Why T-90 Autoloader is Safer Than T-80

Check out one of our FULL VIDEOS: How The M109 Became A Battlefield Legend

#army #military #navy #usarmy #usmilitary #usnavy #ukraine #militarytraining #veterans #marines #marinecorps #navyseals #specialforces

[CivicGLi]

Ok but the T-80’s loading mechanism makes me climax unlike the T-90’s

[Jan_]

Also on the topic of autoloader safety: the T64/T80 loader is hydraulic while the T72/T90 loader is electric.

[eQui]

I like all tanks .. western, soviet and others.. I would prefer a world where they are only being active in war Thunder.

[youngarchaeotech]

The auto-loader was never the problem.
The massive, unsheilded ammo rack right beneath the turret, is.

[____________________________.x]

Robots on production lines - smooth.
Robots in tanks - mechanical lawn mower inside a washing machine on spin cycle

[Dallasg]

As safe as an active military target can be.

[grantmccoy]

They both have the ammo in the hull underneath the turret. Its literally more likely to kill the crew first via a penetration than to ignite the ammo and kill them that way. It has to get through everything in order to hit the ammo.

[soundcrave]

Meanwhile T-80: *Sounds like Phantom Mangle*

[SnivelakFilms]

Thank you I will use T-90 from now on, and to think I have been doing wrong all this time!! 😅

[Naru_Tofan]

They're both really safe because if a round hits, the whole turret will jettison from the body, allowing them to escape through the big hole.

[youngghozt]

Every time I see artillery getting loaded I just think of how mean that pinch would be🫣🫣

[trickythefox]

Spare ammo in the T-72 is stored all around the tank, with the only exceptions being the 90M, with a good chunk of its ammo being stored behind the turret, where as other T-90's or T-72's have spare stored everywhere, effectively making the entire tank a big ammo rack. T-80 an 64's have a specific compartment for spare ammo, thus making them harder to hit, whats never mentioned is that AZ(the autoloader on the 72s and 90s) uses electric motors, where MZ (64's and 80's) use hydraulics that catch fire much easier then their electric counterparts

[voltsoftruthBSbuster]

Anytime someone is discussing T 72/80/90 tanks you can bet the conversation will eventually end up with how unsafe they are because after a missile or shape charge strike, the turret tends to blow off of the main chassis of the tank. And then some one will always add that its absolutely inexcusable that the Russian tank designers couldn't resolve this problem after 50 years. But what they dont understand is the problem has been resolved from the moment this design was adapted. Its very aragant to think that one of the best military hardware engineers simply lacked the vision to create a new design. Perhaps they know something that everyone else can't grasp. And that is that it would be totally pointless to change the design because the exploding turret doesn't present a danger to a crew. You must think im insane but, hear me out. When people see a turret explode off of a tank they must think that blast killed everyone, but they are wrong. The munition carousel on T model tanks is located on the bottom section, either around the crew or below them. It is those shells going off that blows the turret off of the tank, not the explosion from the missile. So for a turret to explode those shells have to detonate, and that can only happen if the incoming missile or shape charge has reached them. And if the fired projectile has reached them, it means it went through the armor that protected the crew and has detonated in the crew compartment. Hence if the turret has blown off then the shells have been egnited, and if they were ignited that means the projectile has reached the crew compartment and exploded inside. Hence by the time the turret blows off the tank, the crew have been long dead, and were killed by the initial blast. You can substantiate that by observing tanks where it took 25 sec to a full min for the turret to blow off. And yet during that time no one ever exits the tank. Ive seen tank crew disembark the tank in less than 5 sec, when after a direct hit there are actually survivers inside. But in almost all the video where the turret gets blown off, sadly no one ever comes out. So I hope now more people will understand why redesigning the tank would achieve nothing, and having a tank with its turret in tact wouldn't make the situation better if the crew still died during the initial blast. It is also a myth that every time a T model tank gets hit it looses its turret. Western smear campaign at best. There are tons of videos of Russian tanks getting hit by other tanks, getting hit by man pads launchers and surviving the strike, with its crew alive seen on video exiting the tank. My favorite vid is a clip of T80 possibly modernized T72, driving over a land mine and looses its tracks, , then 5 sec later it drives over a second land mine, that literally lifts the tank off the ground when it goes off, about 10 seconds later it is hit with a missile that strikes the turret and detonates. When it explodes, you clearly see one of the tanks crew members standing on top of the tank. When the fireball and smoke clears, that crew member is still standing at the same spot, he jumps off, and starts walking talking over radio set in his hand. That is a clear testiment to how rugged and safe T model tanks can be. The reality is most modern tanks are no match for manpad missile systems. They can defeat the most latest and greatest tanks. So when one is hit by one, it really doesn't matter if the turret stays in tact, or is blown off, cause at that point the most important component of a tank, its crew, are lost in 99% of the time.

[Decicamo]

People that like to criticize ammo positioning on T tanks, what can u say about Leopard and Challengers ammo stowages? They are even higher and more exposed to enemy fire, plus considering the fact that sides if the hull are MUCH less armored than that of T-90 tanks

[chiriematthieu]

Both autoloader / gub breach block the turret in the middle, both have a carrousel magazine on the turret flor. However t64/80 design does not eject spent case outside, so no breach of nbc unlike t72/90.

[mrvwbug]

The both have the same problem, the crew is sitting on top of their ammo without a separate ammo compartment.

[cringelord]

Man thats like saying eating lead is safer than eating uranium

[cherrypoptart]

Although the russians kept loyal to these autoloader layouts in the modernized T-80BVMs and T-90Ms.

The 4th gen Armata actually went the T-80's style of having the ammo stored vertically

[paulkirby]

The ineffective/inadequate topside anti-armor missile counter measures is the problem, not the ammo layout.

So I'm not sure why all the sht-talk in comments about the unprotected ammo carousel etc. Sure, that might improve things for tank recovery teams but let me give you the reality. You can have all the ammo protection you want and it won't save the crew. Once the turret is penetrated by a topside anti-armor missile like a Javelin, all the crew inside are blended.

Sure, maybe you can clean out the human mush afterwards and refurb the tank into a fully operational tank again by comparison to a full ammo detonation, but that crews dead either way.

[beefboi]

I've seen enough videos to know that there's no chance I'll ever get inside a tank