RaspberryTuba [he/him]
That’s one of those things where it’s really hard to tell. They all claim different capabilities but the proof is classified (and even somewhat untested). Composite will give you almost no-gap coverage though, and any nearby folks will be happier if you aren’t waltzing around with outward facing explosives all over your tank. But, many Abrams in Iraq added reactive armor all over the less protected sides to help counter RPG’s, so…
I’d mainly say it’s just easier to retrofit an older tank with ERA blocks than it is to design and produce a whole new one with thicker integrated armor.
It’s mostly just large. 4 crew instead of 3 and an auto-loader, and they focus on extra thick composite armor instead of a mix of that and reactive armor. And meanwhile, the t-72’s an extension of old Soviet philosophy that a smaller tank was that much harder to hit, so everything’s packed as tight as possible, while you could almost have a small cookout in the abrams.
/Edit - And as mentioned elsewhere, the abrams is stupidly heavy at this point and has even gained something like 20 tons over the years. A smaller, lighter tank has less problems crossing softer terrain and getting over rickety bridges.
My desktop’s a many-hats workstation. Half of it I could easily do in Linux using the software I use now, half of it I can’t. Do work with it a lot through WSL2 and our servers though.
And well, my laptop’s an M1 MacBook. It has its own issues. :P
Main issue on the desktop side though is not having the Adobe Suite, love em or hate em it’s what we use. And, I personally use every major bit of it a lot, and then also do collaborative work with it.
Closing my eyes and half dreaming just after reading this title had me thinking of dung beetles renting shopping carts to transport poo. Just saying.
Rosie the rocketer.