As Russian tankmen work

Pay attention to distinction in cases and a half a load and a total load … nutri.html

p.s. Don’t ask me to translate conversations of tankmen :)

Nice! I found it interesting and I learned some things. Thanks.

[quote=“2moutrage”]Pay attention to distinction in cases and a half a load and a total load … nutri.html

p.s. Don’t ask me to translate conversations of tankmen :)[/quote]

2moutrage, the “grooves” are no ID feature. This is a wide spread error.

I won’t translate it either just want to give a comprehensive translation:
50% ballistic data and elevation
50% swearing (essential part of Russian command terminology)

I see one very bad design flaw with the Russian tank, They are storing ammo around the inside walls of the tank.

By the looks of it with what I could see of the diameter of the round and the shortness of the casing, it seemed to be a 122mm Self Propelled. Their modern tanks (at least the T72 and T80) have an automatic feed system that does away with the human. Cheers, Y’all, Bruce.

It does appear to be more like an SPG and not a tank.

it is a 2S1:

S.P. Gun yes but still do not like the exposed rounds inside like that. Seems like a sure kill to any sort of AP ordnance that might hit them. Russian version of the Tomy Cooker?

I think it depends much on the doctrine. The 2S1 crew is always inside the vehicle while firing versus 155mm M109 crews which are often (well, almost always) seen dismounted when firing and all hatches open. … aladin.jpg

Also we would need to remember that these vehicles are nothing but slef propelled artillery (SPA) what means that as per battlefield tactics these are not supposed to be at the direct front line. So some of the features desired for main battle tanks (MBT) or infantry fighting vehicles (IFV) are less important in relation to it’s task. This is also the reason why SPA has a fairly thin armor barely enough to resist small arms fire and shrapnel. So if an SPA gets hit by an AP round of artillery size (like 57mm up) it will not matter much where the ammunition is stored.
There might be lots of other factors, which as said above, will depend on doctrine, military requirements, design flaws, manufacturers, evaluation methods and last but not least also on the opinion of the value of a soldier’s life. All this then well within the frame of its time/decade(s).
If I remember correctly during the cold war the “battlefield survival time” of an armored reconnaisance vehicle (German Bundeswehr) was in the range of 1-2 hours. Good we never found out.

Very interesting video. The gun did not appear to be firing at any great elevation. More like a direct-fire elevation. Does the audio indicate what sort of fire mission this was? I also noticed the great care the loader took to be out of the way of the gun and loading mechanism! I’ve read that the auto-loaders in the T-72 tanks were known to grab the crewmen if they were not careful. After sitting in a T-72 turret, which is amazingly small, I can see how it might be possible to get a coat sleeeve or pants leg caught in the machinery…


Not that I have noticed. Maybe that has been part of a prior radio conversation or briefing.

Of course it is not a tank and it is a SHOW mission. I will translate a little;

Gunner " this has to look good in case the officers or any women see it ".
Loader " It stinks in here. I wanted to be in the infantry “.
Loader " Why does your jacket have an anchor on it? Are we in the navy”?
Gunner " shut up and load ".
None of the rest is suitable for forum requirements.

Fluent Russians; was that close ?

You got pretty close!

Anchor: in fact these are marines.


Applause please!

Hooray Marines!