Sometimes they hit right through: shelling of the T-54 with cumulative shells from “Gvozdika”, “Malyutka” and the T-72 tank

We have previously wrote about what they can do with a tank, which does not have combined armor and dynamic protection, anti-tank missiles of the Fagot and Konkurs complexes, as well as cumulative shells of the Akatsiya self-propelled gun. Now it’s the turn to tell and show what terrible consequences for the T-54/55 tank occur when meeting with 122-mm cumulative ammunition “Gvozdika”, “Malyutka” missiles and 125-mm finned “cumulative” guns of the T-72 gun.

The source of information, as before, is the Hungarian report on shelling tests of the tank, which was planned to be used as training material for military personnel.

The experimental conditions are unchanged: to eliminate dangerous situations associated with the detonation of explosives and fires, training inert ammunition is used in the tank's ammunition racks, and water is filled in instead of fuel. At the same time, to simulate the impact of damaging factors on the crew, wooden simulators dressed in standard uniforms were installed in the tankers’ places.

Anti-tank missile system "Malyutka" with a 9M14P1 missile

Localization of 9M14P1 missile hits on the T-54/55 tank

A 9M14P1 missile, which has armor penetration of 520 mm along the normal line, hits the upper frontal part of the hull of the T-54/55 tank directly at the base of the towing hook on the driver’s side. The cumulative jet pierced the frontal armor, passed through the driver simulator and, having broken through the partition of the engine-transmission compartment, stopped only in the engine cylinder head. The driver, as well as the commander and gunner, would have been seriously injured. Only the loader could be guaranteed to survive such a hit.

A 9M14P1 rocket hit the right cheekbone of the tank's turret, just to the left of the machine-gun embrasure. The cumulative jet, having pierced the frontal armor, damaged the machine gun mount, radio station, as well as the ammunition rack in the rear of the turret, coming out. If the ammunition rack contained not training shots, but combat shots, everything would have ended in detonation or fire. But even without them, the loader would most likely have been killed, and the other two turrets would have been seriously injured. In the photo on the left is the exit hole from the cumulative jet at the rear of the turret, and on the right is the damaged ammunition rack

Self-propelled artillery mount 2S1 "Gvozdika" with a cumulative 122-mm projectile 3VBK-9

Localization of hits from Gvozdika shells on a tank

A Gvozdika shell hits the left fender of a tank. Both it and pieces of the caterpillar were torn out, but the tank retained its mobility. The crew of the car is intact

A 122-mm shell hit the left front part of the turret. The tower has been torn off its shoulder strap. The cumulative jet, having penetrated the frontal armor, conditionally killed the gunner and commander of the tank, wounded the loader, damaged the gun breech and radio station, hitting the vehicle's ammunition rack. In combat conditions, this would lead to detonation or fire of the ammunition. But even if there were no live shots in it, the tank needed major repairs in the factory

A Gvozdika shell hit the right side of the T-54/55 turret. The cumulative jet pierced the armor, passed through the loader simulator (conditionally killed) and hit the breech of the gun. The tank was completely disabled: both the gun jammed and its breech was broken

A Gvozdika shell hit the right side of the tank. It exploded so hard that it smashed the fender and tore out the fuel tanks on it. The caterpillar is torn, the road wheel is damaged. The cumulative jet pierced the side armor and entered the fighting compartment. The crew would remain alive, but the tank was immobilized

A Gvozdika shell hits the rear of a T-54/55 turret. The cumulative jet, having pierced the armor, stopped at the breech of the gun, which was torn from its mounts and shifted forward a few centimeters. Of the crew, only the driver could be guaranteed to survive without injury. If there are live shots in the turret ammo rack - detonation or fire with the complete destruction of the tank. By the way, the force of the shell explosion deformed the roof of the engine compartment

A Gvozdika shell hits the rear armor plate of a tank hull. Having pierced the armor, the cumulative jet tore apart the radiator of the engine cooling system (on the right in the photo) and penetrated into the fighting compartment. All the tankers in the turret would have been injured. The tank is immobilized and requires serious repairs

T-72 tank with a 125-mm cumulative 3BK-14M ​​projectile

Localization of hits from 125-mm cumulative shells from the T-72 tank on the T-54/55 tank

A cumulative 125-mm projectile hits the upper frontal part of the T-54/55 hull. The cumulative jet pierced the frontal armor, hit the tank rack with ammunition and fuel, stopping in the turret pursuit. In such a situation, the loader was conditionally killed, and the gunner and commander could have escaped with injuries or not suffered at all. However, the presence of live rounds in the tank-rack would be guaranteed to lead to the destruction of both the tank and the crew as a whole

A T-72 cumulative projectile hits the left frontal part of the T-54/55 turret near the gunner's optical sight embrasure. The sight was destroyed and torn from its mounts. The cumulative jet, having pierced the armor, conventionally killed the commander and gunner, reaching the turret ammunition rack and exiting through the rear armor of the turret (the image of the exit hole is at the top right of the attached photo). If there were live rounds in the ammunition rack, the tank would have been destroyed. Without them - a long repair

A 125-mm cumulative projectile hits the lower frontal part of the hull almost in the middle. The cumulative jet, having pierced the armor, passed through the fighting compartment, pierced the partition of the engine-transmission compartment and stopped in the engine. A tank, if it had fuel and live rounds in its ammunition racks, would be doomed to destruction from fire or detonation of explosives in shells

And again we can summarize: the test results clearly showed that the steel armor of tanks, the relevance of which remained for 10-20 years after the Second World War, does not give any hope for protection against cumulative ammunition, even when fired head-on. Therefore, all that can be counted on in this case is a “successful” hit by the projectile, when the cumulative jet does not affect the crew and dangerous equipment of the vehicle. That is, by pure chance.

So, when using the “oldies” T-54/55 in current military conflicts, this feature must be taken into account in full, therefore they cannot be used for their intended purpose. Only and exclusively for firing from closed firing positions and as a base for various field modifications with the installation of automatic guns, etc., operating where the likelihood of receiving a powerful penetrating projectile against armor is minimal.

The source of information:
Partial translation of a four part article series titled "Kísérleti lövészet T54-es harckocsikra 1989-ben, a "0" ponti gyakorlótéren" published in the Hungarian military's Haditechnika magazine, written by Colonel István Ocskay of the Hungarian MoD Defense Technology Research Center (ORCID : 0000-0003-0279-8215).

Comments

[Ross xnumx]

So when using "oldies" T-54 / 55 in current military conflicts this feature must be taken into account in full, therefore they cannot be used for their intended purpose.

It's really simple:

 Show / Hide text

We also have a saying:
The old horse doesn’t spoil the furrows, but it doesn’t plow deep either...
* * *
At the very beginning of the SVO, I was shocked by the reports that the DPR militias used Mosin rifles as sniper weapons... Much worse...

[Sergei_Bely]

The militia did not use Mosinki as a sniper weapon. They stood at checkpoints with mosquito boots and no sights.
Then they would have PPSh from the Soledar storage facilities!

[Petrov-Alexander_1Sergeevich]

The militia did not use Mosinki as a sniper weapon. They are at checkpoints with mosquitoes without sights stood.

Alas, no, and they not only stood, but also patrolled.

[Viktor Sergeev]

What does a mosquito without a sight mean, how is it?

[Petrov-Alexander_1Sergeevich]

At the very beginning of the SVO, I was shocked by the reports that the DPR militias used Mosin rifles as sniper weapons...Where even worse...

Well, they were relatively new, in the sense that they were not from tsarist times from a museum, so as a low-end sniper she was not so bad.

[garri-lin]

Very different things. The Mosinka, if it was chosen for accuracy and correctly “brought to battle,” is quite a working weapon. Marksman boltovik. Range and lethality are quite at the level.
But an ancient tank is nothing more than an ancient tank.

[Escariot]

Quote: garri-lin

Very different things. The Mosinka, if it was chosen for accuracy and correctly “brought to battle,” is quite a working weapon. Marksman boltovik. Range and lethality are quite at the level.
But an ancient tank is nothing more than an ancient tank.

Of course, you can choose according to accuracy, but you can’t take the technology of the 30s anywhere. And as a sniper cartridge, the 7.62x54R is clearly outdated. Of course, in the absence of fish, cancer is a fish, but everything is quite sad.

[solar]

You can’t take the technology of the 30s anywhere

Structurally, the Mosin bolt rifle has no fundamental differences with the modern one. The store is perhaps archaic, but even at that time it was already like that. Otherwise, it’s quite a weapon for a Marxman. SVD, by the way, is chambered for the same cartridge.

[_KM_]

This is wrong. There are a lot of differences. This includes the mounting of the sight, stock and butt, not to mention the ergonomics and manufacture of the barrel.

To put it quite simply, the wooden linings on the barrel change the geometry of the barrel when the humidity changes and the accuracy goes away. The barrel design, length and shape, as well as archaic ergonomics, do not contribute to accuracy.

[solar]

Yes it is. But all this is more important for a sniper than for a Marksman. Well, perhaps, except for the shape of the neck of the stock, made more likely for bayonet fighting.

[Alexey RA]

Quote from Escariot

And as a sniper cartridge, the 7.62x54R is clearly outdated.

And these are not snipers. Like a mosquito, the SVD is a DMR for infantry riflemen with a firing range of 300-800 m.
Snipers have their own rattles of non-standard calibers.

[Petrov-Alexander_1Sergeevich]

You won't believe it, but...

In June 2019, at the Army-2019 exhibition, a modernized version of the Mosin and SV-98 rifles with a new stock was presented. According to the developers, the modern model has a shooting accuracy that is one and a half times higher than that of conventional weapons. The new body kit allows the use of various sighting devices.

carbines are in service with departmental security, paramilitary and guard units of private security of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation and the Federal State Unitary Enterprise "Security" of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Petrov-Alexander_1Sergeevich

You won't believe it, but...

And this is our favorite vinaigrette. When both an individual sniper and a mass platoon marksman are put into the same category. As a result of this terminological confusion, either the SVD becomes a true sniper, or they want to give bolt guns to accurate shooters.
Everything under 7,62x54R is a marksman's rifle. Primarily due to the gross cartridge (there are very few sniper options).
And sniper rifles are like all sorts of Lapuas and other cunningly twisted horrors for suppliers.

[garri-lin]

The trunks there are quite up to par. And the sniper cartridge is quite suitable for shooting at typical targets.
In open areas it is better than Kalash. The range is higher.

[Serg koma]

Quote from Escariot

Of course, you can choose according to accuracy, but you can’t take the technology of the 30s anywhere. And as a sniper cartridge, the 7.62x54R is clearly outdated. Of course, in the absence of fish, cancer is a fish, but everything is quite sad.

It’s interesting, if Zaitsev was able to kill more than two hundred Krauts from an “archaic” rifle from October 10 to December 17, 1942, how many dill were destroyed by the best sniper of the Russian Armed Forces from a modern rifle equipped with the latest technology with all computer systems during the SVO? We would probably already know the name of the hero if his score was even half as close to Zaitsev’s.

[stankow]

The man said “Marxman,” that is, infantry sniper in Russian. Sniper is a little different. But there are also good batches for them 7.62x54R

[Alexey RA]

Quote: garri-lin

Very different things. The Mosinka, if it was chosen for accuracy and correctly “brought to battle,” is quite a working weapon. Marksman boltovik.

The problem is that these DMRs were not distributed to trained infantry riflemen, but to ordinary line infantry.
And this is despite the fact that the native Ministry of Defense has such a number of AKs in its warehouses that several years ago they even stopped purchasing them due to the complete filling of the mobile stock.

[Petrov-Alexander_1Sergeevich]

And this is despite the presence of such a number of AKs in the warehouses of the native Ministry of Defense

This is of course without comment, I completely agree here.

[Monster_Fat]

Only exclusively for shooting from closed firing positions...

An excellent use, considering the wretchedness of the sighting devices for indirect fire that are installed on these tanks - they are at the level of the First World War. And this is the XNUMXst century... But it doesn’t matter, right? As they say: “God forbid that it’s not good for us,” there’s still nothing else and there won’t be any soon...

[garri-lin]

An ordinary line infantryman with a Mosinka instead of a Kalash, with proper instructions, this plus 150 meters of effective fire range and higher penetration of armor. On flat terrain this is an advantage. And you can learn to work with primitive optics in a couple of lessons.

[Ghost1]

Stop putting an owl on the globe, efficiency is the rate of fire, especially for an infantryman who is going on the attack or defense. The Mosinka was relevant when the enemy also had the same “quick-firing” rifles.

[garri-lin]

You are very deeply mistaken. Back in the 90s, I was taught not to burn cartridges but to hit the target. They were taught by those who managed to fight after the collapse of the union. And now, where they teach and do not pretend, they teach to shoot to kill and not just towards the target.

[Sobol]

Quote: Ghost1

...effectiveness is rate of fire...

Rave. Firing efficiency is the number of hits on a target per unit of time. You can fire a carload of cartridges at a target and get one hit, or you can shoot once, with the same effect. In which case is the efficiency higher?

[Santa Fe]

You can learn to work with primitive optics in a couple of lessons.

Who will train DPR residents, who needs it

[Saburov_Alexander53]

At the very beginning of the SVO, I was shocked by the reports that the DPR militias used Mosin rifles as sniper weapons...
The key word here is “at the very beginning...” I can imagine that even much longer. All the same, a sniper weapon is not a Kalashnikov assault rifle, but a piece weapon. If such a rifle had been issued not to the DPR militia, but to our contract sniper, then there would have been something to talk about. and as it turned out with the beginning of the Northern Military District, many more sniper rifles were required than any military strategist could have imagined. Who would have thought that the war would become a trench war, where the role of a sniper is equal to that of a quadcopter.

[Viktor Sergeev]

A sniper rifle made on the basis of a three-line rifle (only specially selected) is no worse, or even better, than almost any modern sniper rifle, high accuracy, a lethal cartridge, the main thing is good optics. The disadvantage is the difficulty of loading, but for a sniper this is not so significant.

[_KM_]

What's better? I have already explained which is worse. Already during the creation of the rifle and its front-line testing during the Great Patriotic War, it was clear that this was a palliative.

[Yellow bubble]

A mosquito will blow your brains out at a distance of 1 km, a sniper knows their job, they know the thing is dangerous, you laugh early
.

[alexoff]

Are there similar studies on Leopard-1?

[Stas157]

Quote from alexoff

Are there similar studies on Leopard-1?

The T-54 crew doesn't care about this research. And I wish the same for you - to get into the crew of the T-54 (55). You will reassure yourself, they say, it won’t be easier for stealing!

[alexoff]

Does this research make the T-54 crew feel any better?

[AdAstra]

What do you need such research for? They are not in our arsenal and the fact is that in this regard it is better or worse than deep purple.

[alexoff]

They are in service with our enemies, don't we plan to hit them in the same way?

[Gassdrybal]

Show the shelling of the most modern tank, T-54\55 53-br-412d ammunition, on the course 60gr (so that it is not directly on the side), with crew simulators.

[Petrov-Alexander_1Sergeevich]

Quote: Gassdrybal

Show the shelling of the most modern tank, T-54\55 53-br-412d ammunition, on the course 60gr (so that it is not directly on the side), with crew simulators.

Not exactly what you asked for, but it gives the idea:
Tests of remote sensing device "Contact-1". Part. 2.4. Generalized results of shelling tests on T-64B, T-80B tanks,


The armored parts of the frontal projection of the tanks (heading angles, turrets +35°, hulls - 0°) were not penetrated when hit by 125-mm cumulative shells 3BK14M and when warheads 9N132 (Shturm-S) and 9N124M (Cobra guided projectile) exploded.
The armored parts of the side projection of the tank hull were not penetrated when hit by 125-mm 3BK14M cumulative shells at heading angles of 35°, and when 9N132 warheads exploded - 22°. Projectile hits (explosions of ATGM warheads) in the turret in 3 out of 5 cases led to a decrease in the technical combat capability of tanks due to a decrease in fire capabilities (damage to the night sight illuminator and the antenna of the Cobra complex) and mobility (reduction in power reserve after destruction of external fuel tanks in 4 cases).

[Vadim S]

Such shelling is carried out on all our equipment, without exception! I've been to them myself. They fire with all types of ammunition and with everything that shoots. The survivability is assessed, what fails faster, and so on, and based on this, something is modified. And there is nothing to be surprised about, the communal flow that was 60 years ago and now has not changed at all)))

[George Sviridov]

The conclusions are correct, but the T-55 (everyone writes T-54, but very few of them were actually produced, about 1500 in the first series, in the end they were either sent for scrap or to a museum, if they are somewhere on the move, then these are clearly single tanks, but the T-55 was produced until the end of the 70s and riveted a lot), still more protected than the Rapier, although, in my opinion, both them and the rapiers should be left at most for museums and maybe a small park in specialized universities for review and training of cadets, and the rest, everything that is in good condition, can be sold for a symbolic price to friendly states, what could not be sold - donated to poor Africans and the Wagner PMCs that work there. There these are still relevant units.
And everything that is in poor condition should be taken to the second death center and not suffer.

[Revolver]

Quote: Georgy Sviridov

the rest, everything that is in good condition, should be sold for a symbolic price to friendly states; what could not be sold, should be donated to the poor Africans and the Wagner PMCs that work there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IDF_Achzarit

Jews, as always, are more economical. But such would be useful for the RF Armed Forces in the current the war NWO.

[Santa Fe]

But such RF Armed Forces would be useful in the current war of the Northern Military District.

They weigh 45 tons, why are they needed?
Akhzarit consumes fuel like 5 infantry fighting vehicles

[Mavrikiy]

jammed both the gun and broke her breech

In the army there is no word Broken, there is a word Destroyed.

[stankow]

These words are not army words, but from the training ground protocol gunsmith specialists. In the army, of course, they speak simpler.

[rotmistr60]

Quote: Georgy Sviridov

And everything that is in poor condition should be taken to the second death center and not suffer.

Why not use burying a tank up the turret or driving it into a caponier as firing points in defense? At one time, old tanks: T-34, IS-2, and later T-10 were used in fortified areas as artillery firing points.

[Andrew A.]

It is possible, but before the first hit from an ATGM on a stationary turret.

[Alexey RA]

Quote from Andreich A.

It is possible, but before the first hit from an ATGM on a stationary turret.

Yes, there is no need for an ATGM there. A stationary target dramatically expands the range of possible weapons for its destruction - it immediately becomes possible to use corrected (non-guided) projectiles and missiles (with correction from the SNS).

[Petrov-Alexander_1Sergeevich]

There are enough grenades in an open hatch from a Mavik

[stankow]

Yeah, but try it, try it, on a dug-in tank, only two spans of metal sticking out from it. And keep in mind that after the first shot he definitely answer. And everything in front of him, the crew had been shooting at every bush and every hummock for years during exercises. So you came to his field to arrange shootings

[AdAstra]

And also drones, which they also have.

[Monster_Fat]

Why not use burying a tank up the turret or driving it into a caponier as firing points in defense?

With respect, Do you understand that the war of the 20s of the 10st century is different from the First World War and the Second World War? Now, after several shots, the system that fired these shots is detected with an accuracy of +- 25-XNUMX meters and all enemy weapons that are within reach are processed using it? There is a very good film “Hell's Finest” - it is clearly shown there for “armchair” experts and those who served in the XNUMXth century using the “old” rules of application....

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Monster_Fat

With respect, Do you understand that the war of the 20s of the 10st century is different from the First World War and the Second World War? Now, after several shots, the system that fired these shots is detected with an accuracy of +- 25-XNUMX meters and all enemy weapons that are within reach are processed using it?

There is one subtlety here... the most accurate means of detecting OP - radar - do not work well against guns with a high initial speed, firing at a range of about 6-8 km. The reason is simple - low altitudes at the radar are either obscured by natural obstacles or illuminated by reflections. The SDC is also not particularly helpful here - when it is turned on, there is a chance of missing shells and mines with a steeply ascending trajectory (for which the horizontal component of speed is small).
As a result, when shooting on flat trajectories, there is a chance to slip over the edge of the working radar pattern or even under the edge. Actually, they wrote about this when they explained why NMs love the MT-12 so much as a fire support weapon.

[stankow]

The most accurate means of reconnaissance for coordinating targets are optical. The radar is one of the worst. Only acoustic reconnaissance means are more inaccurate.

[George Sviridov]

Well, where do you want to install them?
Maybe this makes sense in specific places, during the war, although even now I would bury 64s, which we actually cannot repair, but at the same time they are quite modern, with a powerful gun.

[BAI]

Yes, it seems obvious that old tanks are used as self-propelled guns

[Maks1995]

I saw a video on YouTube about 4-5 years ago that modern armor-piercing old guns and smaller ones penetrate the original 54-kilometre side armor.
56 mm like,

[Kostadinov]

And again we can summarize: the test results clearly showed that the steel armor of tanks, the relevance of which remained for 10-20 years after the Second World War, does not give any hope for protection against cumulative ammunition, even when fired head-on.

Who wants to use the T-54/55 on the front line? By the way, this also applies to modern tanks themselves.
From closed positions, a 100 mm rifled gun is better (rate of fire and accuracy is higher) than a 125 mm smooth-mounted gun, and armor is already losing its importance. In a duel situation at 6-10 km, the T-54/55 will have a better chance of being the first to hit the enemy’s horizontal armor than other tanks.
If you still need a correct comparison, then the T-55 has modifications with additional armor and modern ammunition, both sub-caliber and guided.

[Doctor]

Conclusion - "Merkava". Engine forward, turret without crew, KAZ. At least some chance.

[Petrov-Alexander_1Sergeevich]

To dupa merkava and all its fans from KB

[George Sviridov]

The engine forward is very good in asymmetrical wars and police operations - the tank is up, the crew is alive, colleagues will rescue and tow.
In major wars, it is the other way around. If there is a hole, but the engine is intact, then the crew, perhaps with losses, injuries, shell-shocked, but has a chance to get away. If the engine stops, then the car and crew are doomed. The enemy will finish them off.

[stankow]

And no chance of sales... Which manufacturer needs such a tank?
....................

[air wolf]

This says that people were never valued, it was always necessary to preserve the equipment and the engine, only the Jews in Merkava implemented the right solution, a front-engine installation, on the 1,2 BMP and on the new BTR-82 is also not bad, but combined Armor is needed.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: air wolf

This says that people were never valued, it was always necessary to preserve the equipment and the engine, only the Jews in Merkava implemented the right solution, front-engine installation

That is, the NATO countries did not feel sorry for their citizens?
The front-engine layout immediately raises the question - how to organize access to the engine? This BMP is good with its elite cardboard, but what if the engine is hidden under the most protected part of the tank - a thick combined VLD? Are we going to weaken the front sheet, making it composite - part can be folded back, part can be removed?

And secondly, if you put the engine in front, it only means that the crew will be killed not by the first or second, but by the third or fourth shot. Because they will nail the tank (immobile) until it starts to burn.

[air wolf]

This says that people were never valued, it was always necessary to preserve the equipment and the engine, only the Jews in Merkava implemented the right solution, a front-engine installation, on the 1,2 BMP and on the new BTR-82 is also not bad, but combined Armor is needed.

[bushmaster]

the new BTR-82 is rubbish, this same little guy will blow it right through, killing a bunch of people

[_KM_]

It's a delusion. The front-engine layout is good for light vehicles. For severe cases, it is the source of many problems. As already written, this is access to mechanical equipment, an increase in height and weight.

[bone1]

Nothing is clear - the author refers to an English-language source - did they carry out these tests themselves or did we bring them? And what is the point of the tests - isn’t it clear that a cumulative warhead with a penetration of 500-700mm will penetrate 54k anywhere - guaranteed? - and then, for some reason, they shot at the sides and stern?

[Mustached Kok]

So when using the “oldies” T-54/55 in current military conflicts, this feature should be taken into account in full

This is how you gently rounded off the truth that.... DON'T USE ANCIENT TANKS IN A MODERN CONFLICT!!!
The same British in WWII, despite heavy losses in 41, for some reason understood that their Mark IV tanks would not help the soldiers and did not take them out of museums onto the battlefield.
And how much boasting there was at the beginning that “the equipment is certainly old, but it is more suitable for the current military operations!” Which one is “suitable”??? It does not provide adequate protection against even old shells and missiles!!!!
The firing capabilities are also questionable, the guns are old, the sighting systems are old, the guidance systems are old, and only in relation to shells are they usually citing age as praise

[Dart]

I saw this article here, or on the Hansa a long time ago....I remember it right from the text with the photos...

[tchoni]

I once read about comparative tests of the weapons of BMP 1 and BMP 2.. So, after several hits (with penetration) from the BMP 1 T-55 cannon, loaded with ammunition, filled to capacity... It started up and left the line under its own power.. Why am I saying this... Exactly to the fact that breaking through is not a death sentence. If there is nothing special to explode in the tank itself, the tank, as a rule, leaves the battle under its own power. About hits in the ammunition rack. The T-55 is cartridge-loaded. And this greatly increases its survivability in terms of fires and detonations. If in a caseless ammo rack a charge hits (and it’s not even always necessary for the jet to pass through it. Often hot splashes or fragments are enough) - it’s a death sentence for the entire tank, since one without a case caught fire - the rest immediately begin to burn, then with a cased one charging everything is much “safer”. Firstly, even when the cartridge case is penetrated by a cumulative jet (namely a jet. Hot sprays are no longer enough here. Already a profit), its depressurization occurs, which, as a rule, eliminates the conditions necessary for detonation.. Simply put, burning gunpowder scatters throughout the internal volume. Very unpleasant.. Sometimes fatal.. But it cannot be compared with the ignition of the entire ammunition load at once... When a jet hits an armor-piercing blank... As a rule, nothing bad happens either. The only danger is getting into a HE shell.. Because it contains natural explosives, prone to detonation, and not gunpowder, prone to burning.. Perhaps, precisely for the above reason, T-55 and T-62.... They are actively used on the front end.. .. And, according to unverified data (from the words of one comrade), the shells of the first are quite good against bourgeois armored personnel carriers .. Because the heavy blank, flying behind the armor, hurts there much more than the crowbar of a T-72 or a godfather.
Py. Sy. By the way.. The armor of the same Bradley is just a little more than simple aluminum.. In terms of the steel equivalent, it is even slightly inferior to that of the T-55.. However, this does not stop Ukrainians from climbing on Bradleys covered with dynamic protection where they wander in tanks afraid.

[stankow]

Everything is correct, only one thing - gunpowder, whether in cartridges, caps, or sealed cartridges, does not detonate. Only VV OFS and KS can do this. With tower ejection. Gunpowder produces a huge stream of yellow gases from all hatches and crevices. But not by exploding. And even after this, some of the crew jump out in smoking overalls, but alive!

[Dmitrii]

The article is nonsense, well, show me what a land mine does with an infantry fighting vehicle or armored personnel carrier. Even an old tank is better protected compared to an LBT. The crew of the advancing infantry fighting vehicle, in this logic, are then generally suicide bombers. What about drivers of regular army trucks? How do they feel? Deliver BC to the front. Gentlemen, journalists sometimes write such nonsense...

[tchoni]

And the crews of our infantry fighting vehicles are already suicide bombers.. That’s why they were removed from the line of contact... That’s why they sing differamba to the streshka.. It can work from closed positions.. At least it’s of some use.. As a self-propelled mortar, it’s quite good

[Yellow bubble]

The Mosinka is a very powerful and accurate rifle for any tank without mounted target protection.