this post was submitted on 08 Feb 2026
282 points (99.6% liked)

World News

54099 readers
2724 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
[–] manxu@piefed.social 43 points 2 weeks 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.

[–] TheMightyCanuck@sh.itjust.works 24 points 2 weeks 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 20 points 2 weeks 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 10 points 2 weeks ago

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

[–] zaphod@sopuli.xyz 11 points 2 weeks 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 6 points 2 weeks 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 weeks ago

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