When the powder gas ejector on the gun can poison the tank crew

52
Source: newvz.ru
Source: newvz.ru

We have such a saying: "One heals, and the other cripples." These words usually refer to medicines or, in rare cases, doctors. However, this saying can be fully attributed to the propellant gas ejector on the barrel tank guns. It seems to be created and used in tanks with good goals: to reduce the gas contamination of the fighting compartment during firing. But sometimes it happens that everything turns out exactly the opposite, when the ejector turns into a “vacuum cleaner” that draws contaminated air into the tank.

Powder gas ejector


By the way, the propellant gas ejector is the same cylindrical thickening on the gun barrel of absolutely all modern and not very modern tanks. It is not available only on combat vehicles with an uninhabited tower, since it is generally not needed there. This contraption serves to blow through the channel of the cannon barrel after the shot. Roughly speaking, the ejector draws out the remnants of powder gases from the barrel so that they do not get into the fighting compartment and suffocate the crew.



Ejector of powder gases of the gun of the T-55 tank. Source: yaplakal.com
The ejector of powder gases of the gun of the T-55 tank in the context. Source: yaplakal.com

The device of the powder gas ejector, as well as its principle of operation, are as simple as boots, although some elements may differ from design to design. In fact, it is a pipe put on the barrel of a gun, as a result of which a hollow and sealed cylindrical chamber is formed between it and the barrel. The cannon barrel itself in the area of ​​this chamber has two types of through holes. The first ones, drilled closer to the breech (or to the tower, whichever is more convenient for you), are equipped with inlet valves. The latter, located closer to the muzzle, are oblique and do not have valves.

Scheme of the ejector. 1 - ejector body; 2 - oblique hole (nozzle); 3 - hole with an inlet valve; 4 - gun barrel. Source: dzen.ru
Scheme of the ejector. 1 - ejector body; 2 - oblique hole (nozzle); 3 - hole with an inlet valve; 4 - gun barrel. Source: dzen.ru

The outflow of powder gases after the departure of the projectile from the barrel. The direction of their movement is indicated by arrows. Source: www.dzen.ru
The outflow of powder gases after the departure of the projectile from the barrel. The direction of their movement is indicated by arrows. Source: www.dzen.ru

At the time of the shot, when the projectile passes through the barrel in the ejector area, powder gases penetrate into the chamber through valves and oblique holes under enormous pressure. As soon as the projectile leaves the barrel, the pressure in the gun begins to drop. Due to the pressure difference (less in the barrel, and more in the ejector), compressed gases leave the ejector towards the muzzle and naturally create a rarefaction, pulling out everything that remains inside the barrel.

But what harm can he do? Seems to be the only benefit. But no.

Pulling air into habitable compartments of the tank


For example, we will take domestic tanks. The problem is actually present abroad, so there is no need to stigmatize our cars. They are just more visible.

Rooted in the Soviet past, the automation of the guns in our tanks, and it doesn’t matter if it’s a T-72 or a T-80, or even a T-64, works in such a way that the bolt wedge opens at the moment of rollback. That is, a shot is fired, the gun rolls back from the recoil energy, the shutter opens and the fired pallet flies out (a metal cup at the base of the sleeve). Then the gun rolls up - it returns to its initial position by recoil devices. This whole process takes just a second.

The bottom line is that the shutter opens too quickly - at a time when the gun's ejector is still continuing its work of drawing gases out of the barrel. And if the shutter is open, then it is logical to assume that air from the fighting compartment will be pulled through the barrel. On the one hand, this is good, because it allows you to draw out the powder gases, smoke and other unpleasant things already in the fighting compartment. On the other hand, to drag any infection into the tank.

Here the ejector begins to play the role of a kind of huge vacuum cleaner. Drawing air from the fighting compartment through the open breech, it thus creates a vacuum inside the tank. As a result, air is sucked in from the environment through leaks. It enters inside both through the engine compartment and through other places. This process does not last long - literally a fraction of a second, but it can do a decent job. Under normal conditions, nothing will happen, but what if radioactive dust flies around the tank or the air is contaminated with chemical agents or some kind of "biology"? All this inside the habitable compartments and fly.

Source: fotoload.ru
Source: fotoload.ru

There will be no big problems from one shot, and when there are a lot of shots and they are fired in a series, the “side effects” from the ejector begin to make themselves felt.

Here, of course, one can object that there is a filter-ventilation unit (FVU), which creates increased pressure inside the machine, and there are various kinds of sealing seals. But no, the performance of the FVU in practice is not enough, and the seals are not of great benefit in this case.

In order to estimate the volumes of poisonous or radioactive substances entering the tank from the outside, an appropriate experiment was even carried out, which clearly shows the “duplicity” of the ejector, when it helps and harms.

But first it is worth noting that even if the ejector is removed from the gun, this phenomenon cannot be completely eliminated. Powder gases will still move along the barrel and the pressure difference between the barrel and the fighting compartment will also be, well, and the “leakage” of air, respectively, too.

So, when making seven shots with any type of projectile from a 125-mm 2A46 gun without an ejector, the toxic dose (the content of a conditional "infection" in the air) ranged from 0,006 to 0,017 grams per minute per cubic meter of air at different performance levels of the filter-ventilation unit.

With the ejector, everything, of course, begins to change dramatically.

When making seven shots with high-explosive fragmentation shells from a 2A46 cannon with a powder gas ejector installed on it, the toxic dose ranged from 0,023 to 0,047 grams per minute per cubic meter of air. Everything, again, at different levels of performance of the filter-ventilation unit. The higher it was, the lower the toxic dose turned out to be, but it was not possible to make it less than 0,023 grams. And this, by the way, is still a completely satisfactory result, since, as we know, shots with high-explosive fragmentation shells are equipped with only one propellant powder charge.

And what about feathered armor-piercing sub-caliber shells? The same seven shots from the same cannon with an ejector gave a toxic dose for the crew of 0,023 to 0,123 grams per minute per cubic meter of air. Its growth turned out to be very significant, which is explained by the additional powder charge that the sub-caliber shells are supplied with. More gunpowder, more pressure, more vacuum.

All this, of course, is very conditional. The concentration of substances that infect the terrain and the atmosphere is not uniform, there is wind and other factors that affect how much chemistry and dust will fly into the tank as a result. But we can estimate an approximate picture according to these data.

Conclusions


As you can see, the dependence of air pollution by various substances or radioactive dust in the habitable compartments of the tank is directly related to the operation of the powder gases ejector. Its performance increases several times depending on the performance of the filter-ventilation unit.

Of course, under normal conditions, the suction of air from the environment does not cause any harm, therefore, in the framework of the current military conflicts, this cannot be considered as a significant dangerous factor for the crew. And, as they say, thanks for that. But, since tanks are universal means capable of operating under conditions of radioactive, chemical and biological contamination, one should not completely discount the "harmfulness" of the ejector.

The authors of the experiments confirmed that the specified toxic doses, depending on the type of contamination of the area and the atmosphere, are dangerous for tankers. Especially in situations where the crew is forced to stay in the tank for a long time and conduct intense fire. And, since it is impossible to completely get rid of air intake, combat work should be carried out with at least minimal personal protective equipment.
52 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +8
    27 October 2022 05: 11
    The author continues to discover the nuances of the design and operation of armored fighting vehicles, as they say respect and respect!
    As for the ejector, the medicine here is too effective to refuse it, you just need to take into account the side effects ...
    Although with the development of uninhabited BOs, the problem generally disappears.
    1. -9
      27 October 2022 06: 05
      Quote: Vladimir_2U
      The author continues to discover the nuances of the design

      Quote from the article:
      a shot is fired, the gun rolls back from the recoil energy, the bolt opens and the spent pallet flies out (a metal cup at the base of the cartridge case). Then the gun rolls up - it returns to its initial position by recoil devices.

      I have never seen recoil devices on our tanks. The tank gun is motionless, there are no rolls and rolls, correct if wrong hi
      1. +8
        27 October 2022 06: 14
        Quote: Anatol Klim
        I have never seen recoil devices on our tanks. The tank gun is motionless, there are no rolls and rolls, correct if wrong

        Absolutely wrong! Look at any video, at least the T-72, hot any tank, a very sharp rollback of the breech. And as for the devices - they are very compact, one might say in the body of the breech, and not like in artillery, because they have to be hidden under the armor of the tower.
        1. +6
          27 October 2022 06: 24
          Quote: Vladimir_2U
          Absolutely wrong!

          I admit - I'm wrong, I got into the description of the tank gun, there really is a recoil pad and a knurler, very compact. hi
          1. +4
            27 October 2022 06: 44
            Quote: Anatol Klim
            I admit - I'm wrong, I got into the description of the tank gun, there really is a recoil pad and a knurler, very compact.
            Yes, there is nothing like that.
            But generally recoilless, in your understanding hi , the Germans introduced a cannon to Hetzer, all the same, the scheme has many advantages.
            https://www.vn-parabellum.com/ger/hetzer-starr-art.html
            1. +2
              27 October 2022 09: 28
              Quote: Vladimir_2U
              But in general, the Germans introduced a recoilless, in your understanding hi, cannon on Hetzer, all the same, the scheme has many advantages.

              I suspect that there is a minus that eliminates all the pluses: what kind of strength should the structure be in order to take all the recoil force from the cannon shot onto itself.
              1. +2
                27 October 2022 11: 44
                Quote from the article:
                a shot is fired, the gun rolls back from the recoil energy, the bolt opens and the spent pallet flies out (a metal cup at the base of the cartridge case). Then the gun rolls up - it returns to its initial position by recoil devices.
                Here the author is wrong. The wedge of the bolt opens when the gun comes back after the rollback. And when it is fully opened, the sleeve is ejected with two hooks. That is, by the time the cartridge case is ejected, there is no projectile in the barrel and the process of removing gas residues through the barrel is already underway.
                Here, on the example of the "Rapier" cannon, this is clearly visible (in the tank sequence, the same)
                1. +1
                  27 October 2022 14: 51
                  Here the author is mistaken.


                  Does the autoloader have hooks that get the pallet after rolling?) At least watch the video of the 2a46 automation in the tank before writing this.
                  1. +2
                    27 October 2022 17: 03
                    Quote: Eduard Perov
                    at least watch the video of the 2a46 automation in the tank before writing this.
                    In the T-72 tank, the pad from the charge falls into the hooks of the cartridge case ejection mechanism after this pad has already been thrown out of the gun breech. These are two different devices: ejection of a cartridge case (padon) from a cannon, and ejection of a cartridge case (padon) from a tank.
                    We still had a similar cartridge ejection device on the T-62. But there the whole sleeve was thrown out (not a padon). And the torsion bars, with the help of which the sleeve was subsequently ejected, were cocked when the sleeve flew into the sleeve catcher (she also cocked them), immediately after that the mechanism raised the sleeve to the level of the sleeve ejection hatch (which by this time was opened by an electric drive) and the sleeve was ejected.
                    1. 0
                      27 October 2022 17: 29
                      Quote: Eduard Perov
                      Does the autoloader have hooks that get the pallet after rolling?) At least watch the video of the 2a46 automation in the tank before writing this.

                      In the mechanism for removing shortened shells (pallets) from the T-72 tank (Fig. 2) the pallet thrown out of the cannon is caught by a special trap, rises by the frame to the throw line and is fixed. The center of gravity (CG) of the pallet is located to the right of the normal T, which ensures a tight fit of the flange to the plane Pv and removal of the pallet from the tank. The point of contact of the hooks with the flange C is also shifted down, but by an amount less than that of the first mechanism. ....
                      http://btvt.info/5library/vbtt_1980_03_130mm.htm
                    2. +1
                      27 October 2022 17: 40
                      Quote: Bad_gr
                      when a sleeve flew into the sleeve catcher (she also cocked them)
                      I'm sorry, here I lied a little: the cartridge case ejection torsion bar is cocked not by the cartridge case, but by the recoil of the gun.
                      When the gun rolls back, the copier 11, connected to the recoil parts of the gun by the thrust 12, presses on the gripping fist 7 - the gripping torsion bars are cocked and automatically fixed in the cocked state by the electromagnet finger 4. When the cannon is rolled, the copier finger 11 unlocks the frame, the frame stopper 9 releases the frame and is fixed in latch in this position. At the end of the roll, the bolt wedge opens and the sleeve extracted from the gun is caught by gripper 7. At the same time, the sleeve flange presses the start button lever, and a signal is sent to the automatic control circuit to raise the frame and open the hatch. The frame is lifted by an electric drive 13 through a system of levers by turning the frame in the trunnions. Raising the frame with the sleeve ends in the position when the frame lifting limit switch rests against the copier 3. The copier is installed in such a way that the frame lifting at any position of the gun (in the range of elevation angles) stops in the position when the sleeve is directed to the ejection hatch.
                      http://btvt.info/5library/vbtt_1963_04_gilzi.htm
                      1. +1
                        29 October 2022 05: 10
                        I'm sorry, here I lied a little: the cartridge case ejection torsion bar is cocked not by the cartridge case, but by the recoil of the gun.


                        Well, you've lied about everything here. In the tank, in this case, the pallet flies out before rolling. This is not 2a82, where automation works after rolling. Why make people confused?
                      2. 0
                        29 October 2022 11: 43
                        Quote: Eduard Perov
                        Well, you've lied about everything here.
                        Yes, I admit, I screwed up with this statement on the T-64-72 gun. I had a T-62 cannon in front of my eyes, where a cartridge case (as I remember) flew out on the coast. For towed guns, this is also, everything is clear, and the release occurs on the return of the gun after the rollback. But until recently, I have not seen the assertion that the shutter of the gun opens on a rollback (and this is not visible on the video). This is most likely characteristic of guns with a pallet instead of a cartridge case.
                      3. 0
                        29 October 2022 12: 26
                        If it’s not difficult for you, point to the source, where it is indicated that the wedge of the T-72 cannon opens when it rolls back. I did not find.

                        PS
                        Slightly confused in terms because not an artilleryman, but a tank driver.
                        Recoil - this is when the barrel of the gun, along with the breech,
                        after the shot moves back
                        Nakat - this is when everything rolled back,
                        returns to its original state.
                        Right ?

                        In that text describing the operation of the tank gun automation (http://btvt.info/5library/vbtt_1963_04_gilzi.htm) it is written
                        At the end of rolling the wedge of the shutter opens and the sleeve extracted from the gun is caught by the grip 7
                        But this is according to the T-62, and when describing the removal of pallets, the topic at which stage the shutter wedge opens is not mentioned.
      2. +3
        27 October 2022 06: 16
        2 recoil brakes, +1 knurler in the 2A46 gun
        1. 0
          27 October 2022 06: 22
          Quote: TELEMARK
          2 recoil brakes, +1 knurler in the 2A46 gun

          Yeah, and the brakes are placed obliquely in the upper and lower corners for compactness and maintaining symmetrical rollback.
      3. 0
        20 December 2022 18: 00
        Yeah, the tower changes after every ten shots, and along the way the cannon. The recoil of the 125 mm cannon will blow the turret if it is firmly fixed. There is a rollback and anti-recoil device.
    2. +10
      27 October 2022 07: 05
      The supercharger copes quite well with a working ejector.
      The gas contamination from the used pallet (in the AZ T-72 the shot pallet is thrown from the tower, in the MZ T-64 and T-8o remains in the tray) is greater than from the gases supposedly sucked from the barrel into the BO. No need to invent problems where there are none. There are plenty of real flaws.
      1. +3
        27 October 2022 08: 04
        We had a case at the training ground - a T1726B1 was driving with a faulty supercharger. after a couple of shots from an extension barrel (14mm) - for those who are not in the know - tankers learn to shoot on an extension barrel inside the main barrel. So the crew fell asleep in a couple of minutes. We drove well slowly to the shooting range - we ran to catch up with the sleeping tank.
        1. +1
          28 October 2022 00: 01
          We drove well slowly to the shooting range - we ran to catch up with the sleeping tank.
          in those cases when it’s not very slow, usually, at the headmistress’s tower there is always a Ural on duty on lookout ..., with an evacuation team ...
      2. +6
        27 October 2022 09: 11
        Quote: Alekseev
        No need to invent problems where there are none. There are a lot of real flaws.

        Bravo colleague, the best review of this opus...
        Quote: Alekseev
        The gas contamination from the used pallet (in the AZ T-72 the shot pallet is thrown from the tower, in the MZ T-64 and T-8o remains in the tray) is greater than from the gases supposedly sucked from the barrel into the BO.
      3. +1
        27 October 2022 09: 31
        Quote: Alekseev
        more than from gases supposedly sucked from the barrel into the BO.

        In general, this article is not about gases sucked in from the barrel.
        1. +1
          27 October 2022 16: 42
          In general, this article is not about gases sucked in from the barrel.


          Thanks for reading carefully. wink
      4. +1
        27 October 2022 15: 00
        No need to invent problems where there are none. There are a lot of real flaws.

        I am sorry that you did not understand the essence of the material. No one talked about gases sucked in from the barrel. All the same, you need to read more carefully, so that later you don’t leave angry reviews in vain.
    3. +4
      27 October 2022 08: 50
      Quote: Vladimir_2U
      The author continues to discover the nuances of the design and operation of armored fighting vehicles, as they say respect and respect!

      It would not hurt him to be more careful in studying the material ... and not to demonstrate the schemes of injectors almost a century ago. There are no ball valves in the ejector on modern tank 125-mm tank guns, no. On the 115 mm TCB, yes it is, but on the 125 mm NO



      And during firing, the powder gases are perfectly visible, at the moment of extraction of the pallet, some of them penetrate into the fighting compartment, but then you can also see how they begin to stretch out and the merit here is still more than the FVU, creating SUFFICIENT excess pressure in the fighting compartment and not allowing anything hostile to get inside. More dangerous in this regard is the mechanism for ejecting a spent pallet, that's when part of the "hostile atmosphere" is really able to get into the fighting compartment, it's not for nothing that they abandoned it on the T-64 and T-80
      1. +1
        27 October 2022 14: 56
        I showed the general design of the ejector and pointed out that it may vary from model to model.


        pressure in the fighting compartment and not allowing anything hostile to penetrate inside


        As we can see, it can. These are not fictional stories, but a completely unambiguous conclusion of the testers, made back in the USSR in the 80s.
        1. 0
          27 October 2022 15: 01
          Quote: Eduard Perov
          These are not fictional stories, but a completely unambiguous conclusion of the testers, made back in the USSR in the 80s.

          You can read where and how this conclusion was made and on what technique.
          1. 0
            27 October 2022 15: 28
            A summary of this study was published in the bulletin of armored vehicles. Technique: T-64A with different power fvu.
            1. +2
              27 October 2022 16: 23
              Quote: Eduard Perov
              Technique: T-64A with different power fvu.

              In the mid-80s, something similar took place on the T-80UD, the installed instruments showed that the atmosphere in the fighting compartment was not subject to infection.
  2. +7
    27 October 2022 05: 12
    The ejector is good, bad, when the supercharger does not work, then you have to shoot with a cotton wool soaked in ammonia, fixed under the collar of the overalls, the feeling is so-so!
    1. -4
      27 October 2022 07: 01
      Quote: TELEMARK
      The ejector is good, bad when the supercharger does not work

      The question is certainly interesting. Can work with gunpowders, such as magnesium.
      And yet, the extraction of the sleeve with a delay, in two stages. The first is the exit of the sleeve by 3/4 of its length, a delay with retention, and after the release of all gases from the barrel, the complete extraction of the sleeve. But here you need to consider and experiment. hi
  3. +1
    27 October 2022 05: 13
    Working in a gas mask in a tank is enchanting ... Just don’t hit me, I read somewhere that the barrel of German tigers was purged with a compressor?
    1. +4
      27 October 2022 06: 30
      Quote: Popenko
      Working in a gas mask in a tank is enchanting ... Just don’t hit me, I read somewhere that the barrel of German tigers was purged with a compressor?

      At the Panthers. And there was a suction from the box for spent cartridges. At first there was a compressor, and then they began to use the rollback energy. But you yourself understand - it’s difficult, and it takes up space under the armor.
    2. +4
      27 October 2022 09: 06
      Quote: Popenko
      Working in a gas mask in a tank is enchanting.

      Yes????? I didn't know. And I wonder what you would say after putting on the OZK inside the tank ...
      1. +4
        27 October 2022 12: 16
        Quote: svp67
        And I wonder what you would say after putting on the OZK inside the tank ...
        I, with the crew, in the T-62, dressed for a while. For a driver, this is generally done in a sitting-lying position.
        1. +2
          27 October 2022 14: 02
          And you try it in 80, in the place of the gunner-operator.
          Yes, and we had 2 gas masks: IP5 and also PBF.
        2. +3
          27 October 2022 14: 45
          Quote: Bad_gr
          For a driver, this is generally done in a sitting-lying position.

          In this tank, in the most privileged respect, of course, LOADING, he has almost a "one-room apartment" there))), everyone else was SIGNIFICANTLY less fortunate.
          And of course, a separate story of dressing the OZK for a while, in a fully equipped T-64 ... (((. Whoever has not experienced this, it is difficult for him to understand the whole gamut of sensations ...
    3. -2
      27 October 2022 12: 22
      Then the gas mask must be insulated with a squib.
  4. 0
    27 October 2022 09: 37
    Now it’s fashionable to fight with open hatches ... I hope the f-1 copters weaned
  5. +2
    27 October 2022 12: 21
    It is not the ejector that poisons the crew, but the powder gases (express correctly). The FVU is not effective for reasons such as constantly open hatches, damage, or the life of the gaskets has expired. The installed FVU is designed for the internal volume in the tank and has shown its effectiveness in resolving issues in Chernobyl, in almost all kungs, incl. on armored vehicles. And there is no need to find fault with the FVU.
    That is, the problem is not in the FVU, but in practical use, not timely replacement of gaskets, open hatches and hatches. For example, floating armored vehicles are sinking not because of the inefficiency of the pumps, but because of the carelessness of the crew (the bottom plugs are not screwed, the pump malfunctions, cracked or torn seals, etc.).
  6. +1
    27 October 2022 15: 14
    I don't know why I need this in real life, but I read it with interest, thanks.
  7. -1
    27 October 2022 18: 24
    Such thoughts, in my opinion, a blizzard. A tank is not a Mercedes to think about the harmfulness of air pollution in a war.
  8. 0
    27 October 2022 21: 23
    Quote: Anatol Klim
    I have never seen recoil devices on our tanks. The tank gun is motionless, there are no rolls and rolls, correct if wrong

    We have the first emergency in the division, when I arrived as a lieutenant, I remember forever. Killed a lieutenant I knew in a tank regiment. He himself, of course, is to blame, during the shot, something reached for the gun, and the rollback demolished his shoulder and part of his chest.
  9. +1
    28 October 2022 01: 10
    To find out it was necessary to wait for the world war?
    It is known that habitability conditions in our tanks are much worse than in "imported" ones. But after all, one had to know and understand that this had a negative effect on combat effectiveness.
    And if the outside temperature is +40 ... 45 degrees, then what? Air conditioners should be. And ventilation. And not only. And the dimensions of the compartments should be comfortable, first of all, for combat work.
    1. -1
      28 October 2022 10: 42
      Quote: iouris
      It is known that habitability conditions in our tanks are much worse than in "imported" ones. But after all, one had to know and understand that this affects the combat effectiveness negatively .........
      .............Yes, and the dimensions of the compartments should be comfortable, primarily for combat work.
      Can you prove your claims?
      The Internet is full of photos of the internal space of our and foreign tanks - if it's not difficult, compare a few to confirm your words.
  10. Two
    0
    28 October 2022 14: 54
    hi Another baloney! Akin to wiping your butt towards your nose, or towards your spine. The result is one ... Radioactive dust! The author is not aware that tanks equipped with FVU are not dust from the street, or all his tanks ride with open hatches.
    1. 0
      29 October 2022 05: 21
      FVU is not dust from the street, or all his tanks ride with open hatches.


      Of course, I don’t know, since I indicated doses with different powers of fvu. laughing
  11. 0
    28 October 2022 15: 05
    . Without the ejector it would be a hundred times worse. What possibly sucks is a minuscule amount of what it would be without him. The only useful conclusion is that there are no 100% effective mechanisms.
  12. 0
    10 December 2022 02: 01
    You need to be taken to the Nizhny Tagil Design Bureau. As a funny grandmother.
  13. Qas
    0
    11 December 2022 03: 54
    Another couch analyst wrote an article. What makes you think that the operation of the supercharger (FBU) is not enough? Were you even in the turret of the tank at the time of the shot?
    What kind of experiment was carried out, on the basis of which you draw such conclusions? By whom, when, under what conditions, for what purpose?
    Bring at least one real complaint from tankers about the gas content of the reserved space during the shot!
    Engineers and designers have been honing and calculating these mechanisms for years, and then one shit analyst revealed the whole truth to us!
  14. +1
    14 December 2022 21: 36
    Edik does not know the materiel. The shutter opens when rolling, and gases enter the tower when the ejector is faulty - there is no ball, the nozzles are clogged with grease, etc. and the supercharger only improves the performance of the ejector. I shot in series of 10-15 shots (the T-64 has such a 7 second shot mode) no gas contamination.
  15. 0
    31 March 2023 12: 02
    Hi, what happened with active protection tank system Arena? We dont see it on Russian army tanks in SMO area. It would be useful when use group of tank in open fields without infantry.