During the SVO, an old problem resurfaced: explosions and fires in the ammunition of our tanks

Instead of an introduction

To begin with, it's probably worth mentioning that this article is not intended to discredit or denigrate domestic tank manufacturing in any way. Our factories, working literally three shifts, are churning out tanks that are perfectly suitable for combat use. Tanks, capable of solving a wide range of problems in modern conditions. So, as they say these days, we won't "hate" this sector of the Russian military-industrial complex, but we will point out one interesting detail.

The fact is that even after the collapse of the Soviet Union, when censorship was somewhat loosened, the Ministry of Defense studiously avoided overt criticism of the military equipment in its official public press. However, in 2024, the journal "Material and Technical Support of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation" did publish an article about the problems the military encountered during the Second Military Operation.

In it, the author, S.A. Tishin, a lieutenant colonel and senior lecturer at the A.V. Khrulyov Military Academy of Logistics, laments the numerous difficulties (especially at the beginning of the Air Defense Forces) with the technical condition, supply, and operation of military equipment, and also briefly touches on one of the most sensitive topics for tank crews. Here's a quote:

...In some cases, when the jet (from shaped-charge munitions – editor's note) impacted the propellant charges, they ignited and the ammunition exploded. When the jet hit the engine-transmission components, they ignited, followed by an explosion of the fuel tanks and ammunition...

...The tank's non-mechanized ammunition stowage (editor's note) is located in the most vulnerable areas. This leads to immediate detonation of the ammunition when hit by ATGMs, as they primarily target the rear of the turret or the engine, where most of the mechanical (apparently referring to the non-mechanized ammunition stowage – editor's note) ammunition is located. Therefore, during missions, ammunition is loaded only into the mechanized stowage. By loading only the conveyor (transporter), even if the ATGM's armor is penetrated, the crew has time to evacuate and survive...

Of course, the author is being a bit disingenuous when he says that in the event of a complete armor penetration, if the rounds are only in the automatic/loading mechanism, the crew has time to evacuate. This time is possible if the ammunition stowage contents are not exposed to the cumulative jet.

But generally speaking, he raised a fundamental problem with Soviet tanks (our tanks are also included in this category), which concerns the absolute zero isolation of ammunition stowage, even from the crew compartments—tank crews are literally sitting on a powder keg, surrounded by shells with explosives and propellant charges.

This, so to speak, feature of almost the entire “model range” of T-64, T-72 and T-80 tanks has been known for a long time and does not need a special introduction.

There are a ton of photos and videos online showing what this leads to. Just think of the war in Syria. A hit (and the ammunition stowage) from an anti-tank grenade on the side of a tank, or even a powerful ATGM on the front, sends columns of flames shooting out of the hatches. In the worst case, the tank is literally blown to pieces, and its turret is found in the next block.

Of course, this doesn't happen everywhere or always, so don't think that domestic aircraft will burst into flames from any hit. But if ignition and/or detonation of ammunition does occur, the crew's chances of survival are slim to none.

Projectile load

Unfortunately, all this happens because Soviet-type tanks have, to some extent, become hostages to the concept of ammunition load distribution, according to which the ammunition racks are located in the least vulnerable place behind the frontal and side armor, although only at limited trajectory angles.

To understand how this all looks in numbers, let's look at a table taken from the first volume of "Military Tracked Vehicles" for students at Bauman Moscow State Technical University in 1990. Ai is the distribution of projectile payload across armor elements, taking into account their projected areas. Aiq is the distribution of projectile payload across armor elements at fixed firing angles.

So, it seems to be correct. The frontal armor of the turret and hull, according to the laws of differentiated protection, is the most powerful in terms of resistance to destructive weapons, so if the crew is acting correctly, hits should be concentrated on it, with the sides only being hit at limited maneuvering angles.

True, as Lieutenant Colonel Tishin wrote, anti-tank Rocket, and we'll add that an RPG grenade or a tank gun's sub-caliber/HEAT round can hit vulnerable spots and cause a fire and detonate the ammunition. And that's not to mention that the armor penetration of modern heavy ATGMs and sub-caliber rounds is quite capable of penetrating a tank directly from the front, even with dynamic armor.

А drones? Things are really bad with these "comrades"—they'll fly up and strike with surgical precision at the weakest point.

All these circumstances raise a logical question: is it possible to somehow protect the crew and the tank itself from the devastating consequences of ammunition storage being destroyed without radically changing its layout? At least theoretically, since the domestic tank industry is unlikely to abandon production of Soviet-style tanks (even in "new" generations like the T-90M and others), even in the long term.

Ammunition rack protection alone is not enough

Armor alone is not enough here. It's not that a tank with uniform armor protection in all planes is the dream of visionaries who ignore the fact that it would weigh a hundred tons or more. It's just that localized protection of the ammunition stowage in the form of armor screens in the tank's crew compartments is of little help even against classic anti-tank weapons.

They can, of course, protect against the bulk of fragments, and in some cases even against residual elements of the shaped-charge jet. However, they will not protect against a deadly fire or detonation, when high-velocity fragments from a subcaliber projectile or leading parts of a shaped-charge jet penetrate the flimsy screens and strike the projectiles or propellant charges.

This is especially true when it comes to protecting all the ammunition stowage compartments scattered throughout the tank's armored space, which increases the risk of fire and detonation. Here's a quote from the article "Armored Compartments for Tank Ammunition," published in the 1986 issue of Vestnik Armored Equipment:

...When ammunition is distributed throughout the entire armored space, localized protection is ineffective. Calculations have shown that the probability of permanently losing a tank when hit by an ATGM decreases only slightly, and when hit by an armor-piercing discarding sabot (APDS) projectile, the maximum reduction does not exceed 30%, which is clearly insufficient to solve the problem...

To be fair, even so-called "wet ammunition stowage" doesn't justify the presence of unsealed ammunition in a tank. This method of storing tank cannon rounds in liquid-filled containers is typical of British vehicles, including the Challenger 2, which is now being upgraded to create the Anglo-German hybrid Challenger 3.

It can protect against the effects of open flame during a fuel fire, but in the event of a direct hit from a cumulative jet or high-speed fragments of a sub-caliber projectile, it will only make matters worse (“Armored compartments for tank ammunition”, Bulletin of Armored Equipment, No. 1, 1986):

... Experimental testing also showed that wet packing effectively protects only against slow-flying fragments (less than 800 meters per second); fragments flying at high speed and a cumulative jet cause a reaction in which heat removal does not reach the target, and the massive shell creates the effect of a closed chamber, contributing to an increase in the intensity of the reaction and an accelerated explosion of the powder...

Move the ammunition stowage further away

It's practically impossible to completely isolate ammunition stowage racks within the layout of domestic tanks without changing their layout. Even if we simply imagine (as a mere fantasy) that the mechanized and non-mechanized stowage racks were placed in isolated containers, the risk of explosion would not be reduced one iota—there would be nowhere to vent the energy of the explosion/combustion.

Therefore, the simplest, and most importantly, most effective method is to move the ammunition stowage away from the crew compartments. This involves constructing turrets with extensive rear compartments (or removable containers), like those on the American Abrams, which house the ammunition stowage with an automatic loading system, isolated from the crew compartment by an armored door (or "armored curtain") capable of withstanding the shock wave of an explosion.

Developed rear compartments or removable containers offer two key advantages. Firstly, they don't require significant redesign of the tank's overall layout—there's no need to fiddle with new turret gunner positions, construct a separate ammunition compartment within the hull, etc.

Secondly, pressure relief hatches with blow-out covers (or panels, as is more convenient) can be installed without any difficulties in execution, since, as is known, the combustion reaction of gunpowder loses its stability with a sharp drop in pressure.

It's sometimes argued that blow-out covers/panels are the preserve of Western tank design, and wouldn't work in our country. But no, isolated ammunition compartments with blow-out covers were extensively tested in the Soviet Union, with very encouraging results. For example, here are the test results of a compartment containing 30 standard tank propellant charges and shells ("Development Paths for Integrated Tank Protection"):

...Explosive combustion of the charges occurs (the total burnout time is approximately 30 seconds); the paint on the shells is virtually uncharred; the strength of the compartment walls is maintained; the blowout plates for relieving combustion product pressure operate within the design limits...

It's also worth remembering that isolated ammunition stowage located in the rear of the turret, with a blast-resistant bulkhead separating it from the crew compartments, not only protects against propellant ignition. It can, with a high probability, save the crew's lives and even prevent the irreparable loss of the tank if explosive-laden shells detonate. It can also reduce the likelihood of detonation itself.

Abrams ammunition stowage safety tests

Here it is worth recalling again the American Abrams, about which there are still rumors that its rear ammunition compartment can be penetrated by a machine gun. According to data from the Swedish tender, the sides of this tank in the area of ​​the turret ammunition stowage in the M1A2 modification have the equivalent of steel armor against shaped-charge weapons of about 380 millimeters at a direct (!) angle of fire.

This was done, of course, to reduce the likelihood of damage to the ammunition rack, but that's not all. The lower the residual armor penetration of a shell (its fragments or shaped-charge jet fragments), the lower the probability of detonation of explosive-laden shells. For example, here's some information on domestic ammunition ("Development Paths for Integrated Tank Protection"):

...When the ammunition compartment is penetrated by armor-piercing sub-caliber and cumulative projectiles with an armor-piercing margin of approximately 150 mm, the ammunition does not detonate...

In other words, the isolated aft compartment containing the ammunition must be armored—within reasonable limits, of course, to ensure weight remains within the specified limits. Considering that shaped-charge (HEAT) weapons are the dominant weapon on the battlefield, this armor can be supplemented with explosive reactive armor.

Conclusions

Of course, the introduction of a new ammunition arrangement in a tank is associated with one significant problem.

We've had projects that involved similar changes—just recall the "Black Eagle," which Omsk designers once tried to promote. However, most of the proposed solutions lacked any meaningful armor protection for the isolated ammunition. Therefore, developing a design that would be more or less adequate to the realities would clearly be quite expensive.

A new turret may even be required, rather than redesigning the existing one. But this is in any case better than the high probability of permanently losing both tanks and crews, which would be even more expensive. However, the benefit will be significantly greater, since even when fired upon with classic anti-tank weapons, depending on the conditions, the permanent losses of tanks (with isolated ammunition compartments) and crews can be reduced by a factor of 5-7.

This also applies to the notorious drones. The ammunition compartment, isolated in the rear of the turret, can certainly be a good target for them, so it's no panacea for this threat—a comprehensive approach, preferably with active protection systems, is essential. But the difference between the detonation of shells and the hellish flames of burning propellant charges inside or outside the crew compartments will be critical for those inside the tank—women won't give birth to many new tank crews, and industry won't churn out countless new tanks.

Sources of information and images:
"Ways to Develop Integrated Tank Protection" by A. G. Kozhemyako. Armored Vehicle Bulletin, No. 8, 1989.
"Military Tracked Vehicles", Volume 1, Book 1. Bauman Moscow State Technical University. 1990.

"Armored Compartments for Tank Ammunition." V. M. Bakshinov, A. G. Kozhemyako, V. I. Timokhin. Armored Vehicle Bulletin, No. 1, 1986.

Comments

[naofumi]

The problem cannot be fixed in modern domestic tanks; a new tank is needed, with a new turret, in the rear niche of which there will be an automatic loader similar to the Japanese Type-90.
It is not possible to isolate the ammunition in the current armored volume of the fighting compartment.

[Revolver]

Well, let's say a new turret can be installed on the existing turret ring, without changing the tank's hull. The turret front and gun mount can even be left unchanged. Moreover, if the underturret basket and carousel autoloader are removed, the crew can be housed in the hull beneath the turret, and the turret itself can be rendered unmanned. But creating a rear niche with an ammunition compartment and a completely new autoloader for it is a task that must be solved, because the African Americans who are usually used as loaders in Abrams tanks are not found in Rus'.

[multi-category]

Quote: Nagan

Well, let's say a new turret can be installed on an existing turret ring, without any changes to the tank hull.

It won't work. The turret would have to be significantly heavier than the current one, and the T90M's weight limit is practically exhausted. We also need to think about the hull, and radically. Currently, the only option they see without making it too heavy is a complete redesign of the tank, similar to the Armata or a new modification of the M60 with an unmanned turret. The Chinese also have such a new tank.

[AdAstra]

With the current migration policy in Rus', Africans will certainly be found.

[stankow]

They will be around, but what about serving and fighting?

[naofumi]

Well, let's say a new turret can be installed on the existing turret ring, without any changes to the tank's hull. The turret front and gun mount can even be left unchanged.

Yes, that's possible. That's how the T-72 was transformed into the T90. That's assuming the chassis can handle it.

But creating a rear niche with a compartment for ammunition and a completely new automatic loader for this purpose is a task that needs to be solved, because African Americans, who are usually used as loaders in Abrams, are not found in Rus'. lol

If the ammunition detonates, the entire tank crew suffers.

[bayard]

Quote: Naofumi

This is provided that the chassis can withstand it.

Where will it go? Furthermore, the removed automatic fire carousel in the lower part of the fighting compartment will allow the crew to be lowered below the turret ring, further protecting the tank's crew. The turret's weight and dimensions will certainly increase, but the height of the tank's hull itself can be lowered slightly (approximately to the level of the T-80's hull), which will partly compensate for the increased turret weight. Developments on the "Black"
The "Orlu" design has been preserved, and the concept can be further refined, taking into account all the nuances described in the article. If you want to add more power, there's already a modified "Armata" engine producing 1500 hp, which is also more compact (than that of the T-72/90 series). Overall, such a turret would be preferable for the new version of the T-80—on its chassis and hull, and with two engine options—a gas turbine and a diesel engine from the "Armata."
It would be advisable to reinforce the turret's ammunition storage bay with dynamic protection (double-layered, like the current one on the tank's side - Kontant-5 + Kaktus), and protect the entire new, large turret (when in combat) with an anti-drone net spaced apart from the hull. This net, when the turret is in its normal position, would also protect the engine compartment from attacks from above.
All this will have to be addressed after the SVO, when a new turret is being developed for the new MBT on the T-80 chassis. It's quite feasible to keep within the 48-50 ton weight limit, so both the chassis and suspension will handle it.

[VlK]

All this will have to be dealt with after the SVO, giving birth to a new turret for the new MBT on the T-80 chassis.

So why after the Second World War? What's stopping our design bureaus from addressing this now, when the issue is most pressing? Even without restarting mass production, the development and testing itself will likely take a huge amount of time. Why put it off until later, when during the Second World War, nothing prevented our design bureaus from constantly working on new, promising solutions alongside the production of accepted models? And is it really better to immediately scrap new equipment (let alone the crews) than to promptly make modifications to meet changing conditions?

[bayard]

Quote: VlK

And is it really better to immediately scrap new equipment straight off the assembly line (let's not even mention the crews) than to make timely changes to suit changing conditions?

What I meant was that there's simply nothing left to put into production right now, as the Armata is deemed obsolete, and the troops need tanks. Moreover, the tanks currently being modernized are primarily those from storage bases. About 300 new T-90Ms are produced annually (that's how it was a year or two ago), the rest are modernized. This is the right decision, as all tanks suitable for modernization must return to service; they are still better than the vast majority of NATO tanks. It's a combination of factors.
As for a new tank on the T-80 chassis, there's talk of it. They're developing a new 1500-hp gas turbine for it, as well as a diesel engine from the Armata, so they can produce two variants for different theaters of war and climate zones. This probably won't happen anytime soon, but a new turret based on the Black Eagle turret could be created for this tank, with modifications and all its shortcomings addressed. And they will naturally be produced in Omsk.
As for UVZ's future, they're testing and possibly preparing to produce heavy armored personnel carriers (TAPs) on the T-90 chassis. If successful, both the TAP and the heavy infantry fighting vehicle (BIMP) based on it should be launched into production in parallel (the latter after a time lag), so that while gradually completing the modernization of the T-72, we can transition from storage to increasingly widespread production of heavy armored vehicles for assault infantry. A lot of them will be needed. T-90M production could continue at the current rate for some time. Tanks are certainly needed, but TAPs and BIMPs are needed even more. Because they simply don't exist.
But these are just thoughts and wishes. To ensure that the production process and the introduction of new equipment proceed smoothly, without excesses or production declines, the rate of armored vehicle production must be maintained at a sufficiently high level.

[dmi.pris1]

But we have this concept that women will still give birth... But it's no longer relevant.

[lego2]

What if we abandon the fully traversable turret? Are there any statistics confirming that a tank needs to fire backwards or sideways in combat, and how often does this happen? Perhaps it's the same as with the much-vaunted buoyancy of our lightly armored vehicles—whether it's necessary or not?

[Alekseev]

There is a lot of empty words in the article.
Although there is a problem.
But... Ammunition is in the tank rack, turret and other places
(non-mechanized ammunition stowage) is a supply of ammunition carried on the march, as well as fuel in external tanks.
Is it dangerous? Yes, there are risks. A tank loaded with ammunition other than the conveyor belt and the outer tank group should not be used in an attack. However, there must be a way to stow spare artillery rounds for transport, because a tank without ammunition is just a pile of scrap.
Another issue is that the fuel tanks should be removed from the BO and control compartment, and the shells should be placed in the turret niche, which has been used in new modifications of our MBTs.
It's not all that simple, there's little space, and 700-800 liters of diesel fuel and a couple dozen artillery rounds require it.
And there's no complete guarantee of protection. There is an improvement.
But, if you get serious, you can make the appropriate rearrangement.
Yes, it's possible to replace the burning cartridges with regular ones. This won't protect against the impact of the cumulative jet and large fragments, but it will still make it more difficult for the charge to ignite.

[Civil]

We've all seen how tanks are used today. As self-propelled guns, as infantry fighting vehicles with a separate armored assault compartment, for minesweeping, and for providing fire support during landings. And over short distances, at that. The following changes can be made from this:
1. It is necessary to install a hybrid or electric engine, this will save space and reduce noise.
2. Make room for assaults under the armor.
3. Reduce the caliber - for direct support of infantry during landing, a rapid-fire gun with programmable ammunition would be better suited.
4. It will be easier to remove the BC behind the armor.
5. Switch to unmanned tanks. They are the future. The infantry should be like the Chinese – android robots.

These are all existing technologies.

[multi-category]

Quote: Civil

3. Reduce the caliber - for direct support of infantry during landing

I don't understand why exactly should you decrease it? Not leave it, not increase it?

Quote: Civil

We've all seen how tanks are used today. As self-propelled guns, as infantry fighting vehicles with a separate assault compartment on the armor.

For such a tank, the BMPT with a troop compartment is probably a better option.
Android infantry? Seriously?

[Civil]

I don't understand why exactly should you decrease it? Not leave it, not increase it?

Reduce the weight of the gun and ammo for safer placement. A 125mm round isn't necessary to destroy fortifications in a forested area.

For such a tank, the BMPT with a troop compartment is probably a better option.

So the point is how already Existing tanks are in use. Therefore, the troops must be placed in any tank.

Quote: multicaat

Android infantry? Seriously?

It couldn't be more serious.

Chinese authorities are actively developing programs to integrate autonomous robots into various spheres of life. One recent example is a 264 million yuan contract with UBTech Robotics for the supply of Walker S2 humanoid robots. The androids are planned to be deployed to border posts in Guangxi, on the border with Vietnam.

https://sci.rambler.ru/gadzhety/55677018-granitsy-kitaya-budut-ohranyat-androidy/

The days when military innovations took years to develop and implement are gone forever. The time has come for ultra-free private initiative in the defense industry. Anyone who doesn't get their bearings and start working in this manner will become the proverbial Zulu with a spear against the British with machine guns.

P.S. When I came to the site in 2011 and explained what UAVs were and how every tank would be chased by UAVs, I was laughed at.

[multi-category]

Quote: Civil

humanoid robots

There's a huge difference between patrolling and fighting. The tasks are different in complexity.
Robots have been used for patrolling and perimeter security for 50 years. But anything more requires a different level of technology. Furthermore, robots are very difficult to operate without a base. So I don't believe androids will be used en masse for full-scale assault missions in the next 15 years. Only rarely, under unique circumstances. And then we'll see.

[Civil]

There's a huge difference between patrolling and fighting. The tasks are different in complexity.

UAVs also started out as reconnaissance drones, by the way. And the robot losses during the assault won't be taken into account.

Robots have been used for patrolling and perimeter protection for 50 years.

without artificial intelligence, which allows for much more than just reconnaissance.

In addition, when separated from the base, the robots’ operations are greatly hampered.

Now they charge and change batteries independently, work online and do not depend on humans.

But for anything more, another technological level is needed.

Thousands of humanoid robots are already in stock and in production.
Incidentally, based on the experience of the first battles, robots will change their appearance. For now, humanoid robots are needed to use ready-made human equipment—machine guns, RPGs, armored vehicles. This is cheaper. Later, there will be specialized equipment.

So I don't believe that androids will be used en masse in the next 15 years as full-fledged assault weapons.

Well, questions of faith are rarely discussed on this site. More on facts.

[multi-category]

Quote: Civil

Everything is already in stock and in production.

about questions of faith.
How much does a full infantryman's gear cost these days? I estimate it's about 250.
How much does it cost to make a combat-ready robot? And I don't believe it can be operated without human supervision. Well, I'm familiar with real-world behavioral programming.
Next, how much does service and support cost?
Android is much more expensive, and its efficiency is highly questionable, to put it mildly. Plus, there'll be a ton of people behind the scenes maintaining it all.
I agree that it's better to have them fighting than alive, but that's extremely expensive and not affordable for many. Certainly not for our army, which fights in BMP-1s.

[alexoff]

Well, you are a dreamer, of course.

By the way, UAVs also started out with reconnaissance.

years 80 ago

without artificial intelligence, which allows for much more

AI that doesn't exist? So what do drones do these days, without operator command? Do they lock onto targets like anti-ship missiles from the 1950s?

Now they charge and change batteries on their own.

Who are these?

work online and do not depend on humans

What kind of robots are these?

Thousands of humanoid robots are already in stock and in production.

And what can they do? Dance? Walk up and down stairs during presentations? And all by themselves, without an Indian guy on the line, like Elon Musk?

For now, humanoid robots are needed to use ready-made human equipment—machine guns, RPGs, armored vehicles. It's cheaper.

Is that possible?! Show me a video of a robot shooting a gun or driving a regular car.

Well, questions of faith are rarely discussed on this site. More

fantasies like yours

[SovAr238A]

Quote from alexoff

Well, you are a dreamer, of course.
fantasies like yours

Return to the real world with normal Google queries.
He has changed a lot.

https://habr.com/ru/news/974966/

https://youtu.be/gMHJdg8h2Co?si=jLVE-9piec-f6EKS




Reality.
Midea Miro U: The world's first six-armed humanoid for factories, accelerating line changeovers.
Noetix Bumi: The most affordable humanoid for home and educational use, walks, dances, costs $1370.
XPeng IRON: A robot with "soft" skin, a triple AI brain, and a unique solid-state battery is planned for sale.
Robotera L7: The fastest humanoid in the world, reaching speeds of up to 14.4 km/h, performs industrial and household tasks.
UBTECH: Installed thousands of robots in factories that change batteries themselves.
EngineAI: Unveiled a "combat" robot being tested by the company's CEO

[alexoff]

The world's first six-armed humanoid for factories, accelerating line changeovers.

Did anyone buy it instead of the adjuster?

walks, dances

Oh, these dancing robots! Humanity created robots to dance.
Once you start to understand it, it's the standard skills of the old Japanese robots, Azimuth and Aibo. However, the Japanese weren't capable of such clownish marketing and didn't go beyond presentations.

[SovAr238A]

Quote from alexoff

The world's first six-armed humanoid for factories, accelerating line changeovers.

Did anyone buy it instead of the adjuster?

Midea plans to deploy Miro U at its premium washing machine factory in Wuxi by the end of 2025. The company expects the robot to increase production line efficiency by up to 30%. A previous version of the robot was already in operation at the Jingzhou plant.


UBTech will increase the production of humanoid robots tenfold by 2026 – and wants to reduce their cost to $20,000/
UBTech's Director of Branding, Michael Tam, told this publication in an interview that the company plans to increase its production of humanoid robots tenfold to 5000 units next year, and double it to 10,000 units by 2027. With mass electronics production in China, the company representative claims, production costs are decreasing by 20% annually. By the end of this year, UBTech will deliver 500 humanoid robots for use in production.
The Walker S2 humanoid robot, developed by UBTech, has already demonstrated the ability to independently replace its rechargeable batteries. This significantly increases its operational autonomy, as batteries that are too heavy increase the robot's weight and cost, while batteries that are too compact prevent it from operating continuously without recharging.

UBTech has already secured orders for the Walker S2, totaling over $112 million. They are planned for use in data centers and automobile assembly, among other applications. Over the past 20 months, the robots have been trained at FAW, Audi, Volkswagen, BAIC, Geely, and BYD, all of which specialize in automobile production. SF Express has also been testing this model of robot in the logistics sector. Contract electronics manufacturer Foxconn has also participated in testing. These robots are currently primarily used for carrying materials and parts, sorting them, and quality control. As the robots' applications expand, the control software improves rapidly. Mass production of the Walker S2 began in the middle of this month. Within ten years, UBTech expects to refine the robots to the point where they can be safely used in households.

[alexoff]

Lots of plans, but certainly a long way from Musk's plans.

[dnestr74]

Almost every UAV has an operator, and each android also needs a fighter operator for now.

[Revolver]

Quote: Civil

2. Make room for assaults under the armor.

Merkava

[PROXOR]

In other words, we are returning to Armata.

[Cympak]

Quote: PROXOR

In other words, we are returning to Armata.

But, most likely, with a different turret and a different APS

[PROXOR]

There's no need for it with a 125mm gun. Considering that the tank is currently used indirectly, a 152mm HE shell is far more powerful than a 125mm. Plus, 152mm HE shells put an end to all NATO efforts to create a well-armored tank. A 152mm HE shell will even penetrate the front of an Abrams tank's turret.

[Per se.]

Quote: Alekseev

But, if you get serious, you can make the appropriate rearrangement.

Even without reconfiguration, fuel and ammunition reserves could be carried on a trailer. For example, the Air Force used additional fuel tanks that were jettisoned after use or during enemy attacks or the start of combat.
The bogie can be armored or unarmored, wheeled or tracked. During WWII, armored bogies were used to transport infantry. The picture shows a KV-1 with an armored bogie on an extended T-60 and T-70 light tank chassis.

[stankow]

Well, then it’s better to have a cart in front so it catches mines.

[Per se.]

Quote: stankow

Well, then the cart in front is better

No better, it's not a trawl. You're being sarcastic for nothing.

[stankow]

No, I'm not being sarcastic. Of course, the photo doesn't show a mine-clearing vehicle, but a trailer. But if it's in the front, even on the move, it could easily protect the main vehicle and its crew, taking the brunt of a mine strike. It could be equipped with electric motors and powered.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: stankow

No, I'm not being sarcastic. Of course, the photo doesn't show a mine-clearing vehicle, but a trailer. But if it's in the front, even on the move, it could easily protect the main vehicle and its crew, taking the brunt of a mine strike. It could be equipped with electric motors and powered.

An explosion under the cart will, at a minimum, lead to a loss of propulsion (a wheel will be torn off) and we'll end up with a heavy anchor in front of the tank, firmly attached to it (a rigid coupling). The tank will completely lose propulsion.

[stankow]

Why is it rigid? We unhitch and move on. The tank may have less fuel, but it still has some ammo and fuel. The design certainly has some drawbacks, but the Arctic Troops do have such vehicles, coupled, albeit unarmored.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: stankow

Why is it hard?

How else do you expect to control it? Let's say a tank needs to turn—how do you do that with a cart attached to the front?

Quote: stankow

The Arctic troops have such vehicles, coupled, although unarmored.

They have a trailer part at the rear, and it is an integral part of the car (without it the car won’t drive)

[stankow]

How do they control modern robotic carts, many kilometers away from the operator? How about coupling steam locomotives from a single cabin? And what about "faithful wingman"-type UAVs? Modern electronics can do it all.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: stankow

How do they control modern robotic carts, many kilometers away from the operator? How about coupling steam locomotives from a single cabin? And what about "faithful wingman"-type UAVs? Modern electronics can do it all.

What's the point in blocking all this out?

[stankow]

Well, back to the beginning of the discussion: more armor on the tank, more fuel and ammo, better protection from mines, less gunpowder around the crew. The disadvantages outweigh them, but it's worth a try.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: stankow

Well, let's go back to the beginning of the discussion.

A cart attached to the back of a tank - cheap and cheerful.

[stankow]

Combat capsule for the crew, unmanned turret, Armata, not cheap, but with the future.

[Saxahorse]

Quote: Naofumi

Automatic loader similar to the Japanese Type-90.

It's interesting that in the picture, the shells in the Japanese tank are pointed toward the internal bulkhead. They're HEAT shells, by the way. Are you sure they won't penetrate the bulkhead upon detonation?

[Cympak]

Quote: Saxahorse

It's interesting that in the picture, the shells in the Japanese tank are pointed toward the internal bulkhead. They're HEAT shells, by the way. Are you sure they won't penetrate the bulkhead upon detonation?

Incidentally, the American Abrams's shells are stored head-first in the turret recess. However, the Americans have a black loader instead of an automatic loader. Placing the shells head-first in the turret would complicate the automatic loader's mechanics. Therefore, the French, Koreans, and Japanese, in order to simplify the automatic loader and increase its reliability, positioned the shells in the conveyor head-first toward the gun's breech.

[SovAr238A]

Quote: Saxahorse

Quote: Naofumi

Automatic loader similar to the Japanese Type-90.

It's interesting that in the picture, the shells in the Japanese tank are pointed toward the internal bulkhead. They're HEAT shells, by the way. Are you sure they won't penetrate the bulkhead upon detonation?

No. When warheads detonate, the physics of the process are completely different. The shot doesn't fire as intended, like from a cannon.

[Saxahorse]

Quote: SovAr238A

The shot does not work in the way it is intended, like from a cannon.

Why would a godfather need a shot? He can spit pretty well even lying down. Especially since the main issue is the presence of a large quantity of explosives that don't burn but detonate. A blow-out cap won't help in such a case; it will probably just fly away as shrapnel.

[wku]

I skimmed through the article, but it seems the most important thing wasn't mentioned: a protected metal unitary projectile is needed; cartridge propellant charges are the biggest problem.

[multi-category]

For sub-caliber rounds the dimensions are huge, so for now there are cartridges.

[wku]

On the contrary, NATO unitary shells have a longer rod, google it.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: wku

On the contrary, NATO unitary shells have a longer rod, google it.

Although it's a unitary projectile, it's in a combustible case. So there's no advantage in that regard.

[Saxahorse]

Quote: wku

But it seems the most important thing hasn't been mentioned: a protected metal unitary projectile is needed; cartridge propellant charges are the biggest problem.

In my opinion, the charges have been discussed and even illustrated. The charges can be stored separately, in the same turret niche. The turret will certainly withstand their ignition, but the same cannot be said for the detonation of the shells themselves.

[novel66]

We need a railgun in the tank. And there's nothing to explode!

[Revolver]

Quote: novel xnumx

We need a railgun in the tank.

And a trailer the size of a tank, maybe even bigger, with a generator to power the railgun. Until the first landing on the trailer. And if you armor the trailer, the tank's engine won't be able to handle the weight.

[Dante Alighieri]

It is not possible to isolate the ammunition in the current armored volume of the fighting compartment.

So what's the actual problem? Domestic tank ammunition is not unitary, meaning the shell itself and the propellant powder charge are separate. In this combination, the propellant powder charge is the most vulnerable part, being the most unstable and explosive element. The solution is both simple and elegant: remove the propellants from the automatic loader and transfer them to a separate automatic loader in the rear of the turret, while leaving the shells in place—in the carousel beneath the crew. This approach will not only reduce the risk of ammunition detonation (though it won't eliminate it entirely, since the same HE shells also contain propellant powder, albeit with significantly thicker shell casings), but will also address the projectile length limitation for the T-72/T-90, which is 740 mm, preventing them from using the most modern domestic APFSDS rounds, which are 900 mm long. Furthermore, moving only the propellant propellants, rather than the entire ammunition load, to the rear will make the rear compartment itself quite compact and protected, thereby reducing the risk of damage. The only remaining issue is the ammunition stored outside the autoloader, but here I would propose a radical solution: replacing it with ATGMs and using them only in the event of contact with enemy armored vehicles. That's the whole recipe. Yes, it's cheap and cheerful, but no less effective than an expensive unmanned turret with a bunch of optics, which is easily disabled by automatic cannon and machine gun fire.

[Cympak]

Quote: Dante

The solution is simple and elegant at the same time: we remove the charges from the automatic loader and transfer them to a separate automatic loader in the rear of the turret, while leaving the shells themselves in place – in the carousel under the crew.

It will also be necessary to solve the problem with APFSDS, which has an additional propellant charge around the "crowbar".
A possible solution is modular charges, like those used on the Koalitsiya-SV. The number of propellant charges is selected based on the projectile type, the required firing range, and the ballistics.

[stankow]

New? Even newer than the Armata? And the BC is isolated from the crew, don't you like it?

[bushmaster]

The Japanese were inspired by the Leclerc and, as in the case of the French, out of 45 shells, only 20 shots were fired at the rear of the turret, the rest of the shots were clearly located

[d.zacharith]

A drowning man must save himself, and therefore the troops are not sitting idle...

[Rash]

A full or even half-load of ammunition is out of the question in the SVO zone. They take 5-7 rounds for a few minutes of work. Unless they're preparing to fire from the ZOP. Otherwise, they risk being detected and hit by return fire or a PPV raid.

[andrewkor]

The future belongs to unmanned vehicles, including tanks. But what to do with thousands of existing vehicles? Modernize them into unmanned ones, just as retired MiG-15s were once converted into targets.

[multi-category]

Well, first of all, the troops are in different echelons. Not all of them are storming the front lines every day.
If you look at the armament of the division that counterattacked Georgia, you'll be surprised at how weak it was. Therefore, the armament of the units can be differentiated.

[Same lech]

Just think of the war in Syria. A hit (and the ammunition stowage) from an anti-tank grenade on the side of a tank, or even a powerful ATGM on the front, sends columns of flame shooting out of the hatches.

Yes, but then a tanker jumped out of the tank...burned but alive...amazing.

[Ermak_415]

How many less fortunate people are there for every one of these lucky ones?

[Cympak]

Even from the Syrian experience, one could see several possible scenarios for the development of a BK fire.
- hit the tank; smoke appears from the hatches due to a fire inside the tank; after a few seconds, violent deflagration of the charges with a flame force from the turret hatches; dense smoke from the hatches after the charges burn out; detonation of the ammunition
- the same as in the previous version, but the detonation of the BC occurs during the deflagration of the charges
- hit a tank or hit a mine; instant explosion of ammunition

[Vitaly.17]

As far as I understand, the issue of ammunition storage safety in the T-14 Armata has been practically resolved.

[Ermak_415]

Any problems can be solved in the "Armata", but for now it only fights in parades.

[multi-category]

Quote: Ermak_415

for now she only fights at parades

Not only that, formally it was in Syria and the North-Eastern Military District, but it was used as a support self-propelled gun, not as a tank.

[Azimutt]

It seems to be only because it costs a hell of a lot.

[Whisper]

It seems like it doesn't matter how much it costs anymore. More precisely, so many billions of money have been spent that any amount of advanced technology could have been purchased.

[Ermak_415]

Why is it needed at all, well, besides cutting up the budget, of course.
As a combat unit, it is so-so, since there are only a few of them and it would be irrational to produce new ones.
As a propaganda tool, it has long since exhausted its usefulness and has become a joke.
It won't be possible to sell it for export.
Any other suggestions on what to do with this super expensive lumber?

[stankow]

They said the same about the SU-57, but it turns out that yes, it fights.

[Ermak_415]

Don't you think there's a slight difference between the fifty-seventh and the Armata?
Well, for example, the Armata does NOT fight because there are too few of them and producing them is difficult, expensive and unprofitable.
And Sushka can also fight mainly in the media, like any wonder weapon on both sides.

[stankow]

No, I don't think so. Both systems were criticized by both the Western press and the Fifth Column. And then the footage started leaking, and the reports started coming out. They said both the Armata and the Su-57 were fighting. Thousands of tanks were burning in the fires of war. What do you think they'll produce to replace them after the war? The T-72, the T-90, or the promising, modern, proven Armata?

[Ermak_415]

T72, T90 or the promising, modern, proven Armata?

The first two.
The Armata has been in production since 2014, and in total, less than thirty units were produced.
And where's the evidence of the Armata's participation in combat? A video of soldiers supposedly driving an Armata across a field?
So, there were reports about Ukraine producing Flamingo missiles on Ukrainian soil and successfully testing them. Do you believe them? And there's more evidence for this than for the Armata's participation in the conflict.

[Ross xnumx]

Quote: Vitaly.17

As far as I understand, the issue of ammunition storage safety in the T-14 Armata has been practically resolved.

Solved...Solved?
Where are the solution results? Or, as usual, did you copy the answer from the back of the problem book?
Judging by the fact that the T-14s have disappeared from parades, nothing has been decided there... Although the idea (concept) is correct...

[Vitaly.17]

Quote: ROSS 42

Judging by the fact that the T-14s disappeared from the parades, nothing has been decided there.

They even showed them fighting in Syria. A video like that was circulating. And the fact that they disappeared from parades and aren't shown on the SVO is because military censorship hasn't been abolished. The T-14 is semi-secret. The main reason is likely its cost. The military prefers to have two T-90s with their own logistics base than one T-14 with a trailer from the factory crew for maintenance.

[Engineer]

As for the fact that they disappeared from parades and aren't shown on the SVO, well, no one has abolished military censorship. The T-14 is semi-secret.

What did they show at parades before, ten years in a row? The unclassified half?

[by land]

As Comrade Medvedev said: "Parades are parades. War is war."

https://topwar.ru/236898-parady-jeto-parady-vojna-jeto-vojna-medvedev-rasskazal-o-novom-tanke-armata-vs-rf.html

[Vitaly.17]

Quote: Engineer

What did they show at parades before?

Even in the early days of the Second Military District, the vehicle's participation in the front was reported for the first two years. But after the artillery warfare escalated into a drone war, the T-14's use became too risky. The capture or destruction of such a vehicle by the enemy could cause not only serious technical problems for tank production but also image issues.

[nightwolf1991]

Actually, they were also at the SVO!

[Per se.]

Quote: ROSS 42

Although the idea is correct...

The whole idea revolved around the 152mm gun, and the tank was practically ready, but it required a game of "platforms" on a crude, expensive, and complex chassis. So, instead of the T-95 (Object 195), they came up with something else, spending a huge amount of money and wasting time. The picture shows the T-14 "Armata" (125mm gun) and the T-95 (152mm gun).

[stankow]

And what kind of problems can’t be solved with a 125 mm gun, so that a 152 mm one suffers?

[Per se.]

Quote: stankow

What kind of problems can't be solved with a 125mm cannon?

The tasks of a 125mm gun can be accomplished with a 125mm gun. The development of the "Object 195" (T-95) solved a major problem in modern tank design: the power reserves of existing 125mm (in Russia) and 120mm (in the West) tank guns were virtually exhausted. Therefore, the tank was designed to mount a 152mm gun in an unmanned turret.

[stankow]

If it wasn’t accepted into production, it means it wasn’t decided.

[Cympak]

Quote: Per se.

the power reserves of existing tank guns of 125 mm (in Russia) and 120 mm (in the West) caliber were practically exhausted,

The Chinese, with their new Type 100 tank, have stated that the reserves for the 105mm gun have not yet been exhausted and that this caliber can achieve characteristics comparable to existing 120-125mm guns.
It is possible to develop the idea of ​​electrothermochemical (ETC) guns, which promise a significant increase in impulse.

[Per se.]

Quote: Cympak

It is possible to develop the idea of ​​electrothermochemical (ETC) guns, which promise a significant increase in impulse.

It is possible, however, that both here and in the West, more powerful 130-140 mm and 152 mm guns have been and are being developed.
I don't argue that the 57mm caliber could be relevant, especially in combination with new anti-tank missiles, reviving the IT-1's concept as a "missile tank" in a new form. Abandoning the bulky and heavy tank gun entirely in favor of missiles promises many advantages, primarily the weight savings for increased protection.

[alexoff]

But the T55 and T62 have solved this problem, since they actually showed up on radar. We've probably written off trillions in losses as unresolved problems, shrugging our shoulders, and no one's to blame.

[Kravets Vyacheslav]

The ammunition loadout remains in the Armata, just as it was in the tank's hull. That doesn't seem like a "solution."

[Vitaly.17]

Quote: Kravets Vyacheslav

The ammunition load remained in the tank's hull as it was in the Armata.

In this case, the warhead is protected by armor. I don't think even the shaped-charge jet from a Javelin-type ATGM would reach it. And the crew's armored capsule is probably designed for such a scenario.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: Kravets Vyacheslav

The ammunition loadout remains in the Armata, just as it was in the tank's hull. That doesn't seem like a "solution."

Where should we put it? Place it under the turret roof, in the rear, like on the Abrams and partially on the Leo-2, where it's barely covered by armor and easily susceptible to attack from any drone?
Moreover, according to old statistics, when firing at tanks with guns, the majority of hits are aimed at the turret.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: Bad_gr

.... under the roof of the turret, in its rear part, as it is on the Abrams and partially on the Leo-2, where it is not really covered by armor from above and where it is quite accessible to a strike from any drone?

[Kravets Vyacheslav]

as is the case with the Abrams and partly with the Leo-2

Just like the T-90M. Just like what was planned for Object 640. Just like what was originally planned for the BM Burlak.

The armor on top doesn't really cover it and it's quite vulnerable to attack from any drone.

The Armata's ammunition supply isn't protected from above because it's located under the turret, and the turret roof armor is a thin strip of metal, with ERA on top. There's also a hatch on top, which could be a weak point. The APS could have been relied upon, but it's not designed to engage targets from above.
Of course, with another turret, more armored, on which there would also be an active protection system capable of intercepting targets from above, this concept could work, but such a turret has yet to appear, for now it does not exist.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: Bad_gr

Place it under the roof of the tower, in its rear part, as is the case with the Abrams and partially with the Leo-2,

Quote: Kravets Vyacheslav

Same as on the T-90M

The T-90M has a box for additional ammunition at the rear of the turret, and it does not have a combat release; it is simply attached to the turret (the military insisted that the ammunition carried be 40 rounds).

Quote: Kravets Vyacheslav

The Armata's ammunition supply is not covered from above because it is located under the turret, and the turret roof armor is not a very thick strip of metal, with ERA on top.

I've heard reports that the T-14 turret is equipped with a "Cactus"-type protection system (like the one on Object 640), which is specifically designed to protect against threats from above. I can't vouch for the veracity of this information, but judging by the thickness of the roof, it's quite possible.

[Vanches]

Everything can be covered with armor from above, either the turret roofs of the T-50s or the roof of the Abrams, but if this armor is penetrated, the result will be very different.
Well, the knock-out panels themselves can also be developed,

[Bad_gr]

Quote: Vanches

Everything can be covered with armor from above, either the turret roofs of the T-50s or the roof of the Abrams, but if this armor is penetrated, the result will be very different.
Well, the knock-out panels themselves can also be developed,

The blowout panels must be relatively light so that if the ammunition fires, they, and not the armored door inside the tank, are the ones that fly off. If they are covered by armor, that's exactly what will happen (an explosion inside the tank).
Here are some options for our T-shirts with roof protection.

[Vanches]

https://t.me/btvt2019/8956?single
I can't describe it better

[Bad_gr]

Quote: Vanches

https://t.me/btvt2019/8956?single

Time will tell how successful this decision is.

[Vanches]

Koreans did it like this

[Totor5]

Moreover, it is located there standing (because the shells are longer), and not lying down as is now the case in the T90.

[Cympak]

Quote: Vitaly.17

As far as I understand, the issue of ammunition storage safety in the T-14 Armata has been practically resolved.

Well, that depends. The Armata's design allows for the use of highly effective fire suppression and ammunition cooling systems in the event of a propellant charge deflagration, as the crew is separated from the automatic loader and fuel tanks by an armored bulkhead. However, an ammunition charge detonation will still destroy the tank and crew if they fail to evacuate in time. A possible solution is a dual-flow automatic loader in a new turret. The hull-mounted automatic loader houses only APFSDS rounds and propellant charges, while the turret-mounted automatic loader houses HE rounds, multifunctional rounds (similar to American AMP rounds), and guided missiles. It's time to abandon HEAT rounds, as has already been done in Western tanks. Developing the ideas of the Black Eagle, the turret recess could be designed as a "shoot-off" container. In case of damage to the ammunition container located in the turret niche, automatically turn the turret to the side and fire off the damaged container with pyropatrons.
As a result, there's nothing to explode in the hull; only the propellant charges can burn out. And if a fire develops in the turret recess, threatening the detonation of the ammunition, the recess is jettisoned onto the side of the tank. Even if the ammunition in the turret recess detonates immediately after a hit, this design gives the crew a better chance of survival. Additionally, it prevents the detonation of the ammunition in the event of a TM or anti-bottom mine.

[Totor5]

I've been saying for a long time that the armored capsule won't withstand the explosion of ammunition inside the hull, but it's safer in the turret; the explosion in an unmanned turret will most likely go into the air.
The problem with the Armata and similar turretless tanks is that how and where to weld a grill?
I won't even mention the problems of poor visibility and extreme dependence on electrics and electronics—what if the gun or the automatic transmission jams? There's no backup manual control or observation devices.

[Dometer]

Tank guns weigh around 2,5 tons. If they were muzzle-loading, they could be reduced to 1,5 tons. To replace one 60-ton tank with 30 rounds of ammunition, we'd need 30 unmanned tankettes each with a single-shot gun. In addition to the gun, the tankette would need a mechanical arm to raise it upside down after firing (but perhaps not after every shot). The same arm could also lift a surveillance camera and a drone net. I think the optimal weight for a tankette would be 4-6 tons.
When attacked, tankettes that have fired their weapons do not rush to reload, but on the contrary, pretend to be the most aggressive in order to divert attacks from the rest of the pack.

[Totor5]

Why do we need a single-shot cannon when we can make a guided projectile - a drone?

[Dometer]

The guided missile - the drone - is disposable, but the gun can be reloaded 100 times.

[Amateur]

There is no such thing as a perfect weapon. This photo shows an explosion of ammunition in an Abrams.

[2 Level Advisor]

Quote: Amateur

There is no such thing as a perfect weapon. This photo shows an explosion of ammunition in an Abrams.

To be fair, this particular tank was abandoned and burned empty by the infantry... so it wasn't an ammo explosion.
https://andrewbek-1974.livejournal.com/703838.html?utm_medium=organic&utm_source=yandexsmartcamera

[dragon772]

Watch more videos from the Hussites where they burn Abrams in batches.
https://yandex.ru/video/preview/15922546872609278333

[Per se.]

Quote: Level 2 Advisor

This is not an explosion of ammunition..

There's no indestructible vehicle; everything burns. The problem is using it wisely; otherwise, if there's no ammunition (the tank itself), there's no problem. Guys in slippers on mopeds and drones are the pinnacle of new tactics.

[2 Level Advisor]

Quote: Per se.

There's no indestructible vehicle; everything burns. The problem is using it wisely; otherwise, if there's no ammunition (the tank itself), there's no problem. Guys in slippers on mopeds and drones are the pinnacle of new tactics.

You're right, I was just responding to the comment where this photo was presented as an ammo explosion, not arson.

[Popandos]

Abrams ammunition explosion

The question isn't how to completely prevent the detonation of the ammunition, the question is how to preserve the tank and crew.

[Cympak]

Quote: Amateur

This photo shows an explosion of ammunition in an Abrams.

Where did you see the explosion? That's the deflagration of the charges. Considering the Abrams's BC is based on a BOPS, there's probably nothing there to explode.

[the same doctor]

The problem of crew rescue is solved not by tank modifications, but by remotely controlling the armored vehicle. Subsequently, the absence of a crew will allow for a radical reduction in the volume behind the armor, possibly limiting the design to just spall armor. Automatic shotguns will provide protection against drones and ATGMs.

[severok1979]

The tank's problem is that it is either immobilized by a mine explosion or an ATGM hit, or is immediately taken out by a swarm of drones - in such a tactical situation, ammunition stowage issues are deeply secondary.

[sniper]

For T-series tanks, there's a simple, and in my opinion, the only possible solution: a dual-flow autoloader! Keep the shells in the under-turret carousel, and move the propellant charges (the most fire-prone part) to a niche behind the turret! This would significantly improve crew survivability without radically redesigning the tank. The Chinese already have a patent for this!

[Cympak]

Quote: Snyper

For the T-series tanks, there is a simple, and in my opinion, the only possible solution: make the autoloader dual-stream!

Not only.
1. Abandon non-mechanized stacking of BC and rack tanks
2. Isolate the fuel tanks from the habitable volume with armored partitions, as is done, for example, in the Abrams.

[BAI]

Those who adopt, develop and finance these tanks must go into battle.
The designer of the Merkava was a tank driver and general who took direct part in the battles.
And the Merkava is a good tank for Israeli conditions.

[hohol95]

And for other “conditions”, not the land of Israel and the Gaza Strip, are “Chariots” suitable?

[BAI]

Of course not. The tank was created by an Israeli general, and for Israel, that's a very limited area.
And here another problem arises, which, as a rule, is not considered - you cannot be equally strong EVERYWHERE.
Tanks that are good for one theater of war may not be effective in another.

[hohol95]

We need different tanks!
Tanks are different and important!
A striking example is the PT-76 in the 1971 battles in East Bengal.

[hohol95]

Are the curtains covering the Abrams's BC always closed or do they have to be opened sometimes?
Do the loaders even ever take out the shells?

[Totor5]

You have to press a button, but it only gives access to half of it.

[hohol95]

Pressed the button - a projectile popped out?

[Totor5]

You press it - the shutters open - you take the projectile, but the Egyptians block the button so that you don’t have to press it constantly.
The second-stage ammunition stowage is located on the left, behind the commander, and to transfer it to the first-stage ammunition stowage there is a special, inconvenient mechanism, which is difficult and time-consuming.
Leopards also have doors. The secondary ammunition stowage is located in the front, directly in the tank's hull. But to retrieve the shell from there, the turret must be rotated.
A similar design is used in the Leclerc and its Asian counterparts, such as the Korean Panther and the Japanese ones.
In the Challenger, everything is in the hull.

[Totor5]

In Merkavas, everything is done manually and in boxes.

[hohol95]

Leopards also have doors. The secondary ammunition stowage is located in the front, directly in the tank's hull. But to retrieve the shell from there, the turret must be rotated.

Did this help the Turkish Leopard 2A4 in the battles with the Syrian Kurds in 2018?

[Totor5]

Well, it certainly didn't hurt, since they wanted to buy more, wanted to modernize the old ones, but couldn't because of German sanctions. Better the old Leopard 2 than the 1 and the M60.

[hohol95]

Why didn't the Turks buy the Abrams, Leclerc or Challenger 2?

[Totor5]

Well, they and the Leopards bought used ones when there was a big sale. They're really into used ones there.
They haven't made the Challenger for 20 years, so who needs one? They didn't even sell the first Challenger; they gave it away.

Abrams require maintenance and have a turbocharged engine, but in sandy conditions, a diesel is needed. That's why the Leclerc (expensive) was custom-built for the Arabs, with an extended hull to accommodate the Leopard engine. And Leclercs haven't been produced for 20 years, either; even Finnish engines aren't produced anymore, so France is wondering what to do with them and how to modernize them.

Abrams tanks haven't been in production for a long time, but Iraq still has them, and they're being assembled under license in Egypt from spare parts. However, due to disagreements and disputes, they periodically discuss purchasing T90s.

The Turks could have bought the Abrams, but apparently they're not selling it, just like the F35, and they don't have the infrastructure. They'd prefer the Leopard since it's familiar to them. They actually want their own Altay tank, which has been in production for 20 years, almost like the Armata—they just wanted to install a Leopard engine in it, but they weren't sold one. So now they're negotiating with the Koreans about buying Panther engines and gearboxes. They actually want licensed production with technology transfer, but the Koreans aren't so stupid as to share anything, apparently. Although they themselves have problems with the Panther due to its unreliable engine and terrible gearbox—a crappy copy of the German one.

That's why the Turks drive old cars, which they modernize with the help of the Jews.

[hohol95]

Upgraded.
The new Sultan had a falling out with the inhabitants of the "Promised Lands".

[Totor5]

He didn't quarrel with anyone...
Why did the Istanbul talks reach a dead end? They couldn't find an empty chair...because Erdogan was sitting on everyone's.

[Captain Pushkin]

Quote: hohol95

Did this help the Turkish Leopard 2A4 in the battles with the Syrian Kurds in 2018?

I remember the footage of the Leo being hit in the side by an ATGM and the instant detonation of the ammunition stowage - that Leo was blown to smithereens...

[Totor5]

You just need to load it first, just like in the T90 - only into the machine.
It's true that the Leopard 2's first burst is only 15 shells.
Abrams has 18
In the Leclerc Automatic and its analogue - 16
Asians - 14/18
Leclerc - 22 in the machine, but the rest are in the drum and are not easy to get.

[Cympak]

Quote: Totor5

Leopards also have doors. The secondary ammunition stowage is located in the front, directly in the tank's hull. But to retrieve the shell from there, the turret must be rotated.
A similar design is used in the Leclerc and its Asian counterparts, such as the Korean Panther and the Japanese ones.

In their designs for advanced tanks, Americans and Europeans plan to abandon non-automated ammunition stowage in the hull and store the entire ammunition load in the automatic loading conveyor.

[Scaffold]

Quote: hohol95

And for other “conditions”, not the land of Israel and the Gaza Strip, are “Chariots” suitable?

Are submarines suitable for aerial combat? The Merkavas were specifically designed for one specific theater of war.

[hohol95]

That's why they are not exported.
Nobody will buy them.

[dragon772]

Therefore, developing a design that is more or less adequate to reality will clearly cost a pretty penny.

Why guess? The T-14, with its crew in an armored capsule, is separated from the compartment with charges and shells by an armor plate.
When the ammo explodes, the capsule is deformed, but the crew remains alive.

[Cympak]

Quote: dragon772

Therefore, developing a design that is more or less adequate to reality will clearly cost a pretty penny.

Why guess? The T-14, with its crew in an armored capsule, is separated from the compartment with charges and shells by an armor plate.
When the ammo explodes, the capsule is deformed, but the crew remains alive.

Judging by photos and video footage, when the ammo explodes, the tanks are torn apart so much that their hull armor plates are thrown tens of meters away. Will even a few centimeters of armor protect against such a blast? I doubt it.

[Dometer]

The T-14's fighting compartment needs to be evacuated (not to space vacuum (or all the lubricants will evaporate), but to ~0,1 atm). And immediately filled with some kind of flame-suppressing gas. Then the gunpowder might not ignite.

[dragon772]

You can pump nitrogen under the turret, then there will be no oxygen. There will be nothing to burn. But if the shell (explosive) hits it, there will be a detonation.

[Cympak]

Atmospheric oxygen is not required for combustion of the charges. The charges are essentially composed of solid propellant, which contains both fuel and oxidizer. Therefore, extinguishing burning charges is useless, but after they burn out, secondary ignition sources must be extinguished and the charges cooled with a coolant to prevent detonation.
Fuel tanks can be filled with inert gas, as is done in aviation.

[dragon772]

This is official data. The video was not posted.

[David1993]

How much longer can we continue to chew on this perestroika nonsense? Every dog ​​has already seen for itself that Soviet tank building is the best in the world.
Nowadays, only Novodvorskys and pig-nosed people squeal about flying towers

But the facts are: the carousel is the MOST protected place in the tank (in the center and very bottom of the vehicle), and it's very difficult to reach. Meanwhile, a drone can easily penetrate NATO ammo racks right through the roof without a warhead, simply by sheer weight.
Nowadays, only a saboteur or a Pikuli signatory with an IQ of less than 30 can agitate for aft ammunition stowage with knock-out panels.
And yes, the blowout panels do relieve pressure when the charges burn. BUT! They don't protect against high-explosive charges. And without them, a tank is NOT NEEDED. Without them, a tank is a 60-ton machine gun mount.
And for this reason, to fall in love with the design and tightness of holes?

[Popandos]

In fact, Soviet tank building is the best in the world.

and so that Russian tank building remains one of the best in the world, not only

How much can you suck on?

, but we need to chew over it, discuss it, argue, build and test different layout options.

[Cympak]

Quote from David1993

But in fact: the carousel is the MOST protected place in the tank (in the center and at the very bottom of the vehicle) and it is very difficult to get to it.

A hull anti-tank mine or a standard TM mine detonated near the automatic loader penetrates the tank's thin underbody and, as a rule, detonates the ammunition, instantly killing the tank and crew. The sides near the automatic loader are also only 80 mm thick, meaning they can be penetrated even by the autocannons of modern Western infantry fighting vehicles. Additional side protection for the automatic loader is problematic due to the length of the APFSDS rounds. Modern 900 mm long "Vakuum-1/2" APFSDS rounds could not be fitted into the T-90 tank's automatic loader.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: Cympak

An anti-bottom mine or a regular TM mine, detonated in the area of ​​the automatic loader, breaks through the thin bottom of the tank and, as a rule, detonates the ammunition, instantly killing the tank and crew.

And in the Abrams, after a mine explodes under the crew's feet, the crew sits down to drink tea? Where does almost a ton of kerosene in the fighting compartment go after the explosion?

Quote: Cympak

The sides in the area of ​​the automatic loader are also only 80 mm thick, i.e. they can be penetrated even by the autocannons of modern Western infantry fighting vehicles.

This is a fairy tale. All tanks in the SVO (T-72B3, T-BVM, T-90M) now have additional side skirts, which, in addition to the additional armor, also have built-in ERA, plus the road wheels cover part of the hull. Additional ERA is now installed on the sides and rear of the turret.

[Totor5]

Yes, there's a video where a T90M gets completely destroyed by an ATGM hit on the side. And instantly, at that.

As for the idea that it's easier to shoot down a turreted vehicle with a drone—again, there are tons of videos of drones penetrating the turret from the rear to the detonation chamber. That's why the T72M has Kaktus ERA, so what's stopping you from installing the same ERA on the turreted vehicle?

[Vanches]

https://t.me/btvt2019/19230
The leopard is alive

[APASUS]

The American Abrams' turret is just as tossable. And the problem of ammunition stowage won't be solved, at this stage, in principle. For now, the only option is to build tanks similar to unmanned systems.

[nightwolf1991]

Here it is worth recalling again the American Abrams, about which there are still rumors that its rear ammunition compartment can be penetrated by a machine gun. According to data from the Swedish tender, the sides of this tank in the area of ​​the turret ammunition stowage in the M1A2 modification have the equivalent of steel armor against shaped-charge weapons of about 380 millimeters at a direct (!) angle of fire.

This was done, of course, to reduce the likelihood of damage to the ammunition rack, but that's not all. The lower the residual armor penetration of a shell (its fragments or shaped-charge jet fragments), the lower the probability of detonation of explosive-laden shells. For example, here's some information on domestic ammunition ("Development Paths for Integrated Tank Protection"):

...When the ammunition compartment is penetrated by armor-piercing sub-caliber and cumulative projectiles with an armor-piercing margin of approximately 150 mm, the ammunition does not detonate...

Here's what I want to say about the Abrams tank's armor protection. In the video, testing of the M1 series Abrams tank shows four ammunition racks. The gun is 105mm caliber, and five rounds are stored in a niche under the barrel. Then, I think another eight rounds are stored in the fighting compartment itself. And I think you understand that the crew has no protection from explosions or fires from these rounds. And the remaining two ammunition racks are in the rear compartment of the turret, with armor thickness of only 20mm!

Furthermore, the M1A1 modification has three ammunition racks, as the gun's caliber is larger—120mm—and the ammunition under the barrel no longer fits. However, eight rounds are still stored inside the tank, in the fighting compartment. And, just like the previous model, two ammunition racks are located in the rear of the turret, behind a 20mm bulkhead. The Abrams's ammunition, or more accurately, its turret ammo, is mounted in a capsule against the armored bulkhead, which is equipped with a sliding curtain. BUT! This curtain is only accessible to the loader! To open it, the loader must press a "button" with his knee and hold it there while standing on one leg! Therefore, in most cases, this curtain is simply disabled on the Abrams tank! So, what kind of crew protection can we possibly be talking about in this case? Now. The Abrams, like the Leopard, doesn't have a full-fledged HE round. Instead, it uses a shaped-charge round. But it still has an HE effect. BUT! The rounds in the Abrams's turret aren't separated from each other. Now imagine this: A round hits the Abrams's turret. The same old CROWBAR. The Abrams's rounds aren't separately loaded! What happens in this case? That's right, the propellant charge ignites. But since it's essentially in a confined space, the combustion gases have nowhere to go. And a sharp release of energy occurs, aka an explosion. And that, by the way, is about 1-1.5 kg of explosive, equivalent to about 3,5 kg of TNT. And that's just the propellant charge! You might say there are blowout panels. Yes, there are. But they don't protect against an explosion, but from a FIRE in the ammunition. If an explosion occurs, the blowout panels will certainly deflect some of the blast energy, but more than half of this energy will still impact the tank, especially the turret. Next. The HEAT round itself. Yes, it points away from the crew. But if the round explodes, the jet will defocus, and it will travel both forward and backward. And this happens very quickly. And there are 20 rounds in just one turret ammunition box, from which the loader pulls the rounds! Even with a full 50/50 load, we get 120 kg of explosives in TNT equivalent, with the explosive mass in the round itself weighing between 2 and 4 kg! In total, there are about 150 kg of explosives in the ammunition rack. And the penetration of the HEAT round on the Abrams is 500 mm. What good are those 20-30mm armored bulkheads, even if the jet is completely defocused? The result: a dead crew. And the Abrams' turret ring will at the very least be torn off.

[agond]

For some special cases, you can remove the automatic loader (it will free up a lot of space) and load it manually the old-fashioned way, but in general, it is more correct to think about this in a crewless tank

[nightwolf1991]

The automatic loader is better. It doesn't get tired. It breaks, but it can be repaired.

[nightwolf1991]

But I agree with you about the unmanned tank.

[Quzmi4]

remove the automatic loader (it will free up a lot of space)

When they made the 64, they said, "They removed the loader, put in a machine gun, and freed up a lot of space."

[Cympak]

Quote: NightWolf1991

But 8 shots are also located inside the tank, in the fighting compartment.

This is not true, these shots are located in special armored niches.

[Cympak]

Quote: NightWolf1991

You'll say there are blowout panels. Yes, there are. But they don't protect against explosions, they protect against FIRE.

Can you provide many videos of the ammo detonation immediately after the fire in the Abrams' turret niche? I don't recall any.
Typically, the crew has time to abandon the tank after the propellant charges in the turret niche burn out. Furthermore, the ammo compartment's isolation allows for the use of a powerful coolant to cool the projectiles after the propellant charges burn out without the risk of killing the crew (provided, of course, that the loader's shutter is closed; if it was open, it doesn't matter). However, the M830A1 HEAT round isn't the Abrams' primary round. The Abrams' primary round is the APFSDS.

[nightwolf1991]

Yes, the Abrams' primary round is the APFSDS. But HEAT rounds are also a mandatory component of its ammunition.

[Captain Pushkin]

Quote: NightWolf1991

Even with a full 50/50 ammo load, we're dealing with 120 kg of TNT equivalent explosive, with the actual explosive in the shell weighing between 2 and 4 kg! That's a total of about 150 kg of explosive in the ammo rack. And the Abrams' HEAT warhead has 500 mm of penetration. So what do those 20-30 mm armored bulkheads matter, even if the jet is completely defocused? The result: a dead crew. And the Abrams' turret ring will, at a minimum, fall off.

It's been proven. Even if the turret doesn't fly off, the Abrams crew is killed when the ammo explodes, and the tank is beyond repair due to its bulging armor. However, the Abrams may appear almost intact (except for the holes in the rear of the turret).

[Andrey_i_K]

Since there won't be any old upgrade stock left in a year, there's no point in wasting time and money on old turrets. We need to design a new one, as described in this article, with a standard turret ring and a proper FPV drone bait.

[Andrey_i_K]

transverse profile - V

[Doctor]

When firing from indirect positions, all this no longer makes sense, and neither do the tanks themselves.

[Quzmi4]

Watching the video of the Abram's burning ammunition rack, I thought: how much control do you have to have and trust that it will all work out, to not jump out of the tank in such a situation? Well, except for the driver, at certain turret angles. It explodes like crazy, like...

[Cympak]

Quote: Quzmi4

While watching the video of the Abram's burning ammunition rack, I thought: how much control do you have to have and trust that everything will be alright, so as not to jump out of the tank in such a situation?

You must not exit the Abrams while the propellant charges in the turret niche are burning out, and the turret hatches must not be opened. If possible, rotate the turret sideways (to prevent the fire from spreading to the engine compartment) and wait for the propellant charges to deflagrate. After that, you can exit the tank.

[Quzmi4]

(c) "Everything that can be bought with gold is cheaper than tears and blood" Vera Kamsha

[Dmitry Eon]

The BK should only carry sub-caliber ammunition, storing the charges in cartridge cases in the rear niche, and supplement the armament with a 30mm cannon, because the tasks for which high-explosive sub-caliber ammunition is supposedly "essentially needed" are primarily combat against exposed infantry or dugouts, and the 30mm cannon is perfectly capable of accomplishing these tasks. Similar improvements can be made to the Armata; it's no wonder it's been in development for fifteen years.

[Anthony]

The solution to this situation is to limit the ammo until a new tank arrives. Right now, it's one or two shots and that's it. Sometimes more, but why carry dozens? It's entirely possible to reliably isolate a few shots.

[Dmitry Eon]

Over the past year and a half, there have been numerous videos of battles involving Tsar-Mangals, with a tank leading the way and suppressing enemy firing positions with fairly intense fire, followed by infantry fighting vehicles, MT-LBs, or infantry on motorcycles or ATVs. The question is, is a 125mm HE shell needed to suppress enemy firing positions? Or is a burst of fire from a 30mm cannon better?

[d.zacharith]

The new tanks will likely eliminate the rotating turret and reduce their ammunition capacity. I also don't rule out the addition of a troop compartment for two or three infantrymen.

[K-50]

A new turret may even be required, rather than redesigning the existing one. But this is in any case better than the high probability of permanently losing both tanks and crews, which would be even more expensive. However, the benefit will be significantly greater, since even when fired upon with classic anti-tank weapons, depending on the conditions, the permanent losses of tanks (with isolated ammunition compartments) and crews can be reduced by a factor of 5-7.

Here it is also necessary to keep in mind that the placement of the BU in the carousel does not allow for an increase in the length of the sub-caliber projectiles, thereby limiting their penetration resistance.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: K-50

Here it is also necessary to keep in mind that the placement of the BU in the carousel does not allow for an increase in the length of the sub-caliber projectiles, thereby limiting their penetration resistance.

That's not a given. It all depends on the design of this "carousel." Compare the length of the subcaliber projectile that could be fired from the old automatic firing system with the length of the projectile that can be used with the automatic firing system now installed on the new T-90 and T-72 tanks after modernization. The maximum permissible projectile length has increased to 740 mm. On the T-14, the projectile length in the conveyor belt, with the same caliber, is over 900 mm.

[Cympak]

Quote: K-50

Here it is also necessary to keep in mind that the placement of the BU in the carousel does not allow for an increase in the length of the sub-caliber projectiles, thereby limiting their penetration resistance.

According to some leaks, the shells and charges in the Armata AZ carousel are arranged vertically.

[Ivan Mak_2]

If there is a completely unmanned turret, isolated from the crew, it is theoretically possible to arrange the shells in a rack parallel to the barrel, which will remove the limitation on the length of the shell.

[Grossvater]

Here it is worth recalling again the American Abrams, about which there are still rumors that its rear ammunition compartment can be penetrated by a machine gun. According to data from the Swedish tender, the sides of this tank in the area of ​​the turret ammunition stowage in the M1A2 modification have the equivalent of steel armor against shaped-charge weapons of about 380 millimeters at a direct (!) angle of fire.

Is it okay that the Abrasha has part of its ammunition stowed in the fighting compartment right next to the 38mm side armor, and the driver is actually sitting sandwiched between two fuel tanks?

[Bad_gr]

Quote: Grossvater

And it doesn’t matter that Abrasha has part of its ammunition located in the fighting compartment close to the 38 mm side armor,

On the new modifications of the Abrams, the ammunition was completely removed from the combat unit, leaving it only in the turret.

Quote: Grossvater

And is the driver actually sitting sandwiched between two fuel tanks?

left 403,3 liters
right 569,9 liters
(total in both 973,2 liters)
Standard tank refueling for 8 hours of operation - 1360 liters of kerosene.

[Cympak]

Quote: Grossvater

And is the driver actually sitting sandwiched between two fuel tanks?

The only thing is that the tanks are separated from the control compartment by armored partitions.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: Cympak

Quote: Grossvater

And is the driver actually sitting sandwiched between two fuel tanks?

The only thing is that the tanks are separated from the control compartment by armored partitions.

And what cases is this protection designed for?

[Cympak]

The frontal fuel tanks, insulated by an armored bulkhead, serve as structural protection against shaped-charge munitions. This is a common engineering technique used, for example, on the BMP-3.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: Cympak

The tanks in the front of the tank, isolated by an armored bulkhead, serve as structural protection against cumulative ammunition.

Regarding the fuel tanks, it's clear. I'm asking about the armored bulkheads (they're located between the driver and the fuel tank). If the armored bulkheads are welded to the bottom of the tank, then if the fuel tank is penetrated (a hit to the side), fuel will start spilling into the fighting compartment. The armored bulkheads between the tank and the driver, in this case, offer no protection. So what are they even for?

[Cympak]

A gap is created between the armored bulkhead and the tank wall. Even if the tank is penetrated, fuel should not leak into the control compartment.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: Cympak

A gap is created between the armored bulkhead and the tank wall. Even if the tank is penetrated, fuel should not leak into the control compartment.

Let me repeat: where will almost a ton of fuel go if the tanks are punctured (let’s say, if the tank hits an anti-bottom mine)?

[Dometer]

Aren't the tanks self-sealing? Aren't there a couple hundred rubber balls that rush to the drain and plug the hole?

[Grossvater]

Quote: Dmitry Eon

The BC should only contain sub-caliber ammunition.

Aha! Excuse me, but have you ever even seen a picture of a APFSDS round? Half the propellant charge is located on the armor-piercing core itself, and in terms of fire hazard, an APFSDS round is no different from a propellant half-charge.

[Cympak]

Quote: Grossvater

Aha! Excuse me, but have you ever even seen a picture of a APFSDS round? Half the propellant charge is located on the armor-piercing core itself, and in terms of fire hazard, an APFSDS round is no different from a propellant half-charge.

BOPS burns out in the same way as OFS and BKS, but unlike them, it does not detonate.

[Grossvater]

Quote: NightWolf1991

The Abrams, like the Leopard, does not have a full-fledged HE projectile.

But in the Leopard the driver sits next to the ammunition and nothing special!

[Maxim Davydov]

Quote: dnestr74

Almost every UAV has an operator, and each android also needs a fighter operator for now.

Not quite. UAV production and consumption per year is measured in the millions, while there are thousands or at most tens of thousands of operators. It'll be similar with androids, the difference being if not two orders of magnitude, then an order of magnitude. Not a 1:1 ratio.

[deddem]

Quote: Grossvater

Quote: NightWolf1991

The Abrams, like the Leopard, does not have a full-fledged HE projectile.

But in the Leopard the driver sits next to the ammunition and nothing special!

In Challenger he is actually lying in an embrace with the BC.

[1944-1989]

The USSR was working on a next-generation tank, but this coincided with the deliberate collapse of the USSR. In "democratic" Russia, work was abandoned, delaying the development of the tank industry for decades. Only recently was the T-14 "Armata" developed, undoubtedly incorporating many design features of the T-95. However, it has not yet been widely deployed in the armed forces.

[Grossvater]

Quote: Bad_gr

On the new modifications of the Abrams, the ammunition was completely removed from the combat unit, leaving it only in the turret.

Thanks! I have the book, but it's obviously about older modifications.

[Mister who]

You still use a Tank as a Tank))) Then you need to heal, the world does not stand still - drones and robots, and you use Tanks like that, just use them like Artillery, that's all!

[maximkrivihin]

The Abrams' isolated ammunition rack will only protect the crew from the fire of burning propellant powder. If even a single shell explodes, the 20-25mm armor curtain separating the crew from the ammunition will be useless—it will simply be pushed inward by the shock wave. However, the probability of hitting the Abrams' ammunition rack, located two meters above the ground, is much higher than that of the Tshek's ammunition rack, the top of which is about a meter above the ground.

[futurohunter]

The author doesn't seem to mention the Armata, but it has a separate weapons compartment with an automatic loader, and the crew sits in an armored capsule. You can't redesign domestic tanks. You can only build additional barbecues until fundamentally new tanks appear.
Western tanks with ammunition stored in a niche behind the turret are cited as a positive example. But the author is being disingenuous here. He's talking about armored shutters that isolate the shells from the fighting compartment. But with manual loading, you won't be constantly opening and closing the armored shutter in combat, so it's left open.
Even if you create an automatic loader that takes shells from the rear niche, it's still impossible to isolate the ammunition stowage from the turret compartment. There are only two possible solutions: a turretless gun placement (Object 477, 490A, T-95, etc.), or an isolated weapons compartment, as in the Armata.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: futurohunter

There are only two possible solutions: a turretless gun placement (objects 477, 490a, T-95, etc.), or an isolated weapons compartment, as in the Armata.

477, 490A - the gun is removed, the ammunition is in the hull, next to the crew.
T-95, T-14 - crew in a separate armored capsule, ammunition in an uninhabited fighting compartment.

[futurohunter]

Thanks for the clarification! In turretless tanks, it's also possible to isolate the ammunition from the crew.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: futurohunter

In turretless tanks, it is also possible to isolate the ammunition from the crew.

How so? There was a variant with ammunition stowage in front of the engine compartment, and there was a variant with ammunition in three drums (a later variant).
477, 490A

[Ivan 1980]

What kind of blowout panels are there? If the compressed air stream hits the rear armor space, the crew is already dead. They either burned up from the heat or suffocated from lack of air, because the air will burn out.

[Dometer]

This jet of water can fly past your face and not kill you. (Unless, of course, the jet is from a 20-kilogram projectile).

[Dometer]

You can limit the internal ammunition load to 3-5 shells, and implement the remaining ammunition in the form of armored turtles crawling (on magnetic tracks) along the armor. If the enemy is in front, the turtles hide behind the stern. If the enemy is on the left, they move to the starboard side. Upon a coded whistle, the turtle carrying the required warhead crawls to the armored hatch and releases its ammunition.

[Bersaglieri]

Hmm, but hasn't the niche with an automatic rifle and armor protection in the T-90M (Breakthrough-3) been implemented?

[Bad_gr]

Quote: Bersaglieri

Hmm, but hasn't the niche with an automatic rifle and armor protection in the T-90M (Breakthrough-3) been implemented?

The T-90M carries 22 rounds in its automatic transmission, with an additional eight rounds stored in a tank rack in front of the engine compartment. Since the military mandated a 40-round ammunition load, armored boxes were installed at the rear of the turret, housing an additional ten rounds. Just boxes.

[Archon]

The author writes that the turret will be significantly heavier due to the armoring of the remote compartment containing the ammunition.

It's worth adding here that it's unclear what the future holds. However, judging by current tank usage, direct tank battles are extremely rare, anti-tank hand-held weapons are rarely used (compared to previously expected), and most damage to tanks is inflicted by drones, which are countered by welded-on wire fences and nets.

Basically, my point is that, given the minimized impact of various RPGs, missiles, and enemy tanks, and the presence of anti-drone protection, the issue of shell compartment armor, and therefore turret weight, may be less pressing and require compromise. This would allow the existing T72-80-90 platform to be retained even with a redesigned turret.

Although the final decision is up to the engineers' calculations, naturally.

[VTOL Helicopter]

and most of the damage to tanks is caused by drones, which are countered by welded wire hedgehogs and nets

It would probably be wise to have a standard tank drone-fighter for this case, or even two (one in the air, the other recharging). It's not a new idea, after all, using drones for reconnaissance was proposed. The only thing left to do is: 1) create an AI for the drone that will control and automatically detect dangerous enemy targets near the tank; 2) attach a repeating shotgun to the drone.

[NIKOLAY G]

What's there to think about or invent? For years, we've been shown the Armata tank at parades, and they spent a huge amount of money on it. They promised to build several thousand of them. But apparently, they were simply deceiving us.

[Ivan Mak_2]

Wouldn't it be easier to make a completely uninhabited tower, isolated from the crew?

[VTOL Helicopter]

The question is, is there any need for a gun on a tank if all objects can be hit by missile launchers?

[bushmaster]

What surfaced there and where is it from the author???
Everyone has known for a long time about our tanks, the development of which began back in the 60s.
ammunition not isolated from the crew, this has been the norm since the Second World War, and for all countries
The USSR first started thinking about isolating crews from explosive and flammable materials in the 80s, but the collapse of the Union meant we're still using technology from the 60s and 70s.
The Abrams isn't a tank, it's a tank destroyer. If you use it like a tank and load it with ammunition, its turret will immediately turn into a rose when hit.
The problem with the extensive rear ammunition rack is that you can't actively rotate the turret from side to side, otherwise, if you turn the gun to the right, the enemy will hit the ammunition rack on the left.
Other tanks like the Leopard, Leclerc, and others like it are the same as the Abrams, only worse because of the ammunition in the hull.
Our tanks are more or less in line with these tank destroyers, so there's no need to spread any nonsense.

[Vanches]

...you can't actively rotate the turret...
The turret should actually be facing the enemy; it's easier to hit the box behind the turret, a meter and a half away, than the carousel, right?
By this logic, tanks with ammunition in the hull should always face the enemy, not move, and generally only drive in a straight line towards the enemy. The turret should at least be pointed towards the enemy, that's its purpose, and the hull should be pointed in the direction of movement.

[bushmaster]

If all tanks had to always face the enemy, they would have built self-propelled guns without a turret like the SRV-103, but suddenly they're making tanks with a turret that rotates a full 360 degrees. Could the enemy really be in front of someone else?

The armor of all tanks is designed for approximately +-30 degree yaw angles, so if you turn your head beyond 30 degrees, exposing the rear of the turret at an advantageous angle to the enemy, it's your problem.

Any tank has the highest armor in the front projection, the side of the turret cannot be as armored as the front

Let's remember our beloved Turkish Leopard 2A4s in Syria; NATO tanks, compared to our own, practically didn't fight.
So, the Leopards, like our tanks, are in the trenches, hiding their hulls, exposing only the turret, but the enemy anti-tank gun crew dishonestly came from the side and planted an anti-tank guided missile right into the side of the turret, what a baseness
And since the Turkish Leopards were shelling the city, their ammunition was stuffed with FS, and not BOPs like the Abrams tank destroyer, therefore, the entire turret and crew flew off along with the blowout panels.

[SovAr238A]

At the present time, protection of existing types of ammunition is impossible.
The sword defeats the shield.

In the near future, to preserve the concept of the "tank" in general, as we are accustomed to seeing it, only two options are possible.

1. Propulsion system. Electric, with individual motor wheels for each roller, guide disk, and drive disk. With several diesel generators distributed throughout the tank's hull. This allows for the "load" to be switched from damaged components to undamaged ones.
2. remove explosives from the tank altogether.
Use binary explosive liquids with remote ignition. Accordingly, separate and spaced storage, separate and spaced delivery to the chamber, and redundancy across multiple tanks and lines.

This is the only way this can be implemented now.

The first point has already been fully implemented using technologies already tested in a real production line. And it could be launched in as little as six months, even here, if the Chinese sell their technology.

The second point is a problem. But this issue (liquid propellants) has been raised repeatedly since the 30s. In Toldt, it was unpopular due to its high cost, but now it's in great demand due to its safety, which is much better than standard explosives. And any tank costs more than $5 million anymore.

[koramax81]

There are also many photos of Western tanks lying around with their turrets torn off. Question: Did the turret come off because the gunner sneezed loudly, or what?

[SovAr238A]

Quote: koramax81

There are also many photos of Western tanks lying around with their turrets torn off. Question: Did the turret come off because the gunner sneezed loudly, or what?

I understand that you don’t want to go back to reality.
And it is such that for every 1 torn off turret on their tank, ours have approximately 15-20.
And the BMP-3 always gets blown to pieces with the turret torn off, precisely because of the location of the ammunition.

[Mekey Iptyshev]

Hello.
It seems to me that in the future tanks, in their modern form, will disappear.
I watched a video from China and I got an idea of ​​what armored fighting vehicles will be like in the near future.
What should military equipment be like? It should be able to drive, shoot, have acceptable armor, be mass-produced, and have interchangeable parts.
Modern cargo robots that handle 40-ton cargo containers can be used to create armored fighting vehicles. Some can be equipped with an automatically loading cannon, armored with 30mm cannon armor, and can withstand 122-152mm shell fragments – and you've got yourself an unmanned tank. Others can be equipped with armor, a troop compartment for robots, robot dogs, and humans, and a 30mm automatic cannon – and you've got yourself an infantry fighting vehicle. Want an armored transport for ammunition supplies and other such things? Want an armored vehicle with radar, drone detectors, a bunch of cameras, and an automatic turret for combating drones – and you've got army air defense. In the civilian sector, you've got cargo platforms for handling containers.
Losing such an unmanned tank isn't such a big deal; many of its chassis components are interchangeable with those of the future infantry fighting vehicle. And most importantly, its product—a robotic cargo platform—will be in demand even in peacetime.
And yes, human stormtroopers will be replaced by robots. If you missed the presentation of Chinese robots this fall, I recommend you find it. He dances and does gymnastics better than me, for sure. I don't have that kind of flexibility at 40+. He can carry more weight than a human, doesn't get tired, and isn't afraid of death—the perfect soldier. The only problem is the battery. It needs to be charged once a day. In a couple of years, they'll be churning them out like hotcakes, millions a year. And the PLA will have an army, say, in about a year: a million people and a million robots.

[Totor5]

In Ukraine they did:

1) T-64B with T-55AGM2 Tifon-2 turret, Kharkiv Design Bureau of Machine Building (KBM)
2) T-55M8-A2 Tifon II
3) T-84-120 “Yatagan” (Object 478N) 2000

[Colonel_Chertenko]

The tank, as a means of delivering munitions, is simply outdated—drones deliver similarly powerful munitions far more efficiently and, most importantly, at a fraction of the cost. The era of tanks in this form is over; the only practical role of tanks in today's assault units is to deliver assault aircraft to the strongpoint under attack.

The ideal tank today is a furry cube with a trawl, the turret of which is replaced by a troop compartment and nothing else.

[agond]

Tanks aren't going anywhere; they always have been, and always will be. Their vulnerability to drones today is due to the fact that they lack their own air defenses. I've said many times that a battery-powered drone is a slow target and, by its very nature, a very soft one. It's not a heavy anti-tank guided missile (ATGM) or even an anti-tank guided missile (ATGM). Equip a tank with an industrial shot-blasting system to remove scale from metal, and it will create a curtain of flying cast-iron balls that will destroy any drone that hits it at a safe distance. Of course, like any air defense system, a tank will need a detection system; incidentally, detecting an approaching drone against the sky shouldn't be particularly difficult.

[Colonel_Chertenko]

It's clear that if you really wanted to, you could protect yourself from a drone. The question here is a bit different: why do we even need a tank anymore? So, you're sending a tank into an assault—what's the purpose of that? What kind of vehicle with a tank gun is needed for an assault?

[agond]

Quote: Colonel_Chertenko

So, you're sending a tank into an assault - what's the purpose of this action, and what kind of vehicle with a tank gun is required for the assault?

If it turns out that a tank is very difficult to hit with a drone, then the tank will perform the same tasks as before, when there were no drones.

[Colonel_Chertenko]

The question is, why perform these tasks with a tank if there are more effective and cheaper ways to accomplish them?

[cytadell]

You could try arranging the ammunition stowage in the tank's belly, along the sides in semi-arcs. The stowage begins near the right and left rows of rollers, behind them, and then arcs downwards and toward the central axis, toward the automatic feed and loading mechanism. The ammunition belt itself should be shifted to the second half of the tank (closer to the rear) to minimize the impact of an explosion when driving over an anti-tank mine.
Well, this is just an estimate of the layout. Given the tank's low profile, the number of rounds in such a rack will be small.
In order to reach the ammunition stowage, the stream will have to pass through the tank's armor, then the protection, at an awkward angle.
In the event of a shell detonation, try to direct the energy outward. This might be a crazy idea—the designers know better.

[helilelik]

The tank, even with its rear compartment, will still be irretrievably lost. A second drone will arrive, then a third, then a fourth. It's possible to arrange things so that the crew won't even be able to escape. And this article is relevant to the Syrian campaign.

[Idle_piston]

[QuoteDuring the SVO, an old problem resurfaced: explosions and fires in the ammunition of our tanks] [/ Quote]
I'm not a tanker myself, so I see that the problem isn't just with tank building. Consider, for example, what's happening in the aviation and automotive industries, and so on. The problem here is that Russia is experiencing a complete loss of professionalism, "from the Kremlin to the lathe."