Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Damian

Contributing Members
  • Content Count

    52
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Damian

  1. Of course, they are pro US, this is unacceptable! So ban me, if you don't like this.
  2. So when I provide sources that are unpopular, you feel offended, this is the case? Just be strait with it, or if you don't like what I post just simply ban me. Because I see where it goes, I defended the US made design, provided the sources, but all the sudden you came here, and you say I do not provide sources good enough. Ok, that's okay with me, it's your opinion, but if you do not like my contribution, simply be open about it.
  3. Object 187 upper glacis is the same RHA below 100mm thickness... so again what is the point?
  4. Well I did, showing many examples and many sources, but of course I expect that for some people, these sources are never enough.
  5. So if it works, I need to get out because it works, and this forum is anti American, or anti West or something right? Because I didn't said anything offensive, but in the same time I said it works, it actually protects soldiers inside. So, what the point?
  6. That's your problem, first I never seen a hit in the M1's upper glacis, because it's so small target, second thing is, there is still big chance of a bounce due to angle. You don't like it, well, find a better design... oh wait, there isn't a better 3rd generation designs. So yeah, this is a pointless discussion.
  7. Well that's your problem, you want to fight in a T-90 or Leopard 2.. your problem, I do not really care about your preferences. It's your problem, but any person that is reasonable will choose a vehicle that actually protects it's crew, instead of being a mobile crematory.
  8. It is, it's 50mm at 82-85 degrees (thickness for certain is 50mm however the angle is still disputable, but it's something in between 82 to 85 degrees), so it's effective thickness 359-573mm. It's rather substantial protection.
  9. This drawing is simply inaccurate. Now you can see that protection is actually substantial.
  10. Yep, they act as addon armor, these fuel tanks are placed in their own isolated compartments. Also I heard that M1A2SEPv3/v4 will receive new type of improved fuel tanks with better protection characteristics.
  11. If I do not do stupid shit, and in the same time my vehicle actually protects me better, then it's only better for me. Well that's your problem, I seen enough photos of burned crews, to not be very optimistic about tanks without isolated ammo storage. K2 and Altay have only partial isolated ammo storage... if you ask me... bad decision, considering fact that problem with non isolated ammo storage is known for years, but hey, it's their problem. And what if you are penetrated, what then? Hmmm? Nothing, you just die? Yeah, that's why I still preffer to sit in a tank with isolated ammo storage. Listen you do not like this, ok that's your problem, you like tanks without isolated ammo storage, ok that's your problem. But me and many people I know, and some of them are also soldiers, well they actually value their lifes, and they do preffer designs with isolated ammo storage. Well, good thing I do not live in authoritarian shit hole, where I can't speak what I think. And yes I have a right to say "fuck you" to a commander if he will compromise lifes of me or my fellow soldiers. You know we are not a cannon fodder... at least not in civilized countries.
  12. Well that's your problem, I will definately never, never get in to battle in a tank, that does not have isolated ammo storage, even if I would need to stand against a direct order. Yes I agree, this is why I rely on a protection system, consisting various different design solutions working together to increase survivability. There are videos showing M1's with burning ammo storage and crew still inside, like that M1 hit in turret bustle, where commander after the ammo cook off started jumped out, but the gunner, loader and driver stayed inside, and the driver even started to move backwards the tank. And there is another argument, even if the tank blows up, I still preffer to have isolated ammo storage, that gives me at least some time so I can bail out and run away. The tanks was simply not hit close enough to the ammo, shit give me an RPG-7, put a Leopard 2 loaded with ammo and see what happens. The ammo storage in this vehicle is dangerous for crew... and I have other reasons to dislike Leopard 2, like idiotic turret design, complete isolation of the loader from other crew members, which means either nobody can help him or he can't help anyone without geting outside the tank, it's cramped and so on. Isolated ammo storage give me more chances to survive. It's like with a condome you know, it's better to have and not need it, than need it and not have it. There is such thing as hard evidence, showing that lack of isolated ammo storage is dangerous for tank crews. Of course I understand why you are arguing. And yet, the American and Russian engineers and military made a requirement for full ammo isolation. Heck if we look at many other designs, they at least have partial ammo isolation, not perfect, still better than sitting your ass on ammo.
  13. If there is no ammunition in crew compartment then even if crew compartment is penetrated, crew have large chances of survival, in worst case scenario being injured. If there is ammo in crew compartment, there is a high chance there will be catastrophic ammo cook off event. Simple as that. Good example is. In both cases insurgents used RPG-29's. However while in case of T-72 we have catastrophic ammo cook off event, in case of M1A1 despite obvious penetration of the crew compartment we do not have catastrphic ammo cook off, and AFAIK in this incident only loader died due to being directly in path of shaped charge jet. They might by one definition, by other definition they might be treated simply as additional safety messure. Without the crews being dead. You know I still preffer to loose a tank, repair it or replace with new one, than loose the crew, especially well trained and experienced one. That's not the point, the point is that we see here results of catastrophic ammo cook offs, what hit the tanks is irrelevant now. Why stupid? In now way I gonna go in to battle in anything that demands from me ti literaly sit on ammunition. Sorry I value more life, I am not suicidal. This is simply luck, not the results of design choices. And I was inside a T-72 you know, the realization that I literally had my ass sitting on ammunition gave me chills. So? You expect you will always be hit in the strongest armor? I was teached to always take in to consideration worst possible scenario. So again I will rather go in to battle in M1 or T-14, than anything else, unless some other new designs will be introduced where crew protection and survivability is a priority or one of the priorities. It's the same why soldiers in general dislike BMP-1's, not only this vehicle is obsolete and ineffective but also ridiculously cramped inside, and do not offer any meaningfull protection. But of course someone can argue that it's wonderfull vehicle... well not for the people that actually need to use it.
  14. It does not matter where the tank is hit, if the projectile gets inside, if there is no ammo inside crew compartment, there is no ignition of ammo, and crew members are only injured but alive in worst case scenario. In case of direct hit in to ammo storage, well ammo storage blows up, but again crew is safe, and probably tank can be repaired. Now let's take a tank with ammo storage in crew compartment that is not isolated, if the crew compartment is penetrated by the projectile, there is a big chance of catastrophic ammo cook off, and crew death. So in all cases, isolated ammo storage is better, as it increases survivability of both the crew and the tank. And honestly only a fool believes that armor will always protect him. One example, Challenger 2, hit by a friendly fire, HESH round in commander cupola from another Challenger 2. There was no direct hit, but HESH explosion started a fire that ignited ammo and destroyed vehicle, killing two crew members that were inside, other two injured survived only because they were outside vehicle in a distance. Another example, destroyed Merkava Mk2, with the catastrophic ammo cook off, when primary ammo storage was hit. Another two catastrophic ammo cook offs. Another example of catastrophic ammo cook off this time in case of T-64BV. And there is plenty of other examples how T tanks end up with catastrophic ammo cook offs when crew compartment is hit. All these examples shows that completely isolated ammo storage with blow off panels, is benefitial for vehicle and crew survivability. PS. And there is also a question of safety during training, there were at least several accidents in Russian Army involving T-72B's with catastrophic ammo cook offs during excercises. We had similiar accident in Leopard 2A4, loader died due to burns (he did not had fire protecting clothes on) but fortunetaly, ammunition was only in isolated ammo storage in turret bustle, so rest of the crew survived (commander and gunner injured).
  15. Well in many NATO/Western designs, fuel tanks acts as addon armor. As for T tanks, there were many different armor types, sometimes even used within a single tank production batch. T-64's had at least 3 or 4 different types of turret armor. Early T-72's use so called "Sand Rods" but this name is a bit misleading. Simply empty cavities in turret front are filled with Kvartz or something similiar. AFAIK T-80B/BV had similia turret armor.
  16. AFAIK Israeli studies said that 70mm of diesel fuel is equivalent to 10mm of RHA against CE threats.
  17. But you have a proof that M1 provides greater safety for it's crew than any other design. Because either when ammo rack is hit, ammo cook off do not affect the crew, or crew compartment is penetrated in worst case scenario crew is injured but alive, and tank is not completely destroyed by the ammo cook off. It's superior to any other design where ammo is stored in crew compartment, and penetrations ends up with ammo cook off, crew death and complete destruction of vehicle, often to the point it's immposible to repair it. As a soldier I definately preffer this over a death trap like a T-72 class tank, or anyother tank in which I would sit on the ammo or surrounded by ammo.
  18. I never saw any source saying why there are no spall liners up to this day inside crew compartment, there might be several reasons. For example perhaps due to fact that entire main gun ammo is isolated and US crews are wearing protective clothing and ballistic protection as standard, it's seen as unnecessary due to weight increase. On the other hand perhaps it will be one of the new safety improvements in M1A2SEPv3/v4, who knows? Altough spall liners are used on some other US Army vehicles like M2 IFV series, so definately there are some reasons standing behind the decision not to place spall liners inside M1.
  19. We can see tank commander getting out... which is a mistake, per procedures he should close the hatch and wait inside until ammo cook off event ends. This is from 2003, USMC M1A1 was hit in turret roof injuring commander and loader. Loader got light injury in arm, and commander lost his eye due to shrapnel, still entire crew survived and tank had only cosmetic damage. Here is M1A1 penetrated in to the side by shaped charge warhead (RPG most likely), altough commander and gunner were injured, they survived. https://www.strategypage.com/military_photos/solved.aspx https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_M1_Abrams#Persian_Gulf_War Here we have list from 1991 Gulf War, with notes of the sources, with vehicles bumper codes, what hit them, and with results. Here we have a fragment of relation by Seargant First Class Anthony Steede, his M1A1 was hit in the side armor by a T-72 tank, penetration injured gunner and loader, but the crew survived. In video it starts around 26:00. Additional source is here. https://books.google.pl/books?id=tekVy71S1qwC&pg=PT284&lpg=PT284&dq=Tony+Steede+tank+commander&source=bl&ots=4R-fkZr6YG&sig=ujEC6cz-GPNTCK4k2yJZNDJU2oY&hl=pl&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiVz9CunZLSAhWFjywKHSXKAa8Q6AEIJjAB#v=onepage&q=Tony Steede tank commander&f=false There was also a list from OIF but can't find it now, I believe it was from Wikileaks or something. http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/US-Field-Manuals/abrams-oif.pdf Some additional source is also "Lessons Learned" about use of M1's in OIF.
  20. We have plenty of example where M1's were hit from various angles, without or with ammo cook off, and in both cases crews had high survivability rates. And it's not about a single crew member survivability, it's about entire crew survivability. If only a single crew member dies, but rest survives, it's good for me. PS. If US bothered with full ammo isolation, and Russians also went in that direction, it means something, we have here two nations that are probably one of the most experienced when it comes to use of tanks on the real battlefields. Furthermore, we can safely assume that all new MBT designs, or so called 4th generation MBT's, will be very similiar to T-14 in general design, which means heavy armored crew capsule in the front isolated from the rest of vehicle, with unmanned turret that have isolated ammo storage with blow off panels.
  21. Because the biggest killer of tank crews and their vehicles is the ammunition stored inside when it cooks off. The M1 and T-14 are the only tanks that protects the crew and partially vehicle from results of ammo cook off through complete isolation of that ammo from the rest of vehicle in magazines with blow off panels. Of course if you preffer to fight in a mobile crematory like T-90, Leopard 2, Merkava or any other tank, it's your right to do so. They dislike standard ballistic helmet... wait you guys do not have CVC's? And you do not have a widespread use of ballistic vests?
  22. This reminds me Nick Morans video about myths concerning US AFV's during WWII, and WIA and KIA ratios inside M4 medium tanks in US Army service and British Army service, it was discovered that British had more KIA because they didn't used helmets for tank crews, preffering berets. And head injuries were one of the most common reasons that crew members died.
  23. Tank crews wear protective clothes and also ballistic protection, so you know.
  24. It's not exactly the case, there were plenty of cases where crew compartment was penetrated by shaped charge jet, and the crew either was not harmed or was only injured. There were of course incidents where a single crew member was killed but he was in direct path of shaped charge jet. More dangerous are kinetic energy penetrators that have a greater diameter than shaped charge jets, and in case of penetration of the crew compartment, tend to generate much more fragments and spall inside.
×
×
  • Create New...