The War in the Ukraine

siegecrossbow

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
T-72 have a ground pressure footprint between 11,8 to 13 psi (0.90 kg/cm²) depending of variant and M1 have between 13.1 PSI to 13.8 PSI. It's not that much different.

I don't think they will fare that worst into mud, but nothing on the front will be able to pull them out of there if it happen... so if stuck near the front. You let it there or you risk chaining 2 m1a1 to pull it..

So it is slightly worse than T-72. For all I know my point still stands. We all know how those fared in March 2022.
 

HighGround

Junior Member
Registered Member
However Serbian SAM battery survives despite SEAD etc... the point is that Ukraine used the very same tactics as Serbia and utilizing EMCON to properly hide from anything Russians tried to do. and they succeeded. Russian lost planes.
Yet NATO still bombed their targets. Russia hasn't. They have to resort to exhausting their valuable missile stocks.
Which doesnt show how many actually produced. and why not showing like 1000 or like every footage ?
It's a relatively recent platform. But the point is, I regularly see Lancet footage, I can count LMUR footage probably on one hand.
You can help reducing the number of potential "wrong" by :

1.actually provide hard numbers.
2.clear goal in your arguments. "relatives" are unfortunately prone to cause unnecessary loud arguments or even fights.

Those two will make our discussions way more productive.
I don't think I've said anything objectionable. What is your source of disagreement?
 

Stealthflanker

Senior Member
Registered Member
There shouldn't be any problems in terms of ground pressure for both tanks. Be it NGP (Nominal Ground Pressure) as usually quoted or MMP (Mean Maximum Pressure) which rarely used but more descriptive.

It will boils down to infrastructure as others have lined out previously. Whether their bridge can support them, availability of fuel etc.
 

siegecrossbow

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
There shouldn't be any problems in terms of ground pressure for both tanks. Be it NGP (Nominal Ground Pressure) as usually quoted or MMP (Mean Maximum Pressure) which rarely used but more descriptive.

It will boils down to infrastructure as others have lined out previously. Whether their bridge can support them, availability of fuel etc.

Good luck supporting Challenger, Leopard 2, Leclerc, and Abrams simultaneously.
 

Stealthflanker

Senior Member
Registered Member
Yet NATO still bombed their targets. Russia hasn't. They have to resort to exhausting their valuable missile stocks.

And missiles are expendable regardless of their values. i dont see any problem Russian using missiles. Like VKS appears not even trying to do any deep penetration mission from the start. They instead support their armies most.

and how much "Valuable" these missiles are...

It's a relatively recent platform. But the point is, I regularly see Lancet footage, I can count LMUR footage probably on one hand.

Yeah but well.. i don't think it's an indicator Russian wants to take opportunity for export by showing footages of it i recalled LMUR was already offered for export even before SMO started..

I don't think I've said anything objectionable. What is your source of disagreement?

Your argument have no clear indications. That's not a good way to do discussion. If you say "they lacking missiles" Show hard numbers. How many they have, how many expended. As simple as that.

Relying on just say.. "i see xxx footages" is not a good indicator.
 

sheogorath

Captain
Registered Member
I'll be honest and I don't really know why "timing" would be a significant factor here. The T-72B3 was developed and put into production under a year. If I remember correctly, the first "models" were put together for the Army expo 2010 or 2011, and the tank entered service in 2012.

I'm talking about Rogatka. The base T-72B3 with K5 dates back to 1989, what started coming up together around 2011 was the T-72B3M with thermals, Relikt on the side panels and so on.

ByE8PSpCIAAtvm7.jpg

The turret ring is particularly egrigous because of how "slapped on" the whole thing is.
That has to do with the limitations imposed by the shape of the cast turret. The T-80U looks just as much as slapped on around the ring turret but you don't notice because of the rubber flaps. And for whichever reason the soviets didn't deem it necesary to make the K5 modules it reach all the way down to the ring

Russian-T-80U-Tank-Image-1-2263057_1080x675.jpg

I do hope you know that they have metal pads for ice.
They do, but they don't seem to be doing much, plus it also reduces the contact area of the tracks
Steel__Rubber.jpg
 

Stealthflanker

Senior Member
Registered Member
Here we witness the invincible Abrams Tank, in combat with flip-flop wearing Yemenis surviving on less than ¢10 per day while wielding the "inferior" Russian Kornet ATGM system.


I'm curious about this footage... like did the crew made out ?

The Abrams is always portrayed to be safe to crews if it got hit as they have separation between munitions and crew from the Bustle racks and blow out panel to direct munition explosion upward.

However if the door to ammo compartment to the loader is not closed.. then it's a RIP.
 

CrazyHorse

Junior Member
Registered Member
I'm talking about Rogatka. The base T-72B3 with K5 dates back to 1989, what started coming up together around 2011 was the T-72B3M with thermals, Relikt on the side panels and so on.

View attachment 105806


That has to do with the limitations imposed by the shape of the cast turret. The T-80U looks just as much as slapped on around the ring turret but you don't notice because of the rubber flaps. And for whichever reason the soviets didn't deem it necesary to make the K5 modules it reach all the way down to the ring

View attachment 105807


They do, but they don't seem to be doing much, plus it also reduces the contact area of the tracks
View attachment 105808
Russian tracks aren’t just slick strips of steel, they have cleated patterns too.
 
Top