Comments by "gerfand" (@gerfand) on "Ukrainian Armored Columns Got SMASHED and AMBUSHED" video.
-
7
-
6
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Ling__Ling__ what changed in T-90A from T-72B, well the hull and engine is the same, however:
New, welded turret with Kontak-5, Thermals incorporated, RC machine gun for Commander, soft-kill APS (tho you can say they got useless really fast), laser warning system.
Overall theres so much things that make T-90 a different Tank to T-72B, as its showed here, it uses ideas that made the T-80U good and ideas that made the T-72B good into a new tank.
Also pretty sure the only reason you don't see more of "same hull but different turret" for wester tanks is that M60, Leopard1, etc = Steel armor hull
M1, Leopard2, etc = compositive armor hull
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Ling__Ling__ more like 90s and early 2000s, 70s was mostly MACLOS, which would be less accurate while not jameable from what I get.
I mean yes you have your best armor there, but legging it still better, the Onion is not getting hit first, like I said its good, Russians should have it, their tanks are not shit because they lack it, its the same as Ammo separate from the crew in Leopard 2, Abrams, and Panther vs M4 Sherman "the later is superior because its easier to get out if the tank is burning after a hit" (meanwhile its harder to Pen Panther in the first place)
1
-
@Ling__Ling__ yes, and they just started to be Imune against those in the 2000s, so during the cold war and just after it, they would have a really good APS.
Yes, however this is the thing I'm saying, Its probably better, specially if you gonna drive a lot to have your frontal view camera, not your rear view, for that having a 4km speed while not ideal is good enough if your main thing is having a engine smoke that blinds anything but thermals... and Smoke Launcher that blind thermals.
I know they are not exclusive, I'm just saying that considering the tank options today, its a question of you think you gonna get hit throught a smoke screen, or you think you gonna get hit unless you threw a smoke screen.
1
-
1
-
@Ling__Ling__ I know but Kontak-5 won't save you from all those ATGM that are Tandem which the APS won't save you from... yes it helps with other stuff, like AP, its just that in 2000s, having the APS still more worth it than Kontak-5 if you have to do a trade off.
Yes its "reverse in a straight line" but I don't think that T-64 would have survived if it was a Leopard2A4 for example, at least for that reason alone, the Tank commander would have do so if he had dropped smoke and legged it, which he did not intended to do, he was just trying to get a better view, the only thing that would have helped would be Thermal for Gunner or higher tank that saw over obstacles better, allowing it to fire first, albeit the second means its easier to spot as well.
1
-
@Ling__Ling__ yeah but developing is not wide spread use, that is the thing. Also you get this in 1990s, it give you imunity for some 10 years, then you get to 2005 and now it starting to have problem, but only if you against NATO, anything else, not really.
Like compare 2014 vs now, Russia lost bunch of tanks because Ukraine was flooded with ATGMs, in 2014 they barerly lost tanks.
Oh what I mean there is that, THAT COMMANDER would have not make his tank survive because of the reverse speed because he would have not retreated, I'm saying that because the reverse speed is poor but because of his actions afterwards, he reverses, yes, but then he goes foward.
Still the better reverse speed would likely allowed the tank to retreat if he smoked with "Thermal smoke", but turning and legging it after smoking, would do as well... my point was that eventually you would have to turn since you cannot drive on reverse forever... which is why I said it originally that Russian tanks are not bad because of that reverse speed, even if that is a flaw of them.
Maybe, but smoke also blocks the sight of the threat you know, so its worth it.
1
-
@Ling__Ling__ oh yes, well we are not attacking each other we just discussing about something, it was a pleasure to talk to you.
But also there is something, the fact you make that argument and I make this, is why we have diversity in tank stuff.
Leclerc has Autoloader, Leopard doesn't, meanwhile Abrams doesn't but has no exposed ammo, on other hand Merkava has exposed ammo, but as you fire it create space for passangers if they need a med-vac, on other hand the caroussel of Russian Tanks are low on it, but that caroussel can placed on another compartment as seen in Armata... its all choices.
This is also why I laugh at the guy that says Type 90 is better than Type 10 because more armor... when Type 90 cannot go to many places in Japan, the Type 10 can.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@iratespartan13 he is not wrong, technologically a T-62 was superior in every way to stuff like the Israeli Super Shermans.
T-64 had compositive armor that NATO had problems catchin up with in terms of firepower for a long time. and worse in protection for their tanks, as they did not had compositive armor until Chieftain MK10 or Leopard2/Abrams. They lacked Fin Stabilized Projectiles, why T-62 had a smoothbore gun.
This what OP says tho, the "Ukranian Leo2 gets destroyed" yes no Tank is invencible, (the only mistake is acting like One is not invencible but the other is just poor design), they can be used poorly, used really well, but in the end of the day, unless you drive it off a cliff, what is going to tell if they are there or not is ENEMY ACTION, you talk about the Israeli Arab wars... well at some point Israeli lost lots of Tanks because of the 9M14 Malyutka, Israeli tankers were good, their tanks at the time were not the best, but were not the worst either... enemy action was what got them.
1
-
1
-
1