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 ta
  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 mov
  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 d
  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 s
  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
  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
  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
  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
  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 ballis
  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...