Damian

Just now, Sturgeon said:

Your sources and attitude might fly on Tanknet, but not here.

Of course, they are pro US, this is unacceptable! So ban me, if you don't like this. 

Just now, Sturgeon said:

Oh no, you did offend us. See, here we don't get offended by nazi memes or unpopular political opinions, we get offended by retard non-contributors coming in here swinging their dicks around and acting like their opinions are all that needs to be said.

Referte aut morimini, bitch. Opinions don't trade. Ya ken?

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.

2 minutes ago, Collimatrix said:

Object 187 says "hi"

 

The Abrams glacis design was a good idea against early Soviet steel APFSDS that had low sectional density and limited L/D.  But it is not an effective design against high L/D penetrators made of dense materials, which have very little propensity to ricochet:

 

Object 187 upper glacis is the same RHA below 100mm thickness... so again what is the point?

Just now, Sturgeon said:

Hate to break it to you, but your opinion "as a soldier" accounts for exactly diddly squat on this forum if you can't pony up good sources to back it up.

Well I did, showing many examples and many sources, but of course I expect that for some people, these sources are never enough.

Just now, Sturgeon said:

Dear lord, do you have a Creighton Abrams anime body pillow or something?

Get a grip, mate. Discussing armor is literally what this thread is for. Just because your Chobham-waifu's protection isn't as good as the propaganda says doesn't mean you get to take pigeon shits all over threads on my forum.

Suck it up, or get out.

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?

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.

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.

Just now, Collimatrix said:

Not on the upper glacis it isn't.

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.

12 minutes ago, Collimatrix said:

Also, you can see from that image that the hull protection on the Abrams, even accounting for the fuel cells, is not spectacular.

This is a flaw shared by many Western MBTs, sadly.

 

edit:  and most Soviet ones, come to think of it.

This drawing is simply inaccurate.

Now you can see that protection is actually substantial.

4 minutes ago, Collimatrix said:

The hull of the Abrams has gigantic fuel cells surrounding the driver:

I have read that in combat the frontal fuel tanks are supposed to be depleted last.

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.

Quote

You know what else gives you a bigger chance to survive? Not going into battle at all. Does not having an isolated ammo stowage have an elevated risk? Yes, but only slightly. And as we've seen, the stupider the shit you do, the higher the chance of getting fucked. This is nothing new. But guess what, this is why training exists, to prevent you from shit you're not supposed to do. 

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.

Quote

There's circumstantial evidence. We know that if you put terrible crews in good tanks and have them use terrible tactics, the performance will be terrible.

I still haven't seen hard evidence of non-isolated ammoracks having a "big chance" to ignite when the crew compartment is penetrated by the way.

Well that's your problem, I seen enough photos of burned crews, to not be very optimistic about tanks without isolated ammo storage.

Quote

And? Different countries have different requirements for different reasons. Nothing new under the sun. 

Also, do you know whether the brand new Altay and K2 have isolated stowage? If not, you might want to ask them what their reasoning is.

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.

Quote

I prefer not getting penned, actually. 

And what if you are penetrated, what then? Hmmm? Nothing, you just die?

Quote

But you said that if the crew compartment is penetrated that there's a big chance of the ammo stowage igniting? That was a hit pretty close to the ammo stowage, but it didn't ignite.

Also, I'm almost sorry to tell you that HEAT jets can travel several meters before coming to a halt, and that's after penetrating something. You've linked the photos yourself. A HEAT jet penning the bazooka plates, the hull side armour, varioust things inside the tank and it still had enough left to punch a pretty deep hole in the hull armour on the other side of the tank.

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.

Quote

I really really really don't think it's a good idea to say shit like this in public. You are a soldier you say? Not a smart thing to do dude, a lot of countries are keeping an eye on soldiers to see what they say on the internet.

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.

Quote

Seriously dude, you're saying that if an M1 gets penned in the crew compartment the crew will be (mostly) fine because they wear helmets and other armour. But you're also saying that the ammunition, which is in stowage bins has a big chance of igniting. That makes no sense at all. I know that ammunition can be finnicky, but so are humans. I see no reason to believe that something that doesn't kill or severely injure humans, does have a big chance of igniting ammunition in stowage boxes/tubes. And with my question of "something to back that up" I meant proper sources, not cherry picked youtube videos.

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.

Quote

Only a fool relies on safety measures. 

Yes I agree, this is why I rely on a protection system, consisting various different design solutions working together to increase survivability.

Quote

Yes, without crews being dead. Because they ran the fuck away when the fire started. There was nobody near those tanks when they did blow up.

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.

Quote

g here are tanks that are specifically demo'd by the Turks. Of course they're going to do a good job of it.

If we look at this Leopard 2A4 for example, which did have an ammunition ignition, you'll see that the hull ammunition storage is still intact. The hull roof above that ammorack is completely intact, while the turret roof has whitened for like two-thirds. So a catastrophic failure of the turret ammorack didn't set off the hull ammorack, but according to you the hull ammorack has a "big chance" or igniting when the crew compartment gets penetrated? I've said it before and I've said it again, what sources prove that there is a "big chance" or that happening?

Here's a list of Turkish 2A4 losses, leaked on December 23th (Photo above was released on the 24th):

Note that the Leopard 2A4s that got hit by ATGMs are listed as "Heavy damage" and not "Catastrophic kill", suggesting that they're recoverable.

And of course there's this one:

Tank in the front is hit by an ATGM in the turret bustle or the crew compartment. Didn't burn.

The one in the back did, but it's not known if it was a hydraulic burn or ammo burn. I personally haven't seen aftermath pictures of that one.

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.

Quote

And yet you go into battle? There will always be a chance you're going to die or get injured if you go into battle.

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.

Quote

You claim that there's a big chance that a penetration will set off the ammunition stowage, yet you've given no other sources than a couple of Youtube videos. Did nobody actually research this, or are you basing your opinion on a couple of circumstantial Youtube videos? I've given you a couple of examples that counter your claim, yet you disregard them as "simple luck". Should I disregard your Youtube videos as "simply unlucky"?

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.

Quote

Then they taught you wrong. You should take into account the worst possible feasible/probable scenario. Same goes for designing a tank. You simply cannot protect against everything. What's the worst possible scenario for a tank? Having a nuke go off on your location? Probably won't happen. Or getting a JDAM on your head? Probably won't happen. So we're not going to protect against it.

You know what can happen? Getting shot in the ass by a 125mm cannon. But guess what, most tanks aren't protected against a threat like that. Yet it's still a worst case scenario. But you're not protected against it because it's not feasible to protect against that with armour. You protect against it with strategy and tactics, you should know that, right? In the videos you've linked you can see what will happen if you do that wrong. You get fucked.

Spending time, money, resources etc on something that has a small chance of happening if the crews are trained properly, tactics implemented properly etc is pointless. There's a reason the frontal armour is the strongest part of the armour, instead of all sides being equally strong. 

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.

Quote

So you're assuming that if a projectile gets in the crew compartment, there is a "big chance" it will ignite the ammunition in there. Do you have anything to back that up? A few posts earlier you said that crew will mostly be fine in case of a penetration because they were helmets and other armour, but now ammunition has a big chance of blowing up, even though they're in tubes which provide at least some level of protection?

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.

Quote

You do know that the blast door of an ammunition stowage counts as a form of armour, right?

They might by one definition, by other definition they might be treated simply as additional safety messure.

Quote

There are multiple cases of M1s being catastrophically destroyed by fires which ignited the ammunition stowage. They're in the sources you linked.

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.

Quote

There is reason to believe that those particular Leopards were demo'd by the Turks to avoid capture.

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.

Quote

Also, you seem to think that I'm of the opinion that isolated ammoracks are literally the worst thing every to have happened to tanks. This is not the case. They absolutely protect the crew, but claiming that "as a (reserve) soldier" you'll refuse to go into battle with anything except an M1 or T14 is stupid.

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.

Quote

You can come with loads of pictures of blown up tanks, but for each of those there are probably multiple pictures of tanks that got hit and didn't blow up. Remember that T-90 that got hit on the turret front but didn't suffer from an ammorack explosion? Or that other T-90 that got hit by an ISIS ATGM, injured the driver, set the tank on fire and only after a few hours the tank suffered an ammorack ignition? Or that T-72 in Iraq that did suffer an ammorack ignition, but the crew got out without injuries (or only minor injuries)?

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. 

Quote

I'll actually go out on a limb here and say that most, if not all, tanks that suffered ammorack explosions were hit in the sides, rear or roof. Not from frontal hits. Which most current tanks are designed to protect against, right?

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.

31 minutes ago, Bronezhilet said:

Your argument was that the M1 is so much better than everything else (except T-14) because it has an isolated ammorack, but your links showed that in only 2 out of 14 instances it made a difference. And from 1 of those 2 we don't know the specifics and the other one was one where the Iraqis screwed up and got flanked. If we're going to include hits with no injuries, it's 2 out of 22 instances where isolated ammo stowage made a difference. Actually, multiple of the injuries weren't even due to a penetrating hit, but due to things caused by a non-penetration. There are multiple reported injuries from the fire surpression system. So if you're an American M1 crew man you're more likely to be injured by the fire surpression system than be injured/killed by igniting ammunition.

So basically, an isolated ammorack only helps if you're allowing yourself to get flanked and the enemy manages a direct hit and penetration on your ammorack. Which is not very likely to happen unless you fuck up.

 

But according to you all other tanks, including (but not limited to) the Type 99, T-90M, Leclerc, Challenger 2, Leopard 2A7 and K2 are all pieces of shit you'll outright refuse to drive one into combat because they have no isolated ammo stowage. 

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).

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.

AFAIK Israeli studies said that 70mm of diesel fuel is equivalent to 10mm of RHA against CE threats.

5 minutes ago, Bronezhilet said:

 

Side turret hit, angle not visible, looks to me more than 30 degrees. Ammo hit, crew is safe (?).

Turret roof hit, angle of hit unknown, no ammorack damage, wounded crew (2).

Hull hit at an almost 90° angle, no ammorack damage, wounded crew (2).

1. Mine, no injured crew, ammorack is fine
2. Mine, no injured crew, ammorack is fine
3. Top attack, no ammorack damage, injured crew (1)
4. First hit "below the turret" (unknown where): gunner killed, commander injured. Second hit: Unknown where (same area?), injuring loader and driver who was attempting to rescue the gunner. Injured crew (4), no ammorack damage due to hits
5. Frontal hit, crew injured (1, driver), no pen, ammorack is fine
6. Frontal hit, crew injured (3), no ammorack damage
7. Hit in the rear by DU fragments, no pen, no injured crew, no ammorack damage
8. Hit in engine by ATGM, no injuries. Hit by APFSDS in the side (~90° angle?), crew injured (3), no ammorack damage
9. Not listed in linked source
10. Hit on rear, no injuries. Second hit, unknown where wounded the loader. No ammorack damage due to hits
11. Multiple hits, no pens according to 2 crew members, no injuries, no ammorack damage

The list goes on without cases where the crew was fine, but the ammorack was not. Quite the contrary, there are multiple cases where the crew compartment was penetrated and caused injuries without damaging the ammorack.

The exceptions being number 16, 17 and 18 which were destroyed on purpose.

Hit in the side (angle unknown), two injuries. The ammorack blast door was either forced open by the hit, or left open by the loader (!). No further ammorack damage.

That .pdf talks about a single instance where the ammorack ignited but where the crew was fine. No indication of direction of hit.

 

So out of 14 instances (if I counted correctly) where either the crew was injured and/or the ammorack ignited by hits there were only 2 cases where the ammorack ignited and the crew was fine. The other 12 instances had injuries to crew but no ammorack damage. This is excluding cases where a hit caused neither crew injuries nor ammorack damage.

So looking at this, you're a lot more likely to get fucked by a hit itself than by a burning ammorack.

And I'm not even counting the part where I said frontal hits in a 30° area. When we do that, it turns into a "Injured crew, no ammorack damage"-fest.

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.

6 minutes ago, Renegade334 said:

I'm perplexed by USAR/GDLS's decision not to coat the inside of the crew compartment with a spall liner (the only reference to spall protection, in Hunnicutt's Abrams book [p.209], refers to the three 105mm rounds stored on the basket floor, which were covered with "spall protection covers"). Were the engineers so confident about the protection the Abrams already boasted, they neglected such a feature (and just delegated the "last line of defense" to crew gear) or was this absence part of some sort of cost/weight-cutting effort?

...Or please don't tell me the SL is actually inside the armor pack boxes, on the innermost walls...that'd be a bit weird.

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.

31 minutes ago, Bronezhilet said:

As the forum motto goes: Referte aut morimini. Or "Link or die".

I can do without links if the one making the claim is someone I know I can trust, but if it's a new member who's circlejerking over the M1, I'd like to have my sources, thank you very much.

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.

4 minutes ago, Bronezhilet said:

How big is the change that a frontal 30° arc pen doesn't kill you, but does set off the ammorack?

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.

32 minutes ago, Bronezhilet said:

And why is that?

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.

Quote

Of course during wartime or fighting abroad they use helmets.  

It's a bit weird in Norway. Soldiers dislike the ballistic helmet (for good reason, good god that thing is a pain in the ass), so it is rarely worn, usually by your average grunt, special forces, or if you need  a mount for your NVGs. Flak vest are also not really common, only for active personnel, conscripts don't get those.  Same story for plate vests.

They dislike standard ballistic helmet... wait you guys do not have CVC's? And you do not have a widespread use of ballistic vests?

36 minutes ago, Xoon said:

It's some honor thing or something like that. Not really that common, but some do.

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.

3 hours ago, Xoon said:

Unless you are a Norwegian Tank commander, then you are so badass you wear a Beret. 

Really? No ballistic vests and a CVC? 

Tank crews wear protective clothes and also ballistic protection, so you know.

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.