Thread by @MarkHertling

I hesitated to comment on this @washingtonpost article, because I thought their use of "jack-in-the-box" description was inappropriate. But dozens of people have DM'd me asking "what do you think of this?"

Here's what I think. Another 🧵 1/13

https://twitter.com/michaeldweiss/status/1521062430872326145

Design flaws in the Russian T72 (and other RU tanks) are indicative of how little Russia cares for their soldiers.

But it is just one OF MANY indicators. It speaks to how little RU thinks of those who man their force to defend their motherland.

What am I talking about? 2/

Tank design requires tradeoffs in major areas:
-Armament
-Firepower (fire control system)
-Speed
-Crew & Crew Survivability
-Maintenance
-Weight
-Cost

Here's a film of a "clean" T72 to show the details

Bottom line, the T72 is:
Cast steel, has a 125mm gun (with several machine guns), has a weight of 40 tons, a 12 cylinder diesel engine, w/ max speed of about 30 miles/hour, range of about 290 miles, ground clearance of 19 inches.

W/ 3-man crew: Tank Commander, Gunner, Driver 4/

It's been mass-produced (25k made, & many nations use it or one of it's variants), it's cheap to build (between .5 to 1 million $ a copy).

It's simple; cramped; easy to drive, maintain & shoot; accurate out to about 1800meters.

I fired a Czech variant, and was not impressed. 5/

Comparing T72 to a US M1A1 Abrams:
Chobham armor, 120 main gun accurate to 3000+ meters, 70 ton weight (due to armor & crew survivability), turbine engine with 1500 HP with a "governed" speed of 40+mph, range of 300 miles, 4-man crew.

Approx cost $6.2M per copy. 6/

Abrams is technologically advanced, shoots on the move, has excellent night vision capability, accounts for wind/temperature in its fire control computer, can stack multiple targets simultaneously, and it hits what it aims at and destroys what it hits. 7/

Back to the T72.

What's getting attention is the T72 autoloader & the ammunition cassette that cause "explosions"

To reduce the crew #s, to make the tank lower to the ground and smaller, the RU emplace an autoloader to delivers ammo to the gun. 8/

Notice:
-The ammo is open to the elements
-The round & charge are separate
-The crew is wearing regular uniforms (not fire-retardant nomex)
-The cramped turret makes it hard to get out
-A 3-man crew reduces security, observation & maintenance capability.

All design flaws. 9/

The US military knew about these design flaws since the 70's, but we didn't conceive of the "roman candle" effect the tank would experience if hit until Desert Storm.

There were Iraqi T72 turrets all over the desert in Iraq. 10/

The autoloader is 1 of 100's flaws in Russian design in the production of military equipment.

Two additional examples.

Here's the rear of the BMP, a RU infantry carrier. Note the cramped compartment.

Also note how the door has big bulges. Those are fuel tanks. 11/

Recently, there was a posting of how RUs don't do a great job of training their soldiers in first aid (a key soldier skill).

Here's a comparison of a RU (top) versus UA soldier's first aid kit. 12/

There's more to analyze.

But I'll finish by saying soldiers fight based on trust
- in each other
- in their leaders
- on their understanding of the mission
- and if they have trust in their equipment & their doctrine.

Russia has failed on all counts. 13/13