Overblown. Leopard 2s also throw their turrets when the ammo gets hit. Abrams have the blowout panels in the turret, improving survivability, but there is no tank in which having your ammunition detonate is going to be a good time.
The T-72 (the T-90 is just a highly upgraded T-72) remains an effective tank that can be produced in large numbers and has lower logistical requirements than the 70-ton Western heavy MBTs. It’s the same distinction as in WW2 between Shermans and T-34s vs. the German heavies - yes, at the immediate tactical level, the heavier tank is better, but at the operational and strategic levels, the lighter tank that’s available in large numbers and has a lower logistical requirement is superior
The question is - how does ammo detonates so easily in the first place?
It’s ammo’s job to detonate, you just don’t want it detonating too early, or in the wrong place.
Aren’t all Russian T model tanks like that? They store the ammo in the walls of the tank running on a track around the occupants. So when it blows you are not surviving
Yes, the reason being that T models have an autoloading mechanism that needs direct access to the ammo. They don’t really care, since their soldiers seem to be cheap (to them) and the explosive failure requires a direct hit on the tank. Basically, Western tanks are designed with the safety of the crew in mind, Russian tanks with the safety of the tank in mind.
You can build an autoloading mechanism that doesn’t require the ammo to be stored this way. They chose to do it anyways to make the tanks smaller, specifically to reduce the height. If you store all the ammo in the turret where you can have blowout panels, the turret will be much larger and the tank higher.
Fair enough. I think part of the design choices specifically included a lower profile to make the tank harder to hit, which goes to tank safety.
This is the correct answer. The autoloader also enabled them to remove one crew member, thus reducing interior space and increasing armor thickness for the same weight. Contemporary western tanks like the M60 didn’t have blowout panels either, so the argument that ‘the Bolshevik hordes have no regard for the lives of their peasant conscripts, while the enlightened west spares no expense to protect its precious troops’ holds no water
Is it really “safety of the tank” or is it that they’d rather a faster fire rate at the expense of a possible cook off?
It’s not just a faster rate of fire; the autoloader saves you an entire crew member, which means the tank can be smaller, lighter, faster, and has a smaller profile, making it harder to hit, for the same armour and firepower.
It’s a very smart trade-off on paper. But it does make them spectacular death traps.
Safety of the tank in terms of evading capture. If the tank explodes instead of just being disabled, it’s useless to capture.
They store it in a carousel on the bottom of the tank just under the turret.
Sounds like something out of WH40K. Lots of firepower with a 0% survival change if hit.
Well, it makes sense for the loading mechanism they use and on paper it leads to a higher rate of fire due to the more accessible rounds.
However, when asking Ukrainian tank crews, who operate both Russian and Western style tanks, what they prefer, the answer is pretty much always western tanks. Better ergonomics is also a thing (Russian/Soviet tanks are notoriously cramped) but I guess the higher survivability even after a full penetration might be what tips the scales.
Considering the general lack of population and the issues it will cause for both Ukraine and Russia, I think Ukraine’s preference for survivable tanks is the smart move. No point in winning the war if your nation becomes insolvent.
Russian tanks have excellent ergonomics, provided you happen to be a Chimpanzee. If you don’t have really short legs, really long arms, and absurd upper body strength to operate the various manually cranked parts though, you’re gonna have a bad time in a Russian tank.
Why did they make a machine that would be better operated by chimpanzees?
Are they planning something?
The thing is, you can design an autoloader in a way that protects the crew.
The survability of western tanks isn’t just about where the ammo is stored, but how it’s stored. Western tanks, both with and without autoloaders, place all the ammo at the back, either of the turret or the hill respectively. More importantly, the ammo is stored in a heavily armoured compartment, which has blow-out panels on the outside of the vehicle; the ammo detonates the panels collapse, allowing the force of the explosion to spread out from the tank.
The problem with the T90 design (which is really just an updated T72) is that the autoloader is attached to the bottom of the turret basket. This means there’s no possible way to vent the explosion outside, other than by going through the turret, and through the crew along the way.
The thing is, you can design an autoloader in a way that protects the crew.
Yes, you can. But they didn’t. Hence, why I said it makes sense in this specific case.
At this point I’m waiting for a war thunder player to leak us some documents
I am afraid since the Muskrat just blocked Starlink for the Russians, we will have to wait a little longer.
Leak documents about military hardware that can be found in museums?
*the higher rate of fire can occur inside the tank occasionally
Yeah western tanks have their ammo stored in the turret bustle with blast panels and blast doors that save the crew in the case of ammo being hit (if the doors are closed and if the shell that hits ammo did not punctire said doors). They also often use propellant less susceptible to exploding if the ammo gets hit.
The russian tanks on the other side have a way smaller silhouette as well as being cramped to all hell which just compounds this issue.
Cries in British Challenger 2 with no blow out panels
Other way round really.
Russia…
Russia still turret toss world champignon, number one!
‘Blowing Their Tops’ in Ukraine
Artillery, rockets, and drones, oh my!
