Video of Abrams tank ammo rack testing

It is no secret that the one posted in tank Ammunition is an object of increased danger, the defeat of which by shell fragments, a cumulative jet or fire of burning fuel can lead to the death of the crew and the destruction of the entire tank. Therefore, preventing such situations is far from a secondary and insignificant problem, but it is quite difficult to solve.

It is difficult in the sense that the ammunition stowage inside the inhabited compartments of the combat vehicle is practically impossible to protect. Neither additional screening, which, according to calculations by Soviet engineers, slightly reduces the probability of damage to the ammunition by cumulative jets and by a maximum of 30% from sub-caliber shells, which is also not enough, helps. Nor does the so-called "wet ammunition stowage", which was actively used on British tanks.

The latter, by the way, can generally contribute to the destruction of a tank, since when a cumulative jet and fragments of sub-caliber shells hit at a speed of more than 800 m/s, the powder charges stored in isolated containers have time to ignite, and the massive shell of these same containers will play the effect of a closed chamber, increasing the intensity of combustion.

One of the few ways out of this situation is to completely isolate the ammunition from the tank's crew compartments - either in the hull or in the turret - and equip these compartments with blowout panels. Even according to the most modest estimates of Soviet (not Western) tank builders, this approach can reduce the irreparable losses of tanks by 5-7 times and ensure the survival of the crews.

Unfortunately, in domestic tank building this idea was never implemented in serial production, but for the Americans with their Abrams, on the contrary, it became the basis of the foundations.

Of course, today there is a lot of talk about the fact that the turret ammunition of these tanks is vulnerable to drones (drones are a common problem for all tanks), and there is no desire to advertise this overseas product. However, it is simply pointless to deny the fact that such a layout significantly increases the crew's chances of survival.

The isolated rear niche of the turret and the compartment for 6 rounds in the hull of the vehicle really protect tankers from flammable powder charges and detonating shells. This is confirmed not only by reports after relevant experiments and instructions calling on tankers to be inside the tank when the ammunition is burning, but also by a video of the tests.

Combustion of propellant charges in the tank's hull ammunition stowage and the operation of the blowout panels

Ignition of the tank's turret ammunition stowage with a cumulative charge. Inside: 22 shots with sub-caliber shells and 10 shots with cumulative

Testing the wedge seal of the "armor curtains". In addition to the combustion of powder charges, detonation of cumulative shells occurs

Comments

[Dutchman Michel]

Where is the video itself?
------

[Stardock]

The best video is shown by our soldiers near Prokopyevsk.
The exceptional color, sound and even smell of burning Abrams.
Immersed reality.

[Sergei N 58912062]

Quote: Dutchman Michel

Where is the video itself?
------

There are 3 videos in the article!!! Open your eyes!!!!

[Dutchman Michel]

Quote: Sergei N 58912062

Open your eyes!!!!

Having brains in your head is not your strong point!

[Nesvoy]

The author should also explain the absence of full-fledged high-explosive shells in the Abrams's BC. Yes, their presence would change the effectiveness of the blowout panels, but not as critically as the main audience thinks. For many, it will probably be a revelation that high-explosive shells detonate extremely rarely, and in their majority, it is the gunpowder (they are also propellant charges) that explodes, which leads to the turret being torn off.

[Stardock]

Quote: Uralvagonzavod (Nizhny Tagil, part of the UVZ concern of the Rostec state corporation) is looking for 77 workers, that is how many vacancies the enterprise has published in a month. The salary there reaches 330 thousand rubles. Information about this is posted on the website hh.ru.
Crane operators are ready to be paid up to 60 thousand rubles for a 29/330 shift.

CNC machine operators are promised a salary of 150 thousand rubles. Mandatory work experience of at least one year. Gear cutters can earn from 124 thousand rubles, candidates are offered two options for shift work: 60/30, 30/15.
On my own behalf. The plant is looking for workers. So, obviously, our army requires more and more new tanks. This is about the survivability of our machines.
And we read constant ridicule and mockery of the equipment used by the Ukrainian Armed Forces.
Maybe it would be better to talk objectively more often about the vulnerable spots of enemy equipment? And without feuilletons. There is little funny here.

[BARKAS]

It’s hard to believe that some 77 workers are nothing for such a large plant, not even enough to cover the usual staff turnover and replace pensioners.

[loha]

is this 60 days of 12 hours and 29 at home? 330 for three 110 thousand, per month and this with the prefix "before" and it will also turn out that before taxes

[Stardock]

Salary is always indicated as accrued, before taxes are deducted. This is accepted everywhere.

[Dedok]

So everywhere accepted.

"gentlemen are taken at their word"...

[Zoer]

Quote: Stardock

The plant is looking for workers. So, obviously, our army requires more and more new tanks. This is about the survivability of our machines.

This is about the intensity of combat operations. And their success/failure. I remember that during the Kharkov regrouping, a T-90 was lost in one piece, just one track came off, and there was no time to repair it. The vaunted Western models also burn quite well. And considering the price of even 10 FPV drones with a PG-7 grenade, and comparing the price of Abrams, Leo and T90, I am not sure that this score is in favor of Western models. In this conflict, the survivability of the crews is more important. But then again, with modern tactics with drones, when tanks are almost never destroyed with the first hit, and the crews manage to leave the vehicle, then there are no obvious advantages here either.

Quote: Stardock

And we read constant ridicule and mockery of the equipment used by the Ukrainian Armed Forces.

I didn't see any mockery. Maybe about the Challengers. But they're nowhere to be seen on the battlefield.
And so, it just turned out that NATO tanks are not as invincible as many people said/thought about them.

[Stardock]

It would be very interesting to know about the survivability of tanks.
Statistics of hits, how much ammunition is required for, limitations of tank capabilities,
Limitations in firing, mobility, response, protection systems, armor penetration, fire hazard, detonation, ammo, further maintainability, etc.
It is clear that all military experts in the world are now collecting these statistics.
It's a pity about the T 90. It costs 500 million rubles.

[Zoer]

Quote: Stardock

It's a pity about the T 90. It costs 500 million rubles.

The cost of Abrams or Leopard is 1,5-2 times higher.

[Stardock]

Of course, Abrams are more expensive. Labor costs there are many times higher.

[Zoer]

Quote: Stardock

Of course, Abrams are more expensive. Labor costs there are many times higher.

Yeah, and the fact that it simply weighs 1,5 times more, that's like nothing at all? And probably because of the high value of the hands there, the BOPS is made of depleted uranium, while ours is made of tungsten alloy.

[English tarantas]

I didn't see any ridicule.

Russia24, turn on. Regular supplier of pearls. Last week I heard how the mirror of the laser barrel bending sensor on the damaged Abrams, having been filmed in close-up, was called a collimator sight on the gun, which "didn't help him".

Maybe about Challengers?

It was very offensive, by the way.

But they are no longer visible on the battlefield.

Still, the tank is outdated, very much so. The armor is not so great for our time, the chassis is so-so, the operational ones are really bad, there are problems with the ammunition, with the HE shells, with the propellant charges, with the availability of shells in general and the components. Too much trouble from the tank, which de facto makes it impossible to operate in practice, and the performance characteristics do not compensate. It was killed not so much by its bottom, as by the wretchedness of the British tank industry, the tank requires unique shells and spare parts, which no one can supply. Having suffered losses, they were simply withdrawn so as not to bother the head.

[Zoer]

Quote: English tarantass

Russia24 turn on. Regular supplier of pearls.

Why not Skabeeva and Solovyova at once? Do you take our state channels seriously?

Quote: English tarantass

It was very offensive, by the way.

Who?

[English tarantas]

Why not Skabeeva and Solovyova at once?

Those are the specialists in the abstract. I was talking about the ordinary war correspondents, whose job it is to show the real facts. But the level of knowledge and competence has been very depressing lately, sometimes they blurt out something that makes your head spin.

Who?

It was personal. When you are like a tank and only get insulted, it is very hard.

[Workyaga]

live at the factory 60/30... have a wedding, raise children, take the kids to the factory kindergarten... What is the money for then - to be rich in the factory canteen? that's what is required... this is what scares... and there are strong doubts that this money will be paid, because everything depends on the plan and shop indicators, which the worker cannot influence in any way.

[English tarantas]

Information about this is posted on the website hh.ru

That's the only place where the conversation could end. There are regularly non-existent vacancies there, to attract attention, you call about one, they tell you "sorry, it's already closed, but we can offer you this one." Plus, one vacancy can be duplicated. They will write different salaries, otherwise, suddenly someone will agree to less, they will write different schedules, because you can agree on different ones, but there is one vacancy, and two ads.

From myself. The plant is looking for workers. So

It doesn't mean anything. Nowadays, everyone is constantly looking for someone. Yes, with the beginning of the SVO, there were a lot of announcements about recruiting workers for defense enterprises, all the elevators, I remember, were taped over, but nothing has changed since then. Moreover, given the conditions you mentioned, I would also think twice about going. The salary is average, and you will definitely have to work a lot at such an enterprise.

Obviously, our army requires more and more new tanks.

UVZ not only makes new tanks. It makes components, repairs, and other equipment. Also, the production of a new tank does not mean the destruction of the old one, why can't the T-72 be replaced by the T-90M?

Salary is always indicated as accrued, before taxes are deducted. This is accepted everywhere.

On XX.ru? Yeah)

[hohol95]

Dear Edward!
What happens if the armored curtains are opened?
They write that in order to load the gun more quickly, the armored curtains are not closed every time after taking a shell from the stowage.
They took the shell, didn't close the armored curtains, received an enemy "greeting" in the stowage and...
What's going to happen?

[Nesvoy]

Who said they don't close them? Rumors from the Internet? Each shot in the rack has a limit switch and the door automatically closes after 2 seconds, after the projectile is removed.

[nightwolf1991]

One of the UVZ plant workers stated this on video. In addition, the tankers themselves mustache turn off the shutter closing system so that the next shell can be loaded immediately and without delay.

[hohol95]

So the limit switch is there.
In each projectile cell?

[Bad_gr]

Quote: hohol95

So the limit switch is there.
In each projectile cell?

On the armored door

[Bad_gr]

Quote from Nesvoy

Each shot in the stowage has a limit switch and the door automatically closes after 2 seconds after the projectile is removed.

In combat, when shells are often taken out, there is a chance of getting hit in the ammunition rack when the door is open. In my opinion, the location of the ammunition rack on our tanks at the very bottom of the tank has reduced the number of hits to the ammunition rack to a minimum.
In the photo, the shot was taken out, turned 180°, and the door is still open + the time when the shot was taken out

[Nesvoy]

Here is a video with one of your photos, the door closes itself as it should. And you don't need to invent anything.
https://youtu.be/Ml7He0QgONQ?si=KG0SIm7Bwxfoi2ij

[Bad_gr]

Quote from Nesvoy

Here is a video with one of your photos, the door closes itself as it should. And you don't need to invent anything.

I wrote

Quote: Bad_gr

In combat, when shells are taken out frequently, there is a chance of getting hit in the ammunition rack, when the door is open.

. And in your video, the door is open for some time.

[Illanatol]

Quote: Bad_gr

In combat, when shells are taken out frequently, there is a chance of getting hit in the ammunition rack when the door is open.

When shells are taken out often, the door is not always closed. And whether this door will save if it flies straight into the BC is a big question. Sometimes it can save, sometimes - not. It depends on what flies in and from what angle.

[English tarantas]

What happens if the armored curtains are opened?

Then Abrams will turn into absolutely any other tank.

They write that for faster loading of the gun, the armored curtains are not closed

Yes. But this is usually with fire from a standing position. In practice, such a rate of fire does not often happen. Considering the realities of the drones' FPV and the number of reconnaissance assets, it seems to me that these curtains are actually closed. There is nothing practically impossible about this.
But as for the question of who there and how follows the regulations and instructions. Well, it is also forbidden to point the machine gun at yourself and your fellow soldiers, but there are still plenty of accidents.

[Ghost1]

In general, is it visible that the Abrams was torn to shreds or the turret flew away?

[hohol95]

"The first and very resonant losses from guerrilla actions by American tank crews occurred on October 28, when a powerful remote-controlled landmine tore off the turret of an M1A2 SEP from the 4th Infantry Division near Baquba. Of the three crew members - the loader was missing, the mission was non-combat - one survived, having experienced clinical death several times. The survival of specialist Lance Giselman, who was left half-paralyzed, was a miracle, but perhaps an even greater miracle is that, according to Giselman himself, the tank with the torn-off turret was eventually repaired and returned to service by 2010."
https://tacticmedia.ru/articles/poteri-ekipazhey-tankov-abrams-v-irakskoy-voyne/

[Nesvoy]

This is a very well-known case. Only the Abrams was blown up by a very powerful land mine, the tank was thrown straight up, so much so that the turret simply flew off the ring. There was no detonation at all. By the way, the tank was repaired based on your link.

[hohol95]

The Israelis also thought that their Merkava-4 tank was invulnerable. But a landmine with the equivalent of 400 kg of TNT proved otherwise.
Each specific case must be considered very carefully.

[Nesvoy]

There is no point in even talking about land mines; no equipment can withstand them.

[hohol95]

It all depends on the parameters of the landmine itself.

[Petrovich2202]

Wow. 400 kg of TNT... The guys from Gaza decided to send Jewish chariots to Mars? Or split them into atoms?

[ln_ln]

There was no detonation at all. The tank, by the way, was repaired based on your link.

Exactly! If the car didn't burn out, it can be restored.

[Dead duck]

There are all sorts of cases.
I wonder why the paint didn't "bubble" from the high temperatures?

[Zoer]

Still, to be fair. And there are many well-known cases when first when hitting a domestic tank, the ammo detonated and the crew died? On the other hand, a video of an ATGM penetrating an Abrams turret, followed by a fire in it, a wagon and a cart.
But the most interesting thing is that in the modern conditions of using FPV drones with an old PG-7 grenade against tanks, all these defense systems have a very vague meaning. One drone immobilizes the vehicle, the crew in the overwhelming majority of cases survives and leaves the vehicle, whether Soviet or Western. And then both the vehicle itself and the crew are finished off, but separately.

[English tarantas]

Are there many known cases when the first hit on a domestic tank caused the ammo to detonate and the crew to die? On the other hand, the video of an ATGM penetrating an Abrams turret, followed by a fire in it, is a real treat.

The number of cases captured on video is not an indicator, much less an indicator of those seen by a specific person.
There are quite a few cases of "one-shots" of domestic tanks. Off the top of my head, I can remember three videos. One from Syria, an explosion from an RPG-29 hit to the side, then also from Syria, an RPG-7, I think the T-72 didn't burst, but immediately flared up like a torch. And a new one - a T-90M burst by an ATGM with a SVO. There are a ton of such cases from there. Personally, I've seen photos and videos of many Tesheki remnants, from BV to the former USSR, but I've almost never seen Abrams in the form of remnants, mostly just burnt to zero. In fact, the only difference is the number of surviving tankers.

in modern conditions of using FPV drones with an old PG-7 grenade against tanks, all these protection systems have a very vague meaning

How, suddenly, unexpectedly, the design of the Merkava 4 came into play.

[Zoer]

Quote: English tarantass

but I almost never saw Abrams in the form of scraps, mostly just burnt out to zero.

Maybe it's just because they didn't shoot at Abrashes so much at point-blank range with RPGs and ATGMs? There are only a few of them in the SVO.

[English tarantas]

and didn't shoot point-blank from RPGs and ATGMs?

And does the ability of cumulative charges to detonate a BC change depending on the distance to the target?

There are only a few of them even in the SVO.

30 pieces. Of which 20 are no longer alive.

[Zoer]

Quote: English tarantass

And does the ability of cumulative charges to detonate a BC change depending on the distance to the target?

The ability to get where you need to go changes dramatically.

Quote: English tarantass

30 pieces.

Nothing at all.

[English tarantas]

get where you need to go

Haven't the Abrams been hit in the BC enough? So few that finding a video of a burning BC isn't a problem at all. So few that the Americans even made a set of additional equipment for urban combat, including a DZ tank kit?
I have seen quite a few cases of ammunition storage being damaged.
The result is the same, burnout, tank for repairs. There is also a detonation with partial destruction of the turret, including the defeat of the crew in the turret. This happened several times, due to the fact that there was property on the panels that prevented the panel from being knocked out. But it does not happen that the entire tank is regularly reduced to dust in an instant.
The typical result of an Abrams BC being hit is its burning out, with periodic explosions of shells. The crew, either in full or in part, abandons the vehicle. After which, it safely burns to mush. This happens to almost all Abrams in the NVO, the Saudis, and some Americans. But if the crew was smart enough, as recommended by the instructions, to turn the turret to the side, then only the niche behind the turret burns out.
In any case, the Abrams and Teshek BCs are two different things. In one, the ammunition stowage is tightly closed with a partition, divided in half by a partition, and each shell is in a separate container, which also prevents the spread of fire and especially detonation. And in the second, the charges lie openly, not fenced off from each other, and directly under the crew, which in the event of even a simple fire significantly reduces the crew's chances of survival and easily causes a chain of fires of charges, which immediately leads to detonation, not to mention turning the fighting compartment into a crematorium.
The difference is that in one tank the ammunition stowage is armored, isolated and moved out of the habitable compartments into a separate niche, with a destructible structure, which, in addition to all of the above, prevents the simultaneous detonation of a large number of charges, and the removal and armoring made the combustion of charges quite safe for the crew, while in the other tank, the crew literally sits in this very niche with the ammunition stowage, which is not armored in any way and does not have a design for relieving pressure.
Where the Abrams ejects a panel, the Teshka ejects a turret, that's the only difference.

Nothing at all.

A literal full-scale firing range. 20 units fired a large number of rounds, precisely purposefully and successfully hitting the ammunition stowage. All of this was filmed and photographed. Literally like the shelling of trophies in Kubinka in the 40s.
The result is burnt-out skeletons. No ripping into shreds.

[Zoer]

Quote: English tarantass

...
The result is burnt-out skeletons. No ripping into shreds.

Good. Convincing.

[NG inform]

He said nonsense, retold Western propaganda, where Abrams tanks are great because they fight well when the locals can no longer do anything against them.

[NG inform]

You are retelling Western propaganda without any basis in the real state of affairs.
1. You do not take into account that different parts of the tank have different probabilities of being hit in combat. The turret has a disproportionately high probability, and with it the shells. The T-72 carousel is located below, behind the most powerful protection of the main tank armor, the probability of its being hit is the lowest.
As a sub-item, it is said that a lot depends on the way the tank is used: if it is rushing at you, that is one thing, but if it is shooting in such a way that the hull is covered, that is quite another. The T-72 is much safer than Western tanks when their lower part is covered, as the experience of wars in Arab countries has shown.
2. You do not take into account the real probability that the T-72 ammo rack will catch fire, and the probability of this is measured in units of percent of all damaged tanks. And the T-72 ammo rack, even if it starts to burn, does not burn all at once, again in most cases it catches fire in tens of seconds, during which the crew actually leaves the vehicle. Yes, for thousands of damaged T-72s, you can find videos of them throwing the turret right away, with a successful jet flight this happens. But you do not yet have the technical ability to see a symmetrical situation for Abrams. Doesn't it bother you that 100% of Challenger 2s threw the turret when damaged?
3. You do not take into account that due to the different arrangement of the ammunition rack, its burning will have a different external effect. You do not see what is happening in the tank, often you do not see everything that is happening to the tank due to the installation. Yes, the T-72 will throw the turret, because the hull forms a sealed cylinder. But I assure you, from the fact that burning gunpowder flares up inside the Abrams, but due to the low pressure outside there will be no external manifestations - this will not make the coals from the crew more alive. Look at some captured vehicles, they look intact, but the metal inside is melted. Sometimes you can see red spots near the hatches - this is it.
4. The most juicy thing is that you do not take into account the breach of the protective panel. It is thin. It is poorly protected from the cumulative. If the stream passed from the side or from behind, it will break this panel and simply drive the burning shells into the hull. In this case, there is no chance of survival, unlike the situation with burning shells in the T-72. But in the photo-video - the tank will naturally look like a living one, even the paint will not peel off from the outside.
When comparing different approaches, you are obliged to standardize them according to all the features of their application, which was done by Soviet designers, who were guided not by propaganda, but by many years of research and current statistics.

[English tarantas]

You are retelling Western propaganda without any basis in the real state of affairs.

I am retelling the photos and videos of evidence that I have seen, as well as open information about the number and reasons for the destruction and damage of equipment. Of course, those that are known to me, of course, taking into account that not all of them are true and reliable. Although I try to distinguish information according to what I already know, whether this information intersects with other sources and whether it is recognized by authoritative experts and definitely not biased operators. I can also be wrong, but you will have to convince me with arguments.

You don't take into account that different parts of the tank have different probabilities of being hit in combat. The turret has a disproportionately high probability, and with it the shells. The T-72's carousel is located below, behind the tank's most powerful main armor protection, and its probability of being hit is the lowest.

Yes, I don't take that into account. My comment didn't even mention that, I was talking about a direct design solution. The Abrams' BC is remote, well protected and designed to critically increase the survivability of the vehicle and crew, while the T-5's BCs don't have that in principle.
The problem is that in reality the Abrams turret armor compensates quite well for the ammo rack being located above the ring level. If something was able to ignite the Abrams ammo rack by penetrating the front armor, the ammo rack location is not that important.
There is no practical difference there. In any case, to destroy the ammunition stowage, the tank must be caught by its side.
Moreover, Abrams is caught by the side of the turret, which is generally even more difficult, since the turret is simpler and must be kept in the direction of the enemy. And the Teshka needs to be caught by the side of the hull, which also does not fundamentally change the situation. After all, the tank's hull must be kept in the direction of movement, not fire, in addition, fast reverse was brought to our tanks only recently, and hitting the Teshka's turret in the side and rear is so critical that it makes no difference whether there is an ammo pack there or not.
With effective and competent use of both types of tanks, the only difference is that one tank is much more likely to save the crew and the vehicle. Yes, if you take the statistics of all hits, without taking into account the circumstances, it is easier to hit the Abrams BC. But how much will it give?
Change the tactics of using the tank and this disadvantage will be cancelled. Actually, the Americans made the tank for the tasks they wanted

2. You do not take into account the real probability that the T-72 ammunition rack will catch fire, and the probability of this is measured in units of percent of all damaged tanks.

The problem is different. What is the probability of the T-37's BC catching fire if the BC of this T-37 is hit? What will happen to the Abrams with the BC and T-37 catching fire?
And now a contradiction of yours will appear paragraph 2 с point 1
What is the percentage probability of Abrams BC catching fire from damaged tanks in general?
I didn't talk about whether the Abrams's BC catches fire more often or whether it is hit more often. But the fact is that if the T-shirt's BC is hit, it and the crew will most likely be finished, but not the Abrams. Here the question is what is the priority. What is better, to repair the tank or to bury the crew? What is cheaper? What is more effective in war?
Maybe in the USSR they really decided that it was better to write off a tank once as irretrievable and send three death notices than to repair or rebuild three, four or five tanks with a burnt-out turret niche or the entire vehicle like the Americans.
Even if the difference in the frequency of the BC's defeat is very much not in Abrams' favor, we need to look at what this leads to. For Abrams, this is usually repair, for Tesheks, as a rule, the loss of the entire vehicle with the crew.
Personally, I think it's better to have a tank that needs to be repaired more often than a tank that needs to be repaired less often but turns into a firecracker. Both from a strategic and humane point of view.

And even if the T-72's ammunition stowage starts to burn, it doesn't burn all at once; again, in most cases, it takes tens of seconds for the crew to actually leave the vehicle.

Yes, I do not argue and I know perfectly well that the crews manage to leave the car. But there are many nuances here. In practice, the chance of surviving the defeat of the BC in Teshka is really very low. Consider God saved.
The fire itself affects the crew. Closed hatches (and a permanent open position also entails problems) the chances of leaving the vehicle alive quickly reduce to zero. Well, the location of the BC itself turns the driver into a kamikaze, if you know about the peculiarities of leaving the vehicle by the driver.

But you don't have the technical ability to see a symmetrical situation for Abrams yet.

What is interesting is that adequate accounting and photo/video recording of the destruction of Abrams is no less common than the Teshek.
The problem here is different. It's not about how many Teshkas I've seen burst, but about the fact that I've never seen or even heard of Abrams bursting from damage to the turret stack.
No, if you show me how the entire niche in the Abrams suddenly slammed and blew out the partition separating it from the fighting compartment, I'll count it as equivalent to the explosion of the Teshka. But for now...

Doesn't it bother you that 100% of Challengers 2 threw a tower when they lost?

1. Are we talking about the tank's defeat as a whole or the defeat of the ammo? Let's decide. I initially spoke only about the ammo, but you are already talking about the general case.
2. What does Challenger have to do with it? I was only talking about Abrams and Teshki. Completely different design, location of the BC. Compared to Abrams, it's like night and day.
3.

100% of Challengers 2 threw a tower when defeated

When what? The tank as a whole? Then one photo will already break your statistics. But these are trifles. After all, you managed to shoot yourself in the foot.
The Challenger does not have ammunition in a separate closed niche. Its ammunition consists of shells and charges for them, shoved all over the tank. Moreover, only shells are stored above the shoulder strap. But all the powder charges are stored in the hull. Moreover, cartridge ones, that is, in bags or charges in a combustible cartridge case (it seems to be cardboard as well).
That is, "100% of the Challengers threw the turret" taking into account that their ammunition stowage, like that of the Teshkas, is highly flammable and in the hull

3. You don't take into account that

You apparently didn't read the comment you're replying to properly, or the thread as a whole. In my comment

The result is the same, burnout, tank for repairs. There is also a detonation with partial destruction of the turret, including the defeat of the crew in the turret. This happened several times, due to the fact that there was property on the panels that prevented the panel from being knocked out. But it does not happen that the entire tank is regularly reduced to dust in an instant.

Well, I don't see any point in citing arguments about the open partition. The instructions require keeping the partition closed. And yes, the panels don't work when the partition is open. And? Is someone preventing you from keeping the partition closed? Instructions require open only when recharging. Recharging standards are established taking into account the opening of the partitionPut a ram in a domestic tank, and it will destroy it along with itself.

But I assure you, the fact that burning gunpowder will flare up inside the Abrams, but there will be no external manifestations due to the low pressure outside - this will not make the coals from the crew more alive.

If the Abrams' BC catches fire with the bulkhead open, it will turn into a Teshka)

4. The most juicy thing is that you do not take into account the break in the protective panel.

And again.

There are also detonations with partial destruction of the turret, including the defeat of the crew in the turret. This happened several times, due to the fact that there was property on the panels that prevented the panel from being knocked out.

These are real cases of tank operation. If something interferes with the panel strongly enough, then the partition is knocked out as well. What does this change?
Did I even write anywhere that a niche with knock-out panels is a panacea and a 100% solution?

will break through this panel and simply drive the burning shells inside

As I understand it, you imagine a cumulative stream as a fist sweeping away everything in its path?

[NG inform]

I am retelling photo and video evidence

You literally have no data to standardize this type. There are very few situations of symmetrical use of tanks of different types, and comparing all sorts of Iraqi experiences makes no sense at all.

I was talking about a direct constructive solution

There is a phrase about this: do you want checkers or should you go?
A tank has a combat mission. There are no ideal solutions in tank design, it is always a compromise. If you compare tanks, the optimal one will be the one that performs the combat mission better, and not the one with the most checkered checkers. I am not even saying that comparing tanks of different combat systems does not make sense at all, since they are elements of this very combat system and do not function separately from it.

The Abrams' BC is remote, well protected and designed to critically increase the survivability of the vehicle and crew.

The Tshek BC is hidden, much better protected and designed to critically increase the survivability of the vehicle and crew. Once again: if the Tshek BC is an order of magnitude more difficult to hit, then this makes the vehicle more effective in solving combat missions, and in particular in the matter of crew survival, all other things being equal.

In any case, to destroy the ammunition stowage, the tank must be caught on its side.

Or head-on, there are many weak points there. Or head-on with a Kornet. Or from above. Or from behind. Or from a machine gun. And if the attack is from the rear hemisphere, then the burning shells simply fly into the crew, giving them no chance at all, unlike the burning shells in the Tshka.

The teshki on the side and stern are so critical that it doesn’t matter whether there is a BC there or not.

The T-shirts are protected from the sides and top much better than Abrams and Leopards.
And let me remind you that a shell hitting the side of a tank will be fatal for it, regardless of whether it hits the ammunition.

One tank is much more likely to save the crew and the vehicle.

Yes. And these are Tshki - if you look at tanks of the same year. Simply because the soft spots are better covered.

What is the probability of a T-shirt's BC catching fire if the BC of this T-shirt is damaged?

Well, you don't have such statistics, and without them this conversation is meaningless. One military man said that in Tshek, the ammunition fires occur approximately 1.5% (much less than 10%), if my memory serves me right), and only in 1 case out of 10 does the crew not have time to abandon the vehicle.

What will happen to Abrams with the BC and T-shirt on fire?

Yes, let's compare: the Abrams has no armor at the back, a grenade flies in, ignites the shells and flies further through the foil into the vehicle. Let's say it didn't hit the crew, but their gunpowder burns in the UPPER part. The crew has zero chance of survival, except for the driver.
As one famous American tanker said: there is no point in discussing rescue in the event of a breach in the bulkhead, the crew will be twice as dead, so what next?

And the fact that if the Teshka's BC is hit, it will most likely be the end for her and the crew

This is literally your opinion (without any facts) coming from the openly false Western propaganda. Which you spread here without reflection, confusing people. This is a fact.

What is the percentage probability of Abrams BC catching fire from damaged tanks in general?

You DO NOT have standardized statistics, but you draw conclusions to pour pus on the combat system that very smart people with solid budgets have been building for decades. As in the famous analysis:
- the crooked and backward Russians lost as many as thirty tanks and thirty tankers during the storming of Grozny, which shows how backward their army is.
- the advanced and best IDF lost only thirty tanks and thirty tankers during the storming of Beirut, which shows how advanced their army is.

and Abrams is not

And the fact that the combat mission was not accomplished due to the high vulnerability of the combat vehicle is nonsense, yeah. Let the enemy attack, but our tank is as good as alive.

What is better, to repair a tank or to bury the crew?

In reality, our crews survive many vehicles, and most vehicles are repaired. And the fact that the Abrams are still intact, only melted inside (which can be seen with your own eyes) is a real achievement, and it doesn't matter that there is literally nothing left of the crew.

Personally, I think a tank is better.

It's called Denning-Kruger. You think a lot of things, although you realize that you have no data for any kind of competent opinion. This needs to be treated, such behavior is unacceptable for a person who claims to be smart.

really very low.

You have no data. Reality is not what you think.
And when the ammunition casing catches fire, there is usually time, and the ignition of the ammunition casing in direct combat is an extremely rare event, compared to other reasons, when the crew leaves the vehicle. The ammunition casings often detonate on empty vehicles, with 2-3-4 hits, when they are deliberately destroyed so that they do not fall into the hands of the enemy.

What is interesting is adequate accounting and photo/video recording of the defeat

This does not allow for a comparison, since the typical use of Abrams occurs against obviously weaker opponents (without aviation, proper support, reconnaissance and strategic control), while Tshki, on the contrary, are more often used in very poor condition against a stronger opponent. At least take a photo, but in order to compare, you need to have tables, which you do not have, with up-to-date information (which you do not have) and find common segments in them that will allow you to understand what is really happening.

When what is damaged? The tank as a whole? Then one photo will already break your statistics.

Once again: 100% of the damaged Challengers threw their turrets. If a photo of a damaged Challenger with the turret still in place appears, it means that this event happened after I wrote this post.

Well, I don't see any point in citing arguments about the open partition.

The point is that this partition is thin, unnoticeable for a cumulative jet. Yes, if a jet or a bullet from a machine gun successfully flies from behind and does not touch it, then it will work. But if the jet touches it, then there will be a hole. And from the photo you cannot understand what is inside. And according to the US report, it may be that the crew survived. Only for some reason, a couple of days later in the hospital, he died, for no reason related to anything.
And in Tshka there is not enough bullet to set the ammo pack on fire, and 98% of the cumulative jet's flights inside the tank can kill the crew, damage the tank, but will not set the ammo pack on fire. It is below, it is difficult to reach.

If the Abrams' BC catches fire with the bulkhead open, it will turn into a Teshka)

No, the Tshka has a BK at the bottom. It starts burning quickly, but not instantly, there are about 10 seconds. If something burns in the Abrams when there is a hole in the habitable space - you don't have 10 seconds, your exit is blocked by a working flamethrower. But I repeat - from the outside the tank is like a living one, even if the bottom fell to the ground. The specificity of the spaced armor, the internal fire cannot turn the turret so that it is visible, and it cannot heat the surface. Only on the edges of the hatches are there characteristic rusty spots, you can see in real life.

Did I even write anywhere that a niche with knock-out panels is a panacea and a 100% solution?

You have written nothing here except stupid propaganda. Study the material to the level to at least understand that you do not understand anything. Tanks are high-tech, where Russia is the most advanced.

[English tarantas]

Besides stupid propaganda

But he himself reprinted the domestic propaganda word for word

Tanks are high-tech, where Russia is the most advanced.

And the tank is a miracle of miracles and Russia has no equal in this industry.
The funniest thing is that you just switched to rudeness, dispensing diagnoses and, in fact, using the informal "you". I understand correctly that you got into the thread not to convince me, but to spray bile?

You literally have no data to standardize this type of

Do you have it? Show me.
Well, about

Learn the materiel

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. You've got Abrams, Leopard, Challenger and some IDF mixed up. And burning charges right under the butt is safer than burning them in an open niche behind the turret. Am I right in understanding that fire always burns to the side? So the ignited gunpowder under the ass won't cause burns, but the bulkhead is a real flamethrower. Of course, the fact that the Abrams' stowage is divided into two parts, and that the crew can climb out of the turret through the driver's hatch, unlike the driver's place in the Teshka, which is closed by that same carousel that still needs to be opened with a crowbar.
And the Abrams has no armor on the back of the head, and the armor that it does have is spaced, although it is specifically on the back of the turret.
And Tesheki has some

soft spots are better covered

)))

No, Tshka has a BK at the bottom. It starts to burn quickly, but not instantly, there are about 10 seconds.

So where did you get the info about 10 seconds? Is there some kind of standard for charges?

Once again: 100% of the damaged Challengers threw their turrets. If a photo of a damaged Challenger with the turret still in place appears, it means that this event happened after I wrote this post.

So what about placing flammable charges in the Challenger hull? You keep talking about the removed Challenger turrets, but you forget that the charges there are exactly like in the T-class, they are in the hull.
What's funny is that in Challenger they even stuffed them into tanks and racks, while in Teshkas most of the ammunition simply lies in a carousel. Doesn't help.
Will there be a photo of Abrams with the turret removed by the BK explosion? Or will you also say that I don't have the "competence to regulate"?

And if the stream touches it, there will be a hole.

I understand you correctly, if there is a hole in the partition through which flames will fly into the BO, then this is the end for all members of the Abrams crew, but it’s a different matter if a charge flares up in the Teshka’s carousel, there will be nothing at all for the crew, and for the tank, and nothing at all will happen, well, it caught fire and caught fire.
In short, wasting time on you... If you like to think that there are no alternatives to sitting on gunpowder and that it does not have its obvious disadvantages - your choice.
The reality is somewhat different and there are not as many fools "there" as you think, if they did something, then it is necessarily bad and does not work.

[NG inform]

But he himself reprinted the domestic propaganda word for word

I'm mainly analyzing your logical blunders. What you wrote about yourself. It's like with pigs: I don't need to listen to TV to understand what kind of crap they are.

distribution of diagnoses

I explained to you in detail why you screw up literally in everything, due to what cognitive distortions. They are literally visible in your text. The inability to admit gross errors is a sure path to schizophrenia.

to splash bile

You got involved with this when you piled up a bunch of Western propaganda, realizing that you know nothing about the topic, that you haven't even tried to study the topic, but you have an opinion and you have the swinishness to impose it. And I'm simply deconstructing your system of delusions, relying only on your own statements.

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

I used to rotate tank turrets back in the USSR, tell me what I don’t know.

And burning charges directly under the butt is safer than burning them in an open niche behind the turret.

Arguments are over, he switched to outright lies? I don’t understand what the point is, it’s stupid.

that the crew from the turret can also climb out of the driver's hatch

Damn, good luck to you in a few seconds to get to the driver, in a crowd :)) I will say this, that even with the remaining cover, the tankers manage to get severe burns.
And we haven’t even mentioned the different composition of shells for typical tank use, due to the different strategies for this use.

Do you have it? Show me.

The important thing here is that you don't have them. You draw conclusions based on the complete absence of data, erudition and competence, not me. It's hard to admit, I understand - I believed Rezun in the 90s, I remember how difficult it was to understand that he lied about everything :))

So where did you get the info about 10 seconds? Is there some kind of standard for charges?

This is where I burst out laughing :)) Damn, what a freak.

Will there be a photo of Abrams that had their turrets removed by the BK explosion?

You're laughing. Before you comment on tanks, at least try to understand the physics of the process that throws up the turret. Have you finished 7th grade yet? I'll repeat especially for you that Abrams tanks burn out completely from the inside, along with the crew and melted metal parts. They could throw the turret if they had enough high-explosive shells in the kit, but here's the problem - there aren't many high-explosive shells there. By the way, our tanks are technically tanks, unlike Abrams tanks, and they do have high-explosive shells. And high-explosive shells don't give a damn where they explode - in the rear niche, or any other place on the tank - if they explode, the tank is blown apart along with the hull.

then this is the end for all members of the Abrams crew, but here's another thing

When you grow up, you go into the army, maybe you’ll see what gunpowder is and how it burns - and you’ll understand what I’m talking about.

And why is this one here? Doesn't he seem like an asshole to you?

[English tarantas]

but you have an opinion and you have the swinishness to impose it.

Everything you need to know about you. Your opinion is correct, mine is disgusting.
But it is understandable:

I myself believed Rezun in the 90s, I remember how difficult it was to understand

To believe the nonsense he spouted, you have to be unique.
What's the point of arguing with you if you have one answer to everything: "it doesn't work because it's Western propaganda."
So what about 100% of Challengers that threw the turret with the ammo rack in the hull?

They could have thrown the turret if they had enough high explosive shells in their kit.

The Leopard throws a turret without a HE shell perfectly. And even BMPs throw it. Doesn't this fit into your worldview?

[NG inform]

Everything you need to know about you. Your opinion is correct, mine is disgusting.

I appeal to facts, not opinion. The fact is that you are completely incompetent, you do not have adequate data for analysis and you know it.
Despite your conscious illiteracy, you have an opinion. Obviously constructed by Western propaganda. You and I are not the same, I always look for a catch.

To believe the nonsense he spouted, you have to be unique.

In the 80s and 90s, they believed even worse nonsense. The lack of freedom of speech in the USSR was an understandable, but bad idea.

What's the point of arguing with you if you have one answer to everything?

I see that you are completely inadequate and are incapable of perceiving facts?

The Leopard throws a turret without a HE shell perfectly. And even BMPs throw it. Doesn't this fit into your worldview?

Dear Sir, I understand that you may not know the purpose and structure of tanks, the specifics of engineering, not be able to work with statistics, not be able to read.
But at least the basics of everyday physics should be understood? I'll give the vegetable man another lecture: The turret is thrown by gunpowder, which SLOWLY releases a lot of gases in the closed conditions of the tank hull. The OFS releases them quickly, it doesn't throw the turret, but the entire tank in different directions. Regardless of whether they are inside the tank or outside. And the Abrams can't throw the turret because the gunpowder does not burn in closed conditions, even if it burns inside the tank.
It may even have been a deliberate marketing ploy aimed at the weak-minded, to make a tank that, when completely destroyed, could still look good on the outside.

[NG inform]

A similar fight was started on LA, with photos :) Maxim is, of course, a fool, but in principle there is some material.

[NG inform]

Another example of your inadequacy:
https://t.me/rusich_army/19833
Kumul passed through the driver, the BC was set on fire, two were evacuated.

[English tarantas]

When comparing different approaches, you must standardize them according to all the features of their application.

I did not compare approaches to tank design, I compared design solutions and their practical effect.
Am I right in understanding that Soviet designers put in a highly flammable and readily detonating ammunition stowage with fatal results, with the expectation that it would be located in a part of the tank that would be extremely difficult to hit due to competent and skillful use of the tank, and explosions of Soviet tanks still occur, but this is not due to design features, but because the operators of the equipment do not have enough responsibility or intelligence to bring the practice of using these tanks to standards that take into account the design features of the tank?
Either I am just like that and I don't understand why a combat setup that is prone to more negative consequences of its defeat is de facto more prone to more negative consequences than a competing option. Or you are an enlightened genius, one of the rare people who understands the great truth of Soviet tank building.

which is what was done by Soviet designers, who were guided not by propaganda, but by many years of research and current statistics.

Does anyone argue that the USSR didn't know how to make tanks? Does anyone claim that the Teshki are bad tanks? That they can't be used? That elven technology was superior to ours even back then?
I only wrote what I know. Those tanks burn, preserving more crews, ours explode into dust under the same impact.
You just saw letters that don't match your opinion and answered this:

He said nonsense, he retold Western propaganda, where Abrams tanks are wonderful

You are retelling Western propaganda without any basis in the real state of affairs.

not with propaganda, but with long-term research and up-to-date statistics

How tactfully, impartially and competently you assessed my knowledge.

[NG inform]

design solutions and their practical effect

The color of the checkers, in isolation from everything else, and you are discussing the color while being color blind (without having the competence and statistics).

How tactfully, impartially and competently you assessed my knowledge.

You yourself have personally voiced that you are incompetent, but you impose your opinion. I have been communicating on the Internet for thirty years and I know all the types :)
I have only one piece of advice for you: if you haven’t studied the topic for a long time, then admit to yourself that you don’t know anything about it and have no right to draw any conclusions.
Read about Denning-Kruger, current learned helplessness, survivor syndrome. It will come in handy in life.

[Sergei N 58912062]

Even such a location of the ammunition stowage - sometimes does not save the entire crew 100%! On the Internet you can find photos of turretless Abrams. And dead tankers.

[English tarantas]

You can find photos of crazy Abrams on the Internet

Show

[Illanatol]

Quote: Ghost1

In general, is it visible that the Abrams was torn to shreds or the turret flew away?

The turret usually flies off from the detonation of the HE shells. Until recently, such shells were not included in the Abrams' BC, and the detonation of the BOPS does not lead to such consequences.

[English tarantas]

OFS detonations

Which one? 3of26? Which doesn't contain much more explosive than a powder charge?
Just in case

BOPS detonation

is also not a joke. Domestic BOPS have an additional powder charge, which is 2/3 of the standard powder charge and weighs the same as the explosive in 3of26. But setting fire to a powder charge, and even in a casing with TNT, is much easier than detonating an OFS.
Well

Until recently, such projectiles were not included in the Abrams missile system.

The M830 has 2 kg of explosives. And the armor-piercing high-explosive M393A2 is generally difficult to find wanting in filling.