08-15-08, 02:46 PM
|
#10
|
Ocean Warrior 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Finland
Posts: 2,950
Downloads: 10
Uploads: 0
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SUBMAN1
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by AntEater
Tanks are usually lost when they burn.
These T-72s definitely did. In Iraq, US forces were always able to recover knocked out tanks, but in a situation when this is not possible and a M1 is left burning for a certain time, the ammo should cook off as well.
There are fire supression systems in western tanks, but those tend to suffocate the crew as well, so if the crew doesn't wear rebreathers I'd rather bail out and lose a tank to a fire than lose a tank crew to suffocation. Not good for morale.
Incidentally, since we're in Subsim forum, the rebreathers worn by german tank crews today are exactly the same type of "Tauchretter" made by Dräger used in WW2 U-Boats as escape apparatus.
At least thats what guys on german military forums said about Leo 2s and comparable damage, and M1s and Leo 2s are quite similar in layout.
This destruction might not have been instantaneous either. It is possible those tanks were hit, set on fire, the crew abandoned them and left them burning.
Few minutes later, ammo cooks off. Or, the georgians themselves blew them up because they were knocked out and there was no time for recovery.
(DU allready explained)
|
Thats probably a logical explanation. Russians using there more is better policy vs Americans using the less but technologically superior is better mentality.
I'm sure the price tag difference is pretty enormous though. Last I heard, M1's were way past the $5 Million mark. T-72's - cheap and effective.
-S |
They are that, and im sad that Finnish defence forces phased out the t-72s as they would have had their use with the territorial troops in a more defencive role. They were also equipped with western electronics and fire control.
__________________
|
|
|