This is true. Their low form is actually an intentional design. They figured the best thing for a tank is to have a low silhouette and they did that under the pretense that it serves Russia in Russia's conditions, especially during their super long winters and massive snow-covered terrain. It would be easy for them to hide under those snow mounds and wait for NATO tanks and ambush them. That was the entire philosophy behind that design and it ended up working well in the desert as well.
And the high production rate is also correct. This is what I was telling that guy on the armed forces thread about the T-34. They designed that to be simple and high production capable to the point that during Stalingrad, they were replacing their lost T-34s right in the middle of the war and rolling them straight out the front door right into battle! This is a well-known historical fact. Too bad that dude couldn't comprehend the point I was making using that example.
They followed the same principle with the following models of tanks just like they do with their jets, submarines, AK,s etc. It's the Russian philosophy to keep the basis of the design requirement the same and add to them as the technology evolves.
But they have a serious problem with the turret attachment mechanism and system. That's quite evident as we see it clear as night & day. The western tanks, while we saw a few Abrams turrets separate when being hit and hit with massive IEDs, they don't separate in the sensational style as the Russian ones do lol.
But I still love the T-90MS and hope they contract it somehow. Tank is a beauty and a beast combined.
