Why are Russian tanks so fucking small?

>less ammunition and fuel storage
>less crew space
>whole bunch of challenges like gun elevation limitations or external systems placement

Making a tank smaller isn't always beneficial, there's a balance to have between too big and too small.

In Soviet Union, main battle tanks were designed so that they could be transported using the normal railway network. This meant that the tanks had to fit a railcar and the railcar carrying the tank must be able to go through railway tunnels. This requirement placed several constraints for designers, and the result is small and cramped tank with 3-man crew and autoloader.

>Why is a medium tank smaller than a heavy tank
Because you're a fucking retard.

Attached: is-2 (11).jpg (1000x669, 297K)

This
Also less materials, which means you can make more tanks
They were also horribly put together because they were assembled in a haste to, you guessed it, build more tanks

What now, professor?

Attached: 1540731358905.jpg (1863x682, 533K)

this. all russian tanks had to be transported hight speed on rails. additionally the engines on russian tanks had much less shit to pull around. it gave tanks more speed and helped them to outflank german tanks.

Half of this thread is fucking retarded. Russian MBTs are smaller because they were able to introduce autoloader which significantly reduced the amount of internal space required to be protected, allowing for armour's reallocation in a way that significantly increased its physical thickness, which together with the use of composites and later explosive reactive armour provided the tank with protection levels absolutely unheard of before while keeping the weight relatively low, which in turn positively affected tank's mobility and logistics.
>constraints
More like advantages.

Attached: t-72 & m60.jpg (800x600, 76K)

The Kaiser tanks kind of made a mess in some of the narrow and more constricted roads in russia, so having more room actually made sense

why didn't anyone else do this then?

>Russian MBTs are smaller because they were able to introduce autoloader

?

Attached: 9may2015Moscow-01.jpg (2250x1455, 2.35M)

>Until its so cramped and uncomfortable your tank crew can't do anything

how many tigers rolled down the streets of Moscow

how many t-34s rolled down the streets of Berlin

Attached: okretard.jpg (540x480, 28K)

Now try quitting being retarded.

M4A1
Length 5.84 m
Width 2.62 m
Height 2.74 m

T-34 mod.1941
Length 6.68 m +0.84
Width 3.00 m +0.38
Height 2.45 m -0.29

T-34-85
Length 6.10 m +0.26
Width 3.00 m +0.38
Height 2.70 m -0.04

Attached: t-34 parade.jpg (900x568, 79K)

FPBP

Pros:
>less logistical strain as lower weight
>smaller target
>allows a lot of armor without breaking the 70t mark
>Faster to produce, requires less materials, powerpacks are less expensive

Neutral:
> A tank this size needs an autoloader

Cons:
>limited elevation and depression
>Less crew comfort

France did. Sweden did. The US and Germany tried with MBT-70 and failed. As for composite armour, the US couldn't afford it:
>Limitations in manufacturing capacity and the added cost however led to this special armor being dropped and all M60 series tanks were protected with conventional steel armor.

Attached: t-64a (1).jpg (1200x933, 1.09M)

why were to soviets so much better at tanks than NATO?

Both of those are medium tanks, roughly three years apart and showing the advances in tank design made since the beginning of the Second World War.

Still smaller and cramped as fuck.

Attached: 8012857817_1aeb6ff2c8_z.jpg (640x938, 201K)

Comparatively speaking do Abrams have thicker armor than today's russian MBT?

They certainly look bigger.

That's a Soviet tank.

T-44
>Length 6.07 m
>Width 3.25 m
>Height 2.455 m

M26 Pershing
>Length 6.337 m
>Width 3.51 m
>Height 2.78 m

Attached: j6g5sxwrvt311.jpg (804x768, 114K)

The separation of crew from autoloader allowed to even further redice the internal space taken by the crew compartment and to reallocate even more armour for its protection, while also significantly improving the crew's safety, which paired with advanced ERA and active protection system provides the tank with absolutely insane amounts of protection while keeping the vehicle's weight only marginally higher than that of the lates modifications of the previous generation tanks.

Attached: t-14 on kamaz.jpg (2250x1500, 322K)

Unlike the Pershing most of the soviet designs made during the war got to see plenty of action during the war.

Yes, and? It's not like the T-44 see more action than the Pershing anyway.

-The german example is a heavy tank while Soviet is a medium.
-Men in general were small
-Russians were even smaller because of malnutrition.

Pic is a heavy Russian tank

Attached: drh.png (639x345, 302K)

They were able to introduce what has probably been the most revolutionary design in tank history in the mid to late 60s, while a seemingly similar American program in roughly the same time period albeit maybe several years later that aimed to introduce something similar went way over the budget and ultimately ceased to exist, which left the US with its late 50s and early 60s tanks until they managed to catch up in the 80s achieving relative parity with Soviet tank technology for the first time in the 20-25 years.

Attached: t-80b (1).jpg (2047x1323, 618K)

Smaller tank means less shit needed to make it which means more can be theoretically produced in a smaller amount of time which was the Soviet doctrine for just about everything. Also people in general weren’t that tall.
For as many issues as the Soviets may have had and brought they had a damn good mechanized force which scared NATO shitless until around the late 1970’s to 1980’s when the Union started collapsing.

Pic related was the best damn tank of the early war before the T34

This depends on what ammunition against what tanks of what modifications we're talking about. Abrams is indeed bigger and weights more because it has to compensate for the increased volume of the crew compartment. The protection levels for modern tanks is of course classified, but if you look at the protection of older variants you will get the idea how important is to tank's protection the ability to reduce internal volume and reallocate more armour to its protection.

T-80B (Object 219R), 1978: 42.5 tonnes, 440-500 mm vs APFSDS / 500-650 mm vs HEAT.
T-72A (Object 176), 1979: 41.5 tonnes, 360-500 mm vs APFSDS / 490-560 mm vs HEAT.
M1, 1979: 54 tonnes, 350-470 mm vs APFSDS / 650-700 mm vs HEAT.
T-72B (Object 184), 1985: 42 tonnes, 480-540 mm vs APFSDS / 900-950 mm vs HEAT.
M1A1, 1985: 57 tonnes, 600 mm vs APFSDS / 700 mm vs HEAT.
T-80U (Object 219AS), 1985: 46 tonnes, 780 mm vs APFSDS / 1320 mm vs HEAT.
M1A1HA, 1988, 57+ tonnes: 600-800 mm vs APFSDS / 700-1300 mm vs HEAT.
T-72B obr.1989g, 1988-90: 46 tonnes, 690-800 mm vs APFSDS / 940-1180 mm vs HEAT.
T-90A, 2004, 46.5 tonnes: 800-830 mm vs APFSDS / 1150-1550 mm vs HEAT.

Attached: t-90m (1).jpg (3144x2188, 1.65M)

I said try quitting being retarded, not go back to comparing medium tanks to heavy tanks like a fucking moron.

Attached: is-1.jpg (640x480, 98K)

>Pershing
>heavy tank

Perhaps it you who's retard.
Anyway

>T-90A
Huh, wouldn't imagine that package smaller than an abrams would carry so much protection. Neat.

Why don't we do that? What are we using all that compartment space for?

>2011+7
>still posting this debunked shite

i love this

>Perhaps it you who's retard.
Gee, really, you think the guy who keeps claiming the Panther's a heavy might not have all his rounds in the carousel?

do you know a better way of killing the crew than to delete any space between them and the explosive bits?

they really weren't.

there's a reason why the T-62 was the mainstay of the Red Army until the mid 70s

Attached: T-64 deployment.png (659x236, 27K)

>Zaloga lies, - says an anonymous faggot

>it's totally zaloga u guise
>even though you've been btfo in previous threads with his numbers

jej

IS-2 model 1944
>Length 6.2 m
>Width 3.09 m
>Height 2.73 m

Tiger II
>Length 7.38 m
>Width 3.75 m
>Height 3.09 m

Heavy Tank T29
>Length 7.62 m
>Width 3.80 m
>Height 3.20 m

So yeah, Russian tanks are small

Attached: T-64 deployment2.png (531x288, 27K)

>According to David Isby, the T-64 entered service in 1967 with the 41st Guards Tank Division in the Kiev Military District

Attached: a58320f3fb0b4805e56d9cf92d0bbc02.jpg (500x648, 25K)

see
:3

Yes and the reason for this is obviously because t34s are smaller, fucking retard

The other idea is that a smaller tank needs less steel to up armor it.

The T-54/55 gets shit on because in nearly every war it fought in, it was a decade or more obsolete. The thing had most of its early design finished in 1945. So in the 60s, 70s, and onwards, it was horribly obsolete.

But if you were to put the tank in use during WWII, it would be, from the front, nearly invulnerable to even the heaviest of AP shells while maintaining excellent battlefield mobility.

The Soviets kept making there tanks small because they axed the heavy tank design corp(which was coming up with really good designs towards the end, such as the object 770) because they wanted to focus exclusively on MBTs.

What resulted was a serious of hyper specialized tanks with great strengths and extremely exploitable weakness. Side armor was near nonexistent, top turret armor was hot garbage, and rear turrt armor was vulnerable to heavy machine gun fire.

And eventually the 40 ton weight limit was just too damned constricting to work with. They might as well bump up the weight to 55tons. With something other than sheet metal.

>T-72 Ural vs M1 Abrams by Steven J. Zaloga
>Zaloga., Steven J. (17 February 2009). T-80 Standard Tank.
Inb4 you keep squealing "lies".

To be fair, the heavy tank units were kept around for a long time for rather bizarre political reasons.

>Revolutionary tank design had problems
Revolting. So let me repeat,
>According to David Isby, the T-64 entered service in 1967 with the 41st Guards Tank Division in the Kiev Military District

Attached: you tried.jpg (250x238, 8K)

Not an argument. Would you care to try again?

anyone got that pic of how hueg the armata is?

>Why are Russian tanks so fucking small?
Because Russians are physically smaller, and they were monofocused on large-scale tank assault towards the West. While they likely would've been good at this purpose, most soviet/Russian models are riddled with design flaws that make them less effective in combat than their western counterparts.

>Tank from Ukraine is shit

Who woulda thought?

As I have said, the smaller volume you need to protect the thicker armour you can slap on it without increasing the overall weight. The crew compartment of Abrams takes much more space because it has to carry an additional person and on top of that give this person an ability to perform his duties with tank ammunition which itself is rather big, while in Russian tanks it's perry much just 3 dudes sitting in chairs and a rather compact loading mechanism between them.
youtube.com/watch?v=uTGM1n8CYyQ

Attached: strv 103 & chieftain & t-72.jpg (850x441, 89K)

>stv103 & chieftain &t-72
>chieftain

Embarrassing

>According to David Isby, the T-64 entered service in 1967 with the 41st Guards Tank Division in the Kiev Military District
Yeah, that's a fact, not an argument.

>David Isby knows more about Soviet deployment than a Minister of Defence and Hero of the Soviet Union

because why would you ever need to aim your gun down?

I'm not that good with British tanks, I guess I got distracted as I was typing the name. Thanks for pointing out, fixed.

Attached: t-72b & t-64bv & t-80bv.jpg (4288x2848, 3.25M)

No, it's just that he's not trying to create an argument out of nothing making it look as if GSFG was the first place where T-64 entered service to support his non-existent point of a bitten in the ass Russophobe who shitposts on Jow Forums because he has no real life.

Attached: t-64a.jpg (580x483, 88K)

>According to David Isby, the T-64 entered service in 1967 with the 41st Guards Tank Division in the Kiev Military District
Not him, but the T-64 was notorious for it's maintenance demands early on. Just because it entered service doesn't mean it would've been viable in combat- early in its history, the T-64 equipped units had almost as many factory personnel as troops.

>In service with an armored division
>mainstay

>le anyone that disagrees with me is an evil russophobe

Oh man, you went full vatnik all the sudden. Incredible.

>40 ton weight limit
Excuse me?
T-72 41 tonnes
T-80 42 tonnes
T-72A 41.5 tonnes
T-80B 42.5 tonnes
T-72B 42 tonnes
T-80U 46 tonnes
T-90A 46.5 tonnes
T-90M 48 tonnes

I can't imagine how cramp the T-55 are.

Attached: Leopard 1.jpg (1280x960, 122K)

No one denies that a revolutionary tank design had its problems. This does not however change the fact that the production of T-64 began in 1964 and in was accepted for service in late December 1966 after most of the problems were fixed in 1965 thanks to the produced units being sent to military for essentially in-field testing.

Attached: Screenshot_2018-10-24 Google Translate.png (258x86, 2K)

>I'm not a bitten in the ass Russophobe, I just like to shitpost about Russia on the internet
So let me nail it:
>According to David Isby, the T-64 entered service in 1967 with the 41st Guards Tank Division in the Kiev Military District

It always amazed me how paper thin Leo 1 was.

Attached: t-64 composite armour.jpg (700x261, 78K)

>russophobia

I never understood this vatnik meme.

>David Isby knows more about Soviet Deployment than a two time Hero of the Soviet Union

If that's the hill you want to die on, be my guest.

Quite cramped.
youtube.com/watch?v=TEDhB9evPvw

Attached: 6019359599_ca63540b1f_b.jpg (1000x700, 300K)

T-55 and especially T-62 are actually pretty spacious, I believe.

Attached: t-62 children.jpg (1024x684, 194K)

Attached: 1443573683908.gif (498x320, 799K)

>David Isby knows more
No, it's just that he's not trying to create an argument out of nothing making it look as if GSFG was the first place where T-64 entered service to support his non-existent point of a bitten in the ass Russophobe who shitposts on Jow Forums because he has no real life.
The fact remains the production of T-64 began in 1964 and in was in service by 1967. Deal with it.

Attached: t-64 decontamination by tms-65.jpg (3000x1028, 885K)

>A Minister of Defence and two time Hero of the Soviet Union was trying to "create an argument out of nothing" because he was a Russophobe

Alright, if you say so.

iirc the T-62 has this massive fuckoff auto-ejection mechanism behind the breech, combined with the increase in shell diameter and size I'd say they're fucking cramped with that 200mm of frontal turret armor.

T-55 has quite literally no leg room for the commander in the A version, to the point where Nicholas Moran was able to operate most of the gunner's controls while seated in the commander's seat.

both tanks have about 0.6 cubic meters for the driver, which is the most of all crew members on both vehicles iirc.

Attached: BP1V7xTlQV_.jpg (480x419, 139K)

Were did a Minister of Defence and two time Hero of the Soviet Union denied the fact that the production of T-64 began in 1964 and it was in service by 1967?

Tank is fine.
Western soldiers are manlets.

The dude looks pretty fucking tall, desu, and human height does increase rather rapidly with time.
youtube.com/watch?v=f2TRMeQXlTs

Forgot the pic.

Attached: nick6iraqis_called_me_lieutenant_flagpole_216x.jpg (216x143, 11K)

Sorry to derail, but the dude says soviet tanks with barely 5 degrees of depression are useful in a mountainous country.

Attached: 343.jpg (596x628, 39K)

Based

I'd trust him over someone who has probably never seen a T-62 in his entire life.

Attached: t-62 in georgia (1).jpg (3264x2448, 1.16M)

I think you'd know, you've been raging at the post this whole time.

So were did a Minister of Defence and two time Hero of the Soviet Union denied the fact that the production of T-64 began in 1964 and it was in service by 1967?

That's what you've been claiming this whole time. I don't know why you're so angry. After all, a British WWII historian knows much more.

>That's what you've been claiming this whole time.

Attached: sheezeeque.jpg (200x200, 5K)

You should look up the E-50. It's like a beefed up Panther. There are also versions available with an extended turret and a 105mm gun. They're basically what Germany would have has MBT in 1948 if Hitler had won. And they are fucking huge. Even compared to western tanks. And it weighted around 60 tons. Its armor was pretty decent too.

Germans always focused on crew comfort and high skilled and intelligent tank crews, which is why German had so many tank aces. You had freaking 130 IQ tank commanders. It's part of the national socialist ideology. This is in contrast to the soviet union which doesn't really care about individuals or selecting the best for the job, all they care about is cheapness and quantity. Soveit designs look great in theory but in reality they suffering pieces of shit to fight in. Not fit for a master race

Attached: 51144b87c50250e2fdc24dbb48f658e6.jpg (1028x644, 104K)

>60 tons
>still running your tank engines on gasoline
>having your transmission on the front, adding volume requirements meaning more armor and weight for said volume
>Schmalturm
>smol af turret ring that requires the crew to be above the hull line from their thighs up
>no unity sight
>removing the bow machine gun but not the bow machine gunner
>probably still has ammo storage in the sponsons
>has sponsons
>using that underpowered traverse motor that requires manual cranking when the tank leans over too far due to horrible gun balance
>needing a big fuckoff breech because putting twice the amount of powder behind a short 8,8cm is a good idea
>oh my god why are the exhausts still like that
>face-hardened armor

hey at least the E-50 uses a KwK 43 that doesn't have the bulky as fuck vacuum fume evacuator system found on the KwK 42 meaning they save a bit of space on that at the very least.

i have been inside one, i remember it being short of all things, cramped too but mostly short

Crew comfort is for fascists and capitalists.

The T-55 up to T-90 are really just beefed up T-34s

Attached: 1539325162633.jpg (510x238, 52K)