The entire history of the use of Centurion has presented identical tales, that it was regarded as survivable. As a barometer against the tanks they were righting in 1973 or 1982, its hardly irrelevant.

 

No, it was a fin round. It left the little star shaped hole behind it, presumably a close range shot. Dont know what one, but it suggests the behind armour effects of Soviet APFSDS rounds of that period were not great. Ive no idea why, you really want a metallurgist here to theorise.

 

The T72 is a truly great tank, right up to the point when its got fragmentation flying around the crew compartment. In truth, its no worse in that regard than any other Soviet tank of the same era. It clearly does have a problem here, just look at any photograph of the gulf of an Iraqi T72 and its burned out or lost its turret. Thats the real evidence.

Edited June 22, 2020 by Stuart Galbraith

[Ssnake]

The danger with even a larger number of anecdotes that form a common picture is, of course, survivor bias. A quantitative analysis must also take into account the cases where no survivor is left to tell the tale. Centurion crews did however profit considerably from the cloth cladding that not only dampened the noise level but also the amount of spall flying around. That much can be said.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Im aware of the statistical analysis that showed no WW2 Bomber were being hit dead centre by Flak (when of course all that did, did not come back). But its not survivor bias, its general narrative made by individual armies that used them. Israeli families according to Simon Dunstan, went so far as to get their sons in Centurion regiments, the logic being they were more likely to survive. At the very least they were less likely to get burnt to a crisp by hydraulic fluid burns. That narrative had to come from somewhere, and presumably it was from the Golan battle.

 

If you read up on the Indian Army, you can find similar accounts where they didnt want to give them up for more modern tanks (Vickers Mk3) Neither or that matter did the Australians. If it was just one country, one could be suspicious of this narrative. But it isnt, it seems to be all the countries that used them in combat. They were well regarded, there is no other conclusion that can be made from it.

 

 

Im not sure what you mean by the cloth cladding. If you mean the 'spall liner' others have refered to, it obviously isnt, its just noise suppressant and to stop you banging your head, and maybe condensation. I dont believe it was even on British Army Centurions, it only was fitted to Chieftain on-wards. It certainly didnt reduce spall a damn, and wasnt intended as such.

 

Lets be fair, the tank was obsolecent by 1973 anyway, particularly against 115mm guns. Its what it says about where the ammunition was placed, and what it says about how the crew compartment was laid out. In that regard, it was arguably the first modern Western MBT. According to Kenneth Mackseys view in Tank Vs Tank, it clearly inspired some new thinking on the way the crew compartment was laid out (well after they fitted a turret floor on the damn thing anyway).

Edited June 22, 2020 by Stuart Galbraith

[bojan]

...Because it represents real life, rather than calculations on a slide rule?..

 

My data is base on the real life study.

Your data is based on the single example.

PS. There were plenty of Cents that went instantly in flames when hit on hull. Ask Israelis. But it is always easier to talk about "oh this tank survived x amount of shots".

[bojan]

The danger with even a larger number of anecdotes that form a common picture is, of course, survivor bias. A quantitative analysis must also take into account the cases where no survivor is left to tell the tale. Centurion crews did however profit considerably from the cloth cladding that not only dampened the noise level but also the amount of spall flying around. That much can be said.

Well the one we have:

 

For all weapons:

~1/4 hits will result in penetration

~1/5 penetrations will result in serious damage

~1/3 serious damages will result in total loss

 

That is for the M-84s in the Yugoslav wars. Number of penetrations per single instance of serious damage and number of serious damage per instance of total loss fits quite well with Israeli data from 1973. for... wait for it... Centurions*. Only their number of hits per penetration is different, IIRC 1.7 hits required to produce single penetration, but Cent's armor was becoming dated at that point so it is reasonable.

*And M48/M60s despite "poorer reputation" were practically the same... One wonders how many more "stories" taken for a fact can be dismissed as unintentional bias...

Edited June 22, 2020 by bojan

[Stuart Galbraith]

And I can point to a photograph of one being destroyed in the Sinai to a sagger, just as it was also happening to M48s and M60's at the same time. 14th Armoured Brigade was decimated by them, because they were operating out in the open using silly battle charges at emplaced Egyptian Sagger Batteries. But that was considerably less rare on the Golan, because the Israelis were using them on ramps and operating hull down, and the ammunition, unlike M48 and M60, was all stored well below the turret ring. Postwar, the first place they armoured (before they put on the ERA) was the bow armour, which I would guess was the vulnerable bit.

 

In the end, how many examples do you want? The narrative apparently existed in the IDF that the vehicle was survivable, and it was not invented by British armour enthusiasts.

 

Dont take my word for it, ask Marsh.

[bojan]

...Postwar, the first place they armoured (before they put on the ERA) was the bow armour, which I would guess was the vulnerable bit.

They uparmored ones with 76mm glacis.

 

 

 

In the end, how many examples do you want? The narrative apparently existed in the IDF that the vehicle was survivable, and it was not invented by British armour enthusiasts.

 

So narative is now an ultimate evidence? Even your standards are slipping Stuart.

 

I want a study, not anecdotal evidence. And only ones I have (local and Israeli for 1973. posted long time ago on waronline forum), say there was practically no difference in hit/loss ration between Centurion, M48 and M60 in 1973, and that those ratios were pretty similar to the ratios for M-84s in the Yugoslav wars.

 

"Narrative" is fickle thing, M3 Lee was called "grave for 6 brothers", but safest tank to be in 1942. eastern front if a tank was penetrated was... M3 Lee. Not by a lot, but it was not worse as "narrative" would say.

Locally a lot of people claimed that T-55s were more survivable than M-84s... but studies show same ration of penetration/loss for both. And a lot more things could penetrate T-55.

So either put some real evidence or...

 

PS. Look at the "narrative" of Arnhem battle vs what BillB book says... I am sure that "narrative is right and his book is crap, ain't it so Stuart, after all "narrative" is never wrong?

Edited June 22, 2020 by bojan

[Stuart Galbraith]

Fine, it you want references, take the original 1970s Osprey book by Simon Dunstan, and the new edition by the by the same author (which has a lot new stuff in it). There was a book on Israeli armour by Samuel Katz that said much the same thing. Or there is Kahalanis book the heights of courage that also had a favourable impression of its performance. Or search online for any account of accounts of Australian Cents in vietnam. There were a considerable number of them.

 

Secondly, look at a Merkava 1. The actual tech demonstrator for that was a Centurion. The Merkava owes far more to Centurion and Chieftain than it does American tanks of that era, other than the engine and transmission. Before that they were trying to get a deal to reproduce Chieftain and fit them with 120mms guns. Again, an odd choice when they could have bought French or American off the peg, unless they felt it was the closest to what they wanted.

 

 

 

Hit loss ratio, if you have that for the Golan battle, I want to see it. I don't believe it exists in a useable form, because as said the IDF cooked the books and only reported figures for tanks fully lost. They didn't count tanks knocked out nd repaired, which would make any comparison meaningless. Read the Edgar o Ballace book, specifically the bit on the battle vs Jordan. The loss figures for Israel are useless because of it. I've no doubt they did the same in the Sinai as well.

 

 

Ask the accounts of the British Paratroopers who fought at Arnhem, or is their narrative to be dismissed because it doesn't support the thesis you started with?

 

Or don't take my or Simon Dunstans opinion for it, ask Marsh, I'm happy to accept his judgement. No skin off my nose and no offence took you mercurial bugger.

Edited June 22, 2020 by Stuart Galbraith

[bojan]

I am not talking about perception of the tanks, you are. I am talking about what took to kill them and how much that differed from tank to tank.

And as expected, you provide no numbers, so your whole argument is "there was a feeling".

Narrative of the veteran is still a narrative, not a hard historical or technical facts. If you can not make a difference between two of them, I don't know what to say. Like those "x vs y" books, you are trying to compare uncomparable and to imply that a hard facts are different because someone somewhere "feels" that way.

Edited June 22, 2020 by bojan

[Stuart Galbraith]

Well if Israeli families WERE lobbying to get their sons into Centurion Regiments, as Dunstan alleges (Thats the 1970's osprey book if you want to check it), then that is of course based on a perception. But it was also based on observation by veterans, who considering their testimony is the bulk of what we build military history on, I do not believe should be so lightly disregarded. If we cant judge their impressions on a tank, why should we trust them on how a battle unfolded?

 

If you can provide objective evidence that Centurion was just as vulnerable as M48 or M60 post penetration, ill happily accept it. That other nations copied the electric turret drive and move ammunition below the stowage ring just like centurion did, heck, Israel even used Centurion as a basis for Merkava, then I would suggest there were features on Centurion that enhanced its survivability, just as its crews related, or nobody would have seen value in emulating them. Its not one nation that related it, its all of them that used it in combat. You can disregard that eyewitness testimony as having no scientific basis, but I see no other evidence presented that supports your position that it has no basis in reality.

 

Here is an example. That book I related earlier on Challenger 2 (or maybe it was the Dunstan book on Challenger 2, people will have to check), there is a section in that where a C2 was ambushed by some Iraqi insurgents and had something like 6 antitank missiles and rockets fired at it. One of them actually penetrated the fighting compartment, through a route that was described by the Army as highly unusual. It didnt ultimately matter, it was a few sparks, but it did reportedly shock the VSEL engineers that built Challenger 2. Something along the lines of 'Well we didnt think it could go that way' (through the gunners sight was the impression I received) If you have only calculation to judge these things, that would have been judged highly improbable, even impossible. But observation shows it actually happened. And that is why Ill always take testimony over what scientific data says is most likely. Its not that data isn't useful or relevant, its a step removed from real world experience. You saw a war yourself, Im sure you recognise reality works differently from how manuals or calculation says it will.

 

 

Anyway, here is the problem we come back to again. The Russians say that their scientific data say the T72 autoloader and ammunition arrangement is perfectly safe. Ill not criticize their methods, but against that we have several battlefields of burned out and exploded T72's, of yes, narrative opinion by people like DKTanker, who consider it vulnerable. Now by all means can stick by your slide rule evidence, Ill stick to what was observed and judge accordingly.

 

Ill leave it there, im trying to stay away from pissing contests because ive no desire to poison the site further. You have my opinion on reading several sources for what little that is worth, if you can do better and if you want to refute it, kindly post up some figures so so we can argue like gentlemen rather than old fishwives.

 

Peace.

Edited June 23, 2020 by Stuart Galbraith