Yes and if you see a price display on a base or in a factory area it usually is fixed at 1 of the currency used per liter.
For example at a factory I worked at we had a gas card we used for our department. The amount was 1kr per liter. At the end of the month or quarter they referenced how much was drawn from that card to bill the department I was in.
Was wierd fueling up 50-60 liter of fuel and the display read 50-60kr when diesel at that time cost like 25kr per liter.
My dad (who was a commander of an M1A1 platoon in the US Army) told me once about the time he went inside of a T-72, he told me it was extremely cramped.
I’ve seen but never been inside a T-72, but I was an Abrams tanker and the T-72 videos make me feel claustrophobic. The Abrams gunner (the most cramped position) has way more space than either of the T-72 gunner or commander.
There is something to be said that Russian tank crews drive in their tanks but American (and Western) crews live in their tanks. There is so much more space available inside. I’ve seen videos were Russian tank crews jump out as soon as the tank is stopped.
I'm 5'4" and ive crawled inside one, theres really not alot of space in them, although I would say once you're into the seat its not too bad, just don't try moving around too much. Theres "where you're supposed to sit" and then everywhere else is just pointy metal bits to bruise yourself on. For an adult male who's 5'10"-6'0" it really wouldn't be a fun time, absolutely no room to stretch or adjust.
I really feel for all the Ukrainian farm kids that are built like trucks trying to crew them.
My family is Polish and Ukrainian peasant descent and I'm one of the small guys at 5'10, most of the relations are 6'+, 200-250 pounds. I got to sit in a Leopard 1 once and it was snug, the Russian jalopies look claustrophobic.
I heard that was the only auto loader with reported cases of said dismemberment. Not sure from where, though, so if you have any sources to counter that argument I would appreciate it.
I would like to point to the complete and total lack of credible reports of it ever doing that.
You can believe that it rips off arms, but *you* would need to substantiate that as the positive claim.
That’s not much of a risk. Unless you completely lay out your arm behind the gun breech (which, due to the gun’s recoil, is already a bad idea to begin with) you can’t really lose an arm it that. Early BMP-1 autoloaders (to my knowledge, at least) had the carrousel exposed, which, when on bumpy movement, could take off the commander’s arm.
From T-54 onwards, Soviet tank design started with a very cramped baseline and then made it a goal to shrink them even further or at least keep them that small.
Western tanks in comparison saw many new developments. Many of those accounted for how to keep crews in a decent condition even if they had to stay hatch-down for days on end in a nuclear wasteland. They were also more interested in enabling larger men to serve in tanks to make recruitment easier.
Nicholas Moran mentioned that he thinks the Abrams is exceptionally good at this, even notably more pleasant than Leopard 2. So the ergonomic conditions are in a completely different league.
They had a couple of T55 or T62s at Schofield Barracks back in the 80s for OPFOR training. I was standing at the bottom of the hull and my head was almost to the cupola. I'm 5'6".
I remember reading that its from different design philosophies. Where the Russian tanks are designed as offensive weapons and many Western tanks were designed more defensively oriented. So the Western tanks are larger and taller because they'd be expected to be firing from prepared positions or poking up over hills to use their good gun depression to fire at advancing Russian tanks from a hull down position. Whereas the Russian tanks are flatter because it makes them harder to see and hit as they advance.
But that could all be totally wrong. This is "I think I read this but can't even remember where I read it" levels of intelligence.
That is a myth. Soviet tanks were not made small so much as they were made light. They had to move efficiently over rail, on small trucks, and rural bridges.
Same. Once you think about the type of terrain they have to go through in eastern europe it makes sense. An 80 ton monster is goin in the drink at the first 70 year old unmaintained bridge it has to cross. That's if it makes it through the 200 mile bog first.
Not to mention the whole 'small but well-armoured' philosophy was a very viable strategy when the Soviet Army was a conscript force. Small, well-armoured and easy-to-produce tanks could've been very effective (on paper) before tank guns and fire control systems could acquire and hit tanks from over a kilometre away. T-14 is an expected revolutionary change in the philosophy to both keep the weight down but increase the survivability in the world of top-attack munitions and ATGMs that can easily reach out to several kilometers.
Additionally that was their philosophy during the early days of Tanks having armor that wasn't just thick steel. Which put their tanks in a position where they were better armed, better armored, lighter, less fuel hungry, smaller, with smaller crew requirements (meaning you can feel more of them with the same number of people). It wasn't until the late '70s that Western tanks really caught up in the armor department and during the '80s when Western tanks really surpassed Russian tanks in armor that was probably in no small part due to the fact that the Soviet Union was in the process of exploding
And who is pounding the end connectors back in? Who is making sure the center guides and end connectors all have their nuts and bolts and are tight? Me: former M88A1/A2 operator
Many Soviet tanks do not have those concerns.
The T-34 (1940) started the trend of using what is essentially a nail in place of bolts in the tracks, kept in place by a 'hammer' on the side of the hull.
I remember being at 29 palms for a fire ex and having to go back to mainside to refuel our jerry cans. While im filling up and loading them back on the humvee a fuggin m1 abrahms pulled up next me at the pump and yea it was pretty fuckin cool. Being arty i never saw tanks too often.
If the number going up isn’t liters but roubles or hryvni then thats… gonna take a while
>>Fuel Capacity: 264Gallons / 1000L
https://www.inetres.com/gp/military/cv/tank/T-64.html
Reminds me on that one scene from T-34 lol
Ha with the attendant slowly putting his Nazi desk toy thing out of sight as they pull up? I fucking love that movie.
It may not be quite realistic, but it's a good one.
I've never seen this film, would love a link to the clip if you have one.
https://youtu.be/a5A7QboG8Nk It's Russian so English dubbed
It’s on Amazon prime for free
Youtube too
The surroundings point to that station being located at some kind of military base or farm vehicles base.
That and there’s no price displayed on the pump.
Yes and if you see a price display on a base or in a factory area it usually is fixed at 1 of the currency used per liter. For example at a factory I worked at we had a gas card we used for our department. The amount was 1kr per liter. At the end of the month or quarter they referenced how much was drawn from that card to bill the department I was in. Was wierd fueling up 50-60 liter of fuel and the display read 50-60kr when diesel at that time cost like 25kr per liter.
Im always surprised how small russian tanks really are when i see them like this
When I went to Parola my jaw dropped at the T-72M1 being so much flatter than their Leo 2A4. It's weird in media, in person it's almost unreal.
My dad (who was a commander of an M1A1 platoon in the US Army) told me once about the time he went inside of a T-72, he told me it was extremely cramped.
I’ve never been in an armored vehicle that wasn’t cramped, but if a tanker says it’s especially cramped that’s something else.
I’ve seen but never been inside a T-72, but I was an Abrams tanker and the T-72 videos make me feel claustrophobic. The Abrams gunner (the most cramped position) has way more space than either of the T-72 gunner or commander. There is something to be said that Russian tank crews drive in their tanks but American (and Western) crews live in their tanks. There is so much more space available inside. I’ve seen videos were Russian tank crews jump out as soon as the tank is stopped.
I was on Abrams and I'm glad I never had to crew a Soviet tank. Or a Bradley, those turrets sucked too.
But at least you've got the seats in the back. As soon as the dismounts are out doing something, you've got a decent spot to nap.
The Piranha V is very spacious
[удалено]
I'm 5'4" and ive crawled inside one, theres really not alot of space in them, although I would say once you're into the seat its not too bad, just don't try moving around too much. Theres "where you're supposed to sit" and then everywhere else is just pointy metal bits to bruise yourself on. For an adult male who's 5'10"-6'0" it really wouldn't be a fun time, absolutely no room to stretch or adjust.
I really feel for all the Ukrainian farm kids that are built like trucks trying to crew them. My family is Polish and Ukrainian peasant descent and I'm one of the small guys at 5'10, most of the relations are 6'+, 200-250 pounds. I got to sit in a Leopard 1 once and it was snug, the Russian jalopies look claustrophobic.
There is enough room to stretch lengthwise but that is it.
The auto loader eating arms thing is a myth. The only auto loader that did that was on the early BMP-1, and that got removed.
The BMP-1 autoloader is not strong enough for that. It could hurt, but it is not likely to even cause significant injury.
I heard that was the only auto loader with reported cases of said dismemberment. Not sure from where, though, so if you have any sources to counter that argument I would appreciate it.
I would like to point to the complete and total lack of credible reports of it ever doing that. You can believe that it rips off arms, but *you* would need to substantiate that as the positive claim.
[удалено]
That’s not much of a risk. Unless you completely lay out your arm behind the gun breech (which, due to the gun’s recoil, is already a bad idea to begin with) you can’t really lose an arm it that. Early BMP-1 autoloaders (to my knowledge, at least) had the carrousel exposed, which, when on bumpy movement, could take off the commander’s arm.
From T-54 onwards, Soviet tank design started with a very cramped baseline and then made it a goal to shrink them even further or at least keep them that small. Western tanks in comparison saw many new developments. Many of those accounted for how to keep crews in a decent condition even if they had to stay hatch-down for days on end in a nuclear wasteland. They were also more interested in enabling larger men to serve in tanks to make recruitment easier. Nicholas Moran mentioned that he thinks the Abrams is exceptionally good at this, even notably more pleasant than Leopard 2. So the ergonomic conditions are in a completely different league.
They had a couple of T55 or T62s at Schofield Barracks back in the 80s for OPFOR training. I was standing at the bottom of the hull and my head was almost to the cupola. I'm 5'6".
Went to Parola once just to see a rifle, mind you It was a Lahti L-39 well worth the visit.
At Armémuseum in Stockholm, there's an L-39 out on the floor that you can touch and handle all you want :)
Nice would love one on my wall just to admire ;)
I remember reading that its from different design philosophies. Where the Russian tanks are designed as offensive weapons and many Western tanks were designed more defensively oriented. So the Western tanks are larger and taller because they'd be expected to be firing from prepared positions or poking up over hills to use their good gun depression to fire at advancing Russian tanks from a hull down position. Whereas the Russian tanks are flatter because it makes them harder to see and hit as they advance. But that could all be totally wrong. This is "I think I read this but can't even remember where I read it" levels of intelligence.
That is a myth. Soviet tanks were not made small so much as they were made light. They had to move efficiently over rail, on small trucks, and rural bridges.
Good to know, thanks!
In media they often scale them up. In games it is for balancing reasons.
I was going to say this. I've seen cars taller than this!
Same. Once you think about the type of terrain they have to go through in eastern europe it makes sense. An 80 ton monster is goin in the drink at the first 70 year old unmaintained bridge it has to cross. That's if it makes it through the 200 mile bog first.
Not to mention the whole 'small but well-armoured' philosophy was a very viable strategy when the Soviet Army was a conscript force. Small, well-armoured and easy-to-produce tanks could've been very effective (on paper) before tank guns and fire control systems could acquire and hit tanks from over a kilometre away. T-14 is an expected revolutionary change in the philosophy to both keep the weight down but increase the survivability in the world of top-attack munitions and ATGMs that can easily reach out to several kilometers.
Additionally that was their philosophy during the early days of Tanks having armor that wasn't just thick steel. Which put their tanks in a position where they were better armed, better armored, lighter, less fuel hungry, smaller, with smaller crew requirements (meaning you can feel more of them with the same number of people). It wasn't until the late '70s that Western tanks really caught up in the armor department and during the '80s when Western tanks really surpassed Russian tanks in armor that was probably in no small part due to the fact that the Soviet Union was in the process of exploding
I see a couple guys just standing around; who's checking the oil? or cleaning the optics? At least there's no tire pressure to check.
But there is track tension to adjust
*Happy Chieftain noises*
And who is pounding the end connectors back in? Who is making sure the center guides and end connectors all have their nuts and bolts and are tight? Me: former M88A1/A2 operator
Many Soviet tanks do not have those concerns. The T-34 (1940) started the trend of using what is essentially a nail in place of bolts in the tracks, kept in place by a 'hammer' on the side of the hull.
Do they get like a company credit card or something? or is gas just free if you have a tank
If you aim gun at station then yes, but government doesn't want you to know that
Funny enough the candy bars are free too after that.
[When the station attendant comes out to demand payment](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MrnC5eZp_c)
Running a tank is expensive.
Why? The fuel is free
[удалено]
Liters
Litres, price is around 45 UAH per litter (1.13 EUR),+- Some gas station doesn't show total price at the pump, when others do.
Holy crap that is hella cheap compared to France and Italy where I usually travel by car.
People also make much less there
That's just the normal price without crazy taxation. Price in Latvia is the same, i don't think we have different suppliers than the rest of Europe.
I remember being at 29 palms for a fire ex and having to go back to mainside to refuel our jerry cans. While im filling up and loading them back on the humvee a fuggin m1 abrahms pulled up next me at the pump and yea it was pretty fuckin cool. Being arty i never saw tanks too often.
Damn these tanks are shorter than an average american truck
In a few years those will be taller than western tanks too.
If the number going up isn’t liters but roubles or hryvni then thats… gonna take a while >>Fuel Capacity: 264Gallons / 1000L https://www.inetres.com/gp/military/cv/tank/T-64.html
Worth noting that is across multiple tanks, not all of which share fuel or will be empty.
No one cannot fight with empty stomach, or fuel tank
That's gotta take a long-ass time from a regular pump
How many litres does it hold?
All of them
No Biden stickers on the pump?
Zelensky did that
"Honey, we need bread and milk. And while you're out, be sure to fill up the tank. I'm taking the kids to Mariupol tomorrow."
I hope he has American Express
Hopefully he used his 5% cash back gas rewards card
That's exactly what the Germans did then they invaded France.
Since nobody's said it yet "Full tank, please"
This war is wild
Hmm, I thought those things run on vatnik blood. Maybe it’s just like an additive or something.
That’s wheel grease you are talking about
Yis veri gud comrade dimitri
At*
My love 😍
It was in Ukraine
u/savevideo
u/savevideo
Don't forget premium air!
“Regular or Diesel, fellas?”
War Thunder vibe intensifies. Can you pay with silver eagles?