T-62 size: 6630x3300x2395 ingame: Normal
T-64 size: 6540x3400x2170 ingame: Normal
T-72 size: 6900x3525x2190 ingame: Normal
T-80 size: 6900x3500x2190 ingame: Big
Why T-80 have big size? It's not much bigger than soviet tanks. Obvious bug or working as intended?
M551 Sheridan size: 6307x2794x2300(2950) Small
M113: 4864x2686x2496 Normal
BRDM1: 5700x2250x1900 Normal Sheridan smaller than BRDM-1 and same size as M113? Really?
FV102 Striker: Small
FV103 Spartan: Normal Same vehicle but version with ATGM have smaller size. Strange, becuase missile pads definitely bigger than non-turret single MG.

_________________
<click

I would also agree with some size discrepencies.

The m1 Abrams is a monster tank, there's no doubting that. However, the m60, albeit lighter in tonnage, had a higher profile (almost 12 ft vs. abrams 8 ft.)

the m60 is a "normal" sized tank, while the m1abrams is "large".

And the soviet tanks generally have a much smaller profile than western tanks, but they sacrifice the ability to depress their guns so they cannot fire on the reverse slope without exposing themselves

There is a whole 3 degree difference in depression. Between -8 and -6/-5 degrees. This is not by any means substantial. Ie, considering a larger overall profile a western tank even with such a minor 3 degree depression advantage would still have a large signature)

On the other hand the TGM on soviet tanks can be used with depression of -16 degrees (1Г46 scope on T80U) (which means that in long range fights they would have a substantial "hull down" advantage)

Also the difference in depression does not originate in dense design, for example Is 7 (low density design) has depression of -3 degrees. Also soviet tank have self entrenchment gear, that permits them to create their own defensive positions if necessarily. Ie they would have an advantage as their hull will be completely covered anyway.

_________________

We need more missilez code for the missilez god.
Praslovan:
"Tactical Ikalugin inbound on this position in 10... 9..."

its called Ballance

I see. Even Baneblade can be small size for Ball ace

_________________
<click

No, it's called a bug.

Soviet tanks are designed with limited gun elevation and depression in mind as they would primarily fight over open plains-type terrain, but their silhouette is lower. Western tanks are designed to exploit hilly terrain, but this requires a tank with a higher height.

_________________

Incorrect As I have stated there is a very small difference in the gun elevations (3 degrees max). Also soviet tanks with TGM have an advantage over western tanks in gun elevation.

Also you have an extreme (amercian) bias in this post, as most nato nations were preparing to fight the war in the northern german plain (germans as well), so "designed to exploit hilly terrain" is incorrect.

Also you do not take into account M60-XM1 changes in height, works on MBT70 (where height was also reduced).

The reason why the western tanks were heavier and taller was not due to protection or gun elevation issues, but rather due to inability to create a small, dense and light tank

_________________

We need more missilez code for the missilez god.
Praslovan:
"Tactical Ikalugin inbound on this position in 10... 9..."

First time I've seen a Tac Error post referred to as such

Tac Error is right btw. They were designed as defensive tanks. And that 3 degree elevation means ALOT in hull down fighting while still remaining mobile for retreating and displacing.



Excuse me while I lol. RUSSIA STRONG... DENSE AND LIGHT!!!

_________________

Actually, on the t-55 tank, the gun depression is -4 degrees vs. the -10 degree average. That's a 6 point difference.

And this was used to great effect during the Yom Kippur war, with t-55's going against Centurions. But again, the rocky, hilly terrain of the Golan Heights is much different from the terrain of Germany, so that would probably be negated. There's also a discrepancy between crew training: I would assume soviet training and tactics would have been much better than Syrian training/tactics.

Another common problem with the t-55, t-62, and t-72, and with all horizontal autoloading tanks, is that the gun must crank up a couple of degrees after every shot to load another shell. This hampered its ROF in initial contact, but held the advantage of being able to keep a consistent pace and require 1 less crew member. A manual loading tank is faster for the first 3=5 shots, but the loader quickly gets tired out. It was also a point of weakness, as one hit in the autoloader carousel mechanism, with all the stored ammo, would blow the turret right off. This was a common occurrence in the battle of 73 Easting (Desert Storm).