Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Tied

United States Military Vehicle General: Guns, G*vins, and Gas Turbines

Recommended Posts

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

56 minutes ago, Damian said:

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

 

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

56 minutes ago, Damian said:

 

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.

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

56 minutes ago, Damian said:

 

solved1.jpg

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

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

56 minutes ago, Damian said:

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.

  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.

57 minutes ago, Damian said:

 

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

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.

1 hour ago, Damian said:

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.

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

Quote

Documented instance where turret ready rack compartment hit and main gun rounds ignited

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Damian said:

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.

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

bDske3G.jpg

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.

26.1.jpg

Another example, destroyed Merkava Mk2, with the catastrophic ammo cook off, when primary ammo storage was hit.

R0WSuuk.jpg

Another two catastrophic ammo cook offs.

HE9w0IN.jpg

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.

97c0590313c3.jpg

6190b12fa1e5.jpg

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).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Damian said:

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 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?

Quote

 

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.

 

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

7 minutes ago, Damian said:

bDske3G.jpg

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.

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

9 minutes ago, Damian said:

26.1.jpg

Another example, destroyed Merkava Mk2, with the catastrophic ammo cook off, when primary ammo storage was hit.

R0WSuuk.jpg

Another two catastrophic ammo cook offs.

HE9w0IN.jpg

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.

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

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.

 

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)?

 

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Damian said:

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.

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.

Quote

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

Only a fool relies on safety measures. ;)

Quote

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.

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.

Quote

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.

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

C0eFwP5WIAAO1_z.jpg

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):

1232.jpg

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:

3332.jpg

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.

Quote

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.

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.

Quote

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. 

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"?

Quote

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.

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

C0eFwP5WIAAO1_z.jpg

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):

1232.jpg

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:

3332.jpg

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

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

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.

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. 

Quote

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.

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.

Quote

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.

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.

Quote

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.

I prefer not getting penned, actually. ;)

Quote

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.

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.

Quote

even if I would need to stand against a direct order.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

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

Have you also seen the pictures of the crews that survived without problems? Of course you haven't because they don't show them to you.

You yourself have statistically proven that it's more likely to be injured/killed by hits that don't set off the ammunition stowage. I really don't see why you're freaking out over something that is statistically proven to have a less chance to hurt you. Why not worry about that first?

Quote

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

Well you've linked statistics of what happens when the tank gets penned. There's a reasonable chance you'll get injured, a chance you get killed, and a small chance the ammorack ignites. By the way, do you have statistics of how often a non-isolated ammorack ignites upon the penetration of the crew compartment?

Quote

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.

Don't try to put words in my mouth. You don't even know what tanks I like. But spoiler: It's not a tank that's vulnerable to APFSDS hits on the roof and upper glacis.

Quote

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.

Show me the part of the law that allows you to do that and I'll believe you. And link it to me in Polish please. Because I'm pretty sure you're not allowed to do that, since that would allow you to disobey any order that puts you under enemy fire. Something that has a high chance of happening if you're in the army.

If your concern is getting killed then maybe, just maybe, you shouldn't have joined the army. 

 

Anyway, I've asked you multiple times to back up the claim of non-isolated ammoracks having a big chance of igniting when the crew compartment is penetrated, but you haven't shown me anything except cherry picked Youtube videos of a certain series of tanks. I want to know where you got the "big chance" from. All I get are either cherry picked Youtube videos or "I as a soldier [...]" comments, both of which are arguably pointless in this discussion. Being a soldier doesn't make you a ballistics expert. But if you can prove to me that there is indeed the big chance you talk about, I'll gladly eat my words. With proof in this case being a research paper or by using physics and science to convince me. If you can't then continuing this argument is completely pointless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Damian said:

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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Damian said:

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

I've dissected those sources and cherrypicked examples in your presence, yet you haven't given new/other/better sources backing up your claims afterwards. The only thing I got was more or less "well I'm a soldier so I must be right".

I'm a weapons researcher and engineer, yet I don't use that in my arguments. Why not, you may ask. Well, it's completely pointless if I can't back my claims up with proof, and if I can back my claims up with proof, I don't need the "I'm a weapons researcher and engineer, so [...]"-argument in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I have learned:
 

-You want most if not all ammunition stored in the hull, since the turret takes 2/3 of the hits.
-The ammunition should be as hard to hit as possible, a example of poor ammunition placement is the T-72, and a example of good ammunition placement is again the T-72 but, only with the autoloader ammunition. 
-Preferably, you want the ammunition as far forward as possible, so that as much of the frontal armor covers the rack as possible. 
-If possible, the ammunition should be on the floor, up to half the height of the hull.

 

If you can manage all of these, then the ammunition should be as good as impossible to hit. But it is in practice impossible to do all of these at once.
For a better ammunition placement, more ammunition capacity, isolated ammunition, simple autoloaders and such, compromises have to be made.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A good friend of mine's M1 got hit by an IED in Afghanistan, driver killed, injuries to rest of crew, Abrams is the worst tank in the world, isolated ammo racks are terrible, no greater sample size necessary, no informed commentary necessary, no counter-argument possible

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A good friend of mine's M1 got hit by the turret of another M1 that was ripped out of its mount by the Incredible Hulk.

Abrams is worst tank in the world. 

Why is the GOVERNMENT sending our boys into battle without the weapons needed to win the fight?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Vanagandr said:

A good friend of mine's M1 got hit by an IED in Afghanistan, driver killed, injuries to rest of crew, Abrams is the worst tank in the world, isolated ammo racks are terrible, no greater sample size necessary, no informed commentary necessary, no counter-argument possible

Wow sorry man :( Seems to be a pretty common occurrence, much more so than all other current serving 3rd Generation MBT's in service.... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Similar Content

    • By Sturgeon
      I'll start off with a couple Pathe videos:


       

       

       

    • By EnsignExpendable
      Volketten on the WoT forums posted some XM-1 trials results.
       
       
      Compare this to what the Americans claimed the XM1 will do:
       

       
      Seems like the XM1 really didn't earn that checkmark-plus in mobility or protection. 
       
    • By JNT11593
      So National Geographic has a mini series airing right now called The Long Road Home. I'm curious if any else is watching it right now. The show is about black Friday, and the beginning of the siege of sadr city in 2004. It's filmed at Fort Hood with cooperation from the U.S. Army so it features a lot of authentic armor. The first couple of episodes feature Bradleys quite heavily, and starting with episode 4 it looks like Abrams starting getting more screen time. It's pretty cool if you want to see some authentic tanks and vehicles as long as you can stand some cheesiness and army wife shit.
       
      Edit: Just realized I posted to the wrong board.
       
    • By SH_MM
      Well, if you include TUSK as armor kit for the Abrams, then you also have to include the different Theatre Entry Standards (TES) armor kits (three versions at least) of the Challenger 2. The base armor however was most likely not upgraded.
       
      The Leclerc is not geometrically more efficient. It could have been, if it's armor layout wasn't designed so badly. The Leclerc trades a smaller frontal profile for a larger number of weakspots. It uses a bulge-type turret (no idea about the proper English term), because otherwise a low-profile turret would mean reduced gun depression (breech block hits the roof when firing). There is bulge/box on the Leclerc turret roof, which is about one feet tall and located in the centerline of the turret. It is connected to the interior of the tank, as it serves as space for the breech block to travel when the gun is depressed. With this bulge the diffence between the Leopard 2's and Leclerc's roof height is about 20 milimetres.
       

       
      The problem with this bulge is, that it is essentially un-armored (maybe 40-50 mm steel armor); otherwise the Leclerc wouldn't save any weight. While the bulge is hidden from direct head-on attacks, it is exposed when the tank is attacked from an angle. Given that modern APFSDS usually do not riccochet at impact angles larger than 10-15° and most RPGs are able to fuze at such an angle, the Leclerc has a very weakly armored section that can be hit from half to two-thirds of the frontal arc and will always be penetrated.
       

       
      The next issue is the result of the gunner's sight layout. While it is somewhat reminiscent of the Leopard 2's original gunner's sight placement for some people, it is actually designed differently. The Leopard 2's original sight layout has armor in front and behind the gunner's sight, the sight also doesn't extend to the bottom of the turret. On the Leclerc things are very different, the sight is placed in front of the armor and this reduces overall thickness. This problem has been reduced by installing another armor block in front of the guner's sight, but it doesn't cover the entire crew.
       

       
      The biggest issue of the Leclerc is however the gun shield. It's tiny, only 30 mm thick! Compared to that the Leopard 2 had a 420 mm gun shield already in 1979. The French engineers went with having pretty much the largest gun mantlet of all contemporary tanks, but decided to add the thinnest gun shield for protection. They decided to instead go for a thicker armor (steel) block at the gun trunnions.
       

       
      Still the protection of the gun mantlet seems to be sub-par compared to the Leopard 2 (420 mm armor block + 200-250 mm steel for the gun trunion mount on the original tank) and even upgraded Leopard 2 tanks. The Abrams has a comparable weak protected gun mantlet, but it has a much smaller surface. The Challenger 2 seems to have thicker armor at the gun, comparable to the Leopard 2.
       
      Also, the Leclerc has longer (not thicker) turret side armor compared to the Leopard 2 and Challenger 2, because the armor needs to protect the autoloader. On the other tanks, the thick armor at the end of the crew compartment and only thinner, spaced armor/storage boxes protect the rest of the turret. So I'd say:
      Challenger 2: a few weakspots, but no armor upgrades to the main armor Leclerc: a lot of weakspots, but lower weight and a smaller profile when approached directly from the turret front M1 Abrams: upgraded armor with less weakspots, but less efficient design (large turret profile and armor covers whole turret sides) So if you look for a tank that is well protected, has upgraded armor and uses the armor efficiently, the current Leopard 2 should be called best protected tank.
×
×
  • Create New...