• Carmakazi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    ·
    2 months ago

    It’s definitely a design of its time. The primary concern was “halt a Soviet armored column from bowling through to Stockholm” so I’d assume they would have been primarily used defensively on major roadways, where the lack of a turret is less of a problem. And in that same vein, eliminating the traditional turret brings the unit cost down quite a bit, so a smaller economy could build more of them and theoretically mount a more competent defense.

    • Thrashy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      34
      ·
      2 months ago

      It supposedly held its own in trials and exercises with other MBTs of the era, and had a marked advantage when defending fixed positions. But it came from an era when effective gun stabilization wasn’t really a thing yet (meaning that having to stop to aim wasn’t that much of a disadvantage) and the primary threat to tanks was expected to be other tanks (meaning it’s light but insanely sloped upper armor would be effective against projectiles on a flat trajectory, rather than a massive liability against top-attack missiles and other modern threats like drones). An excellent outside-the-box design for its era, but not at all suited to the modern battlefield.

    • Successful_Try543@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Additionally, tanks in casematte design have a lower silhouette and thus are harder to spot and provide a smaller target.