this post was submitted on 08 Feb 2026
232 points (100.0% liked)

World News

53676 readers
2169 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Brunbrun6766@lemmy.world 48 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Aren't all Russian T model tanks like that? They store the ammo in the walls of the tank running on a track around the occupants. So when it blows you are not surviving

[–] manxu@piefed.social 34 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Yes, the reason being that T models have an autoloading mechanism that needs direct access to the ammo. They don't really care, since their soldiers seem to be cheap (to them) and the explosive failure requires a direct hit on the tank. Basically, Western tanks are designed with the safety of the crew in mind, Russian tanks with the safety of the tank in mind.

[–] zaphod@sopuli.xyz 8 points 2 days ago (1 children)

You can build an autoloading mechanism that doesn't require the ammo to be stored this way. They chose to do it anyways to make the tanks smaller, specifically to reduce the height. If you store all the ammo in the turret where you can have blowout panels, the turret will be much larger and the tank higher.

[–] manxu@piefed.social 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Fair enough. I think part of the design choices specifically included a lower profile to make the tank harder to hit, which goes to tank safety.

[–] GuyIncognito@lemmy.ca -3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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 1 points 22 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.

[–] TheMightyCanuck@sh.itjust.works 19 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Is it really "safety of the tank" or is it that they'd rather a faster fire rate at the expense of a possible cook off?

[–] mcv@lemmy.zip 16 points 2 days ago

It's not just a faster rate of fire; the autoloader saves you an entire crew member, which means the tank can be smaller, lighter, faster, and has a smaller profile, making it harder to hit, for the same armour and firepower.

It's a very smart trade-off on paper. But it does make them spectacular death traps.

[–] chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world 6 points 2 days ago

Safety of the tank in terms of evading capture. If the tank explodes instead of just being disabled, it’s useless to capture.

[–] Wizard_Pope@lemmy.world 22 points 2 days ago (1 children)

They store it in a carousel on the bottom of the tank just under the turret.

[–] bufalo1973@piefed.social 13 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Sounds like something out of WH40K. Lots of firepower with a 0% survival change if hit.

[–] einkorn@feddit.org 19 points 2 days ago (5 children)

Well, it makes sense for the loading mechanism they use and on paper it leads to a higher rate of fire due to the more accessible rounds.

However, when asking Ukrainian tank crews, who operate both Russian and Western style tanks, what they prefer, the answer is pretty much always western tanks. Better ergonomics is also a thing (Russian/Soviet tanks are notoriously cramped) but I guess the higher survivability even after a full penetration might be what tips the scales.

[–] Gust@piefed.social 10 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Russian tanks have excellent ergonomics, provided you happen to be a Chimpanzee. If you don't have really short legs, really long arms, and absurd upper body strength to operate the various manually cranked parts though, you're gonna have a bad time in a Russian tank.

[–] ulterno@programming.dev 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Why did they make a machine that would be better operated by chimpanzees?
Are they planning something?

[–] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 31 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The thing is, you can design an autoloader in a way that protects the crew.

The survability of western tanks isn't just about where the ammo is stored, but how it's stored. Western tanks, both with and without autoloaders, place all the ammo at the back, either of the turret or the hill respectively. More importantly, the ammo is stored in a heavily armoured compartment, which has blow-out panels on the outside of the vehicle; the ammo detonates the panels collapse, allowing the force of the explosion to spread out from the tank.

The problem with the T90 design (which is really just an updated T72) is that the autoloader is attached to the bottom of the turret basket. This means there's no possible way to vent the explosion outside, other than by going through the turret, and through the crew along the way.

[–] einkorn@feddit.org 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The thing is, you can design an autoloader in a way that protects the crew.

Yes, you can. But they didn't. Hence, why I said it makes sense in this specific case.

[–] arrow74@lemmy.zip 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

At this point I'm waiting for a war thunder player to leak us some documents

[–] Schmuppes@lemmy.today 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Leak documents about military hardware that can be found in museums?

[–] arrow74@lemmy.zip 2 points 2 days ago

I don't know maybe they added shackles for the prisoner soldiers

[–] SabinStargem@lemmy.today 5 points 2 days ago

Considering the general lack of population and the issues it will cause for both Ukraine and Russia, I think Ukraine's preference for survivable tanks is the smart move. No point in winning the war if your nation becomes insolvent.

*the higher rate of fire can occur inside the tank occasionally

[–] Wizard_Pope@lemmy.world 10 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Yeah western tanks have their ammo stored in the turret bustle with blast panels and blast doors that save the crew in the case of ammo being hit (if the doors are closed and if the shell that hits ammo did not punctire said doors). They also often use propellant less susceptible to exploding if the ammo gets hit.

The russian tanks on the other side have a way smaller silhouette as well as being cramped to all hell which just compounds this issue.

[–] copd@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago

Cries in British Challenger 2 with no blow out panels

[–] TwodogsFighting 1 points 2 days ago

Other way round really.

[–] ChicoSuave@lemmy.world -1 points 2 days ago