That’s primarily T-72 and newer with the auto-loader that makes them susceptible to the turrets blowing off. I’m not sure I would call it a problem as much a consequence of design tradeoffs. The T-62 is basically an upgraded WWII-era T-55 and AFAIK does not have an auto loader, though I suppose it’s possible they could have upgraded them. I think these T-62’s essentially came from Russia’s national guard, so I doubt they invested that much into them. I would suspect they’re not putting them on the front lines, rather to hold gained territory.
In the case of Russian tanks, autoloaders are actually slower than a human at loading the cannons, but a human eventually gets tired- so both have their speed-related merits. The rate of fire also depends on the type of ammunition. The mechanism inhibits the angle of fire and in the case of failure makes loading extremely slow. They also require one less person in the tank which has its pros and cons.
Ultimately Russian tanks are largely designed for cheap mass production, low running costs, and to be small so as to be a smaller target. By comparison tanks (the M1) are far more expensive, much bigger, more complicated, and there’s a much bigger focus on survivability considering these tanks were designed for a European invasion during Cold War and shipping over replacements would not be quick. Whereas Russia could just keep churning out tanks and easily get them to the front lines. The M1 for example keeps its ammunition separated by the crew with a blast door, only opening when needed.
Regardless of the turret blowing off, chances are if you’re hit with an anti-tank projectile the crew inside will be killed anyways- in many cases it’s the shrapnel and molten metal from the hull of the tank flying through the interior and bouncing off the walls that kills. That said, a tank with an exploded turret is useless. A tank without an exploded turret might have a chance of being repaired and put back into service.
Last edited:
