113
submitted 5 months ago by yogthos@lemmy.ml to c/technology@hexbear.net
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] TraschcanOfIdeology@hexbear.net 11 points 5 months ago

I was about to ask this, because what little I know about the Abrams is that it is extremely heavy because it's so armored.

[-] Gucci_Minh@hexbear.net 13 points 5 months ago

It's also gigantic, with a focus on crew comfort and survivability. Compare the side profile vs the T-72

The chassis itself lends a lot of weight to the design. The armour on the frontal arc is guesstimated to be thicker in the later variants of the M1A2 vs say a T-90A, but the T-90 is also 20 tons lighter, can actually cross a bridge, and doesn't have the profile of a small house.

Either way none of this matters when a Shahed/Geran/PG-7V tied to a DJI quadcopter can kill any tank.

[-] bbnh69420@hexbear.net 4 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Is this why they were sinking into the ground and annihilating highways year or two ago, or is that just because of mud in Eastern Europe? (I’ve seen plenty of Russian vids with APCs stuck in the muck)

[-] Gucci_Minh@hexbear.net 4 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

The mud is next level and any afv will have trouble with rasputitsa. The mud yields very easily because it's saturated with water, and you would need significantly lower ground pressure to get by, hence the logs on the back of Soviet tanks; tie it to the tracks and have the tank dig itself out.

As for highways, it was probably a combination of the weight as well as poorly maintained/missing rubber track pads.

this post was submitted on 31 May 2024
113 points (100.0% liked)

technology

23313 readers
106 users here now

On the road to fully automated luxury gay space communism.

Spreading Linux propaganda since 2020

Rules:

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS