Meh, the time he decided to use arracourt as an example that the Sherman was better tank than the Panther, I lost my ability to really trust he didn't come at things with an agenda. Because using arracourt, a large combined arms battle with one side making a major tactical blunder, to judge which tank was better is frankly ridiculous.
@@hummingbird9149 he doesn't have to use Arracourt. NO German tank was worth much because they were unreliable and there weren't enough of them.- especially the Tigers. Trash they were. The Panzer V and Panzer IV's were excellent. BUT -- their over-engineering and constant changes, caused HUGE production delays. A tank that cannot be mass produced is useless. The fact that 50,000 Shermans were produced, automatically makes it the best tank in the war, IMO. Don't use World of Tanks or other game to judge.
@@craigkdillon How can you judge how reliable one tank is vs another if one of them doesn't get proper maintenance, heck even regular oil changes?? See that's the problem with all the armchair experts out there wanting to compare stuff, they completely forget/ignore the operating conditions of the vehicles they're trying to compare. For example, despite FAR worse operating conditions, by late 44 the latest Panthers were actually doing 3000 km stretches before needing part changes, thats A LOT even for a Sherman, esp. one that doesn't get the luxury of timely maintenance halts and logistics. Heck by late 1944 Tiger II's were more reliable than Pz.IV's (!!), which themselves ironically were considered very reliable before the oil shortages started to take effect - So what does that say? Well its pretty obvious isn't it ? = under equal conditions Tigers & Panthers were just as reliable as Pz.IV's. Moving on to Chieftains use of Arracourt as some sort of example to jduge one vehicle vs another, as a historian you simply can't use the results of a standalone engagement to judge the worth of a vehicle, esp. not without also considering the conditions each side had to content with. At Arracourt for example, try to reverse the situation, give the Germans side the hills, arty and air power (when the fog cleared), and let it be a mass of Shermans that are incompetently led into fog ridden boggy ground surrounded by hills on three sides. I think its pretty clear not a single Sherman would've left the field in that case, first of all because they lacked the armour to resist a clean hit from most German tanks & AT guns, let alone a Panther or Tiger, and secondly because they quite simply would've gotten stuck in the boggy ground due to their high ground pressure (even the Panthers struggled at Arracourt). So what does the result of that battle even tell us? Nothing other than that proper tactics and combined arms always wins vs poor tactics with a single arm. Also finally it's kind of funny you brought up World of Tanks (which I've never played and never will), as guess who works for them? = Chieftain. But hey, at some point all this revisionist history crap will die down, and people will start looking logically at things again, and judge either sides equipment for their true merits and cons, instead all this overblown nonsense of "A Tiger or Panther could only cover 10 km, then it would break down", "All German tanks were crap, and if you say otherwise you a damn wehraboo!" or the equally dumb "it always took 5 Shermans to kill a Tiger" etc.. We dont get any smarter by replacing one myth with another.
@@hummingbird9149 Germans are good mechanically, and I don't suspect the German army of ignoring maintenance. Now, the Russian army is different. However, you do raise a good point. Judging how good a tank is from one country vs one from another is difficult, with many factors, each hard to know. How many tanks break down in an army can be found out. Why they broke down is more difficult. If a part breaks -- was it due to being poorly designed? or, poorly built? or, not maintained? Or, not enough oil? Or, something else? What we can see is how many were built. Good records on that.
There are a few points about the autoloader and the "jack in the box effect" that I would like to add. One very common misconception is that any tank missing its turret also lost all of its crew. While this sometimes does happen, this rests on two flawed assumptions: first, the assumption that there was anyone inside of the tank when it was initially hit (many tanks are destroyed when abandoned or parked), and second, the assumption that a catastrophic exposition occurred instantly after a penetrating hit. Combat reports from Chechnya, corroborated by footage from Syria and Ukraine, note that most "jack in the box" explosions are secondary explosions that occur significantly after a fire started in the crew compartment (typically 10-30 minutes). The reports that I have been able to come across, although often anecdotal, demonstrate considerably higher crew survivability than what I would have expected. Often, all or 2/3 of the tankers get out before lethal fires or explosions occur. In fact, the autoloader is often not considered the primary issue with T-72 crew survivability, rather, it is the stored ammunition arrayed around the tank outside the autoloader. These rounds and charges are largely unprotected and occupy a lot of the tank's internal volume. As such, fires are extremely common in the event of a penetration if all possible ammunition is carried. While typically survivable if the crew gets out fast enough, burns on the face and hands are quite common among tankers using T-72s and similar vehicles. Additionally, the powder charges have a tendency to deflagrate very violently after being burnt for long enough. This leads to cook-offs, often leading to several small secondary explosions and huge jets of flame shooting out of open hatches. This often happens only several seconds after a penetration, which is one of the most serious issues with crew survivability. Overall, I personally think that T-72 survivability is underestimated, but it is considerably worse than most other modern tanks.
Basically that. Spare ammo scattered everywhere, which unlike carousel, don't have nozzles of automated firefighting equipment pointing at it, which if working, can delay major fires enough to give time to get away.
The main problem of tank survival is the stupidity of its commander, and 2 no less important part is the intensity of the conflict and the number of anti-tank weapons, have you ever seen other tanks involved in a high-intensity conflict of such duration and with so many anti-tank weapons.
Yes I have seen a video of a T72 hit in Syria with an AT rocket. T72 started to smoke, crew bailed out, then T72, literally went up in a pillar of fire seconds later. I think it really depends on how soon your T64/T72/T80/T90 catches fire. If the crew weren't there or if they get out in time, they will survive. In WW2 tank crews carried pistols with the intention of shooting themselves if the tank caught fire (as did fighter pilots). Russian tank crews don't have to bother about that. The fire will kill them fast.
did you know that america is developing or has developed rounds and charges that dont burn like that its kinda cool in addition to the blowout panels the M1's have now. I just learned the other day the stuff thats in the compartment has a blowout too its just vented downward instead of up or side
@@Stunkos No, they really aren't. Lazerpig is very often wrong because of his strong anti-Russian bias and general contrarian stance, plus the need to dumb everything down to fit his "drunken scotsman" persona. . It clouds his ability to look at the topic rationally. It was hilarious when over on Reddit, LP's brain damaged cultists actually tried to bring the Chieftain down to LP's level as a "meme historian" after the T-14 engine source debacle when Chieftain is an actual expert on armor and armor history.
@@jebise1126 Actually the T90m they captured has been seen in combat. Either NATO shows no interest in examining the T90m or this video was recorded before or after they examined it.
@@jebise1126 T90 or not, there is now a lot of Russian equipment Chieftain has been wanting to get hands on with but never been able to do so that is now in Ukraine hands. Once things quiet down, lets hope he can arrange a field trip.
That was very cool. I never thought about it that far before. Auto-loaders have certainly come a long way over the years. Does the auto-loader slow down the process of putting the ammunition in the vehicle? Is it faster? Does the speed of rearming the tank even matter? It is funny how people focus on things that do not really matter that much as opposed to significant issues. The turret pops off, but the crew has perished and the vehicle is wrecked. The turret lying on the ground is the most visible aspect, so it gets focused on.
It does slow down loading a tank up considerably, at this time. I believe the Abrams X includes a rapid loading cassette. Sort of more like HIMARS or MRLS systems where the ammo is supplied in a magazine, and just winched on or off of the vehicle. That's probably where it will end up eventually. But yeah, it does impact the loading speed. Which in turn impacts tank availability for infantry support. That's not a new concept at all. German forces in ww2 noted that infantry attacks would bog down the moment the Stugs would leave to rearm. I believe some commanders would try to establish a force of assault guns would drive up and replace the ones running low on ammo. But that's just good combined arms. It also would be similar to the carousel tank tactics used by Russians. The goal is that while one group of tanks are being reloaded, one group is firing, and the other group is moving up to the support positions to refill the tanks that run out of ammo. Granted this is way over simplified. Another impact to think about with excessively long reloading, is the amount of time spent at a forward resupply base could encourage suppressive artillery on the area.
On short term, a human loader is definetly faster than an autoloader. On long term however, an autoloader does not accumulate fatigue, does not need to rest, sleep, eat or go to the bathroom.
@@SlavicCelery no it does not. It's been proven human vs machine, machine always wins. Idk why we keep going with this silly discussion. We know future is robots and automation. Accept it lad
Minor correction: the first fielded Abrams tanks (circa 1982), armed with the 105mm cannon, did not have all the rounds segregated from the crew/behind a blowout panels. There were three ready rounds on the turret floor to the left of the main gun, plus an additional eight rounds in hull storage. In 1985, one of our Abrams had a turret electrical fire and the three rounds cooked off. The crew escaped prior to the explosion and were uninjured. Turret was shredded inside, but it did not separate from the hull.
yep, seems like the only reason for soviet tank turrets blowing off is that they probably werent bolt to the hull, just placed on the turret ring and thats it either way, in an ammunition cook off, the crew is done for regardless of whether the turret blow off or not
I suspect that the turret not flying off might have something to do with turret weight. Now I don't know the weight of an Abrams tank turret off the top of my head but for comparison, the turret on the Leopard 2 weighs about 22 metric tons, that's approx. half the total weight of a T-72. So there is a lot less explosive force needed to lift the turret off a T-72 than off a western MBT.
I was in Desert Storm where I saw dozens of tanks destroyed by a variety of means and got to poke around in the remains of many of them looking for souvenirs afterwards. The thing to understand about tank death is that the ammunition has 2 distinct parts, the propellant and the projectile, and these are nowadays so big that they're usually loaded separately. Also, you can have a standard cartridge for a variety of projectiles. The propellant is by far the easiest part to ignite when the tank is hit because it's designed to be readily combustible. And while the propellant is in a metal case, when the projectile and cartridge are loaded separately, the front end of the cartridge case is cardboard, which offers no protection from fire propagation. So, the most usual case of a "brew up" is a massive propellant fire where all the cartridges burn more or less simultaneously. This results in a bright pink gush of flame pouring out every crack of the tank forming a brief fireball above it, and that's usually it. But it's just a flash fire, not an actual explosion. Most times, the turret remains in place even as the tank continues to burn from fuel and other combustibles inside. Very occasionally, the tank is air-tight enough that the propellant fire generates sufficient internal pressure to slightly unseat the turret, so you'll see the turret still on the tank but slightly askew. The other part of the ammo is the projectile, some of which is solid sabots and others HEAT and/or HE. Only the HEAT and HE can explode, of course but, as high explosives, they're relatively hard to ignite. They can burn without exploding in most cases, or even come through fire unscathed (especially as the explosive is in a sealed, steel shell), and usually require a significant shock to detonate, provided by their fuse. But if one detonates, it can set off all others nearby. THIS is what pops turrets off and can even mangle the hull, too, depending on how many shells detonated and where they were stored. The pressures released by high explosives are WAY WAY greater than flash fires from propellant, and it's this overpressure that pushes tanks apart. So, to get this sort of catastrophic tank explosion, you have to set off the projectile fillers, which requires either a hit on such a thing or a pre-fused shell being triggered. This is relatively rare compared to flash fires from propellant but, of course, does happen often enough. And the results get more pictures because they're more dramatic than a burnt-out but still physically intact tank, which are way more numerous on the battlefield. Now, if the tank has an autoloader, it might be that it uses fixed (1-piece) ammunition because the mechanism can handle heavier loads than a human. But even so, to blow a turret clean off a tank, you have to get internal high explosive involved. And that's harder to do than getting just propellant involved.
"the propellant and the projectile, and these are nowadays so big that they're usually loaded separately" WTF are you talking about. The main gun ammo on an Abrams is NOT loaded as two separate items.
@@protonneutron9046 Depends on the tank. Should have read my whole post. But regardless, turrets pop because HE in shells detonates. Nothing else inside the tank has the power to pop the turret off. Detonating relatively insensitive HE, protected by the thick body of the shell, is not easy or common, and the loader has nothing to do with it. But when one shell detonates, it can set off the rest in close proximity due to the power of the HE shock. THAT is what pops turrets. Period.
@@protonneutron9046 OK, if not high explosive, W|HAT ELSE inside a tank has the power to pop the turret off? Fuel?| Nope. Propellant? Nope. So you tell me.
I’m fairly certain most people are aware that it’s not necessarily the auto loader in Russian Tanks but the exposed nature of the ammunition in the carousel type auto loader that causes the catastrophic self deletion. Another factor to consider would be the more common top attack feature in antitank munitions being employed. While as you said the crews are no longer taking the extra ammunition stowed in the various random parts of the tank including the turret, top attack weapons penetrate the roof and go directly down into the tank and into the ammo carousel.
Nope. It's the spare ammunition that is stored in every free space of the turret. Thus during the Grozny war the tank crews were ordered to remove any spare ammo from the turret.
Given the issues with the modern weapons being able to penetrate the tank you could as well carry the ammunition on the outside instead in boxes just able to cover it from rifle fire.
@@ehsnilsyou don’t want ammunition exposing on the outside of the tank and killing friendlies or it being exposed to the elements. Imagine driving around all day in heavy rain and snow making your rounds not work
The classic illustration of what happens to a tank being attacked by a top attack missile is the demonstration Bofors made using a remotely controlled Centurion tank, with a full 105 mm ammunition, machine gun ammo and fuel, sans crew obviously :) Spoiler alert, the RBS26 Bill hits the top of the turret, and then the Centurion goes though a process of rapid uncommanded disassembly looking like a phosphorous grenade on a rolling skateboard! reference: ua-cam.com/video/LieUSOgq-bU/v-deo.html
the turret on the centurion didnt blow off in that ammunition cook off or rather, soviet tank turret blow off when the ammunition cook off is because it wasnt bolted to the tank, just placed on the hull ring either way, the crew are gone when the ammo cook off regardless if the turret blow off or not
@@tranquoccuong890-its-orge No turrets are bolted on to any tank, that is just unneeded complexity when you need to fix something, so nobody does it. Propellant burns much more slowly than the explosive filler in shells, so the difference is that the centurion driver might escape with 3rd degree burns before it explodes, but everyone in the soviet tank dies instantly
I'd say the biggest fault with russian tanks is their terrible reverse speed. When it has to retreat it either needs to take its time(which you don't want to do under fire) or turn around and show the rear(which you also do not want to do as there isn't much armor there).
It’s one of several glaring design problems in Russian tanks that while useful during the cold war as the Soviet union are a detriment to the modern Russian federation.
Its coz they don't want them to retreat and fight another day. ruzzian known for shooting retreating troops, so why would they give tanks reverse gears so they can flee quicker, they gave slow reverse so they have no choice but to stand fight & die
The funny thing is, up until a few years after WW2, Russian built their tanks to have some of the best reverse speeds of any tanks at the time. The KV and T- tanks were good, the SU series SPG's had great reverse, and the IS tanks also up till the T-10. Then they suddenly forgot with the T-55 and later MBT's. Weird.
The only person that could have cared about turrets popping off, I saw in a Ukrainian war video. The turret landed on a Russian soldier, well the barrel of the cannon technically landed on him. He was unavailable for comment on the gravity of the situation.
Thank you for informing people of this. Also, a tanks turret being blown off after the ammo being struck is not the problem you should focus on, rather the issues lies in letting your tank be seen, targeted, hit, penetrated and THEN you should worry about the ammo detonation... Most tanks ammo being struck wont fair well in the first place, but if you can prevent being seen targeted hit or penetrated then it negates the ammo worry. See the survivability onion for reference.
Thank you. This is one of those myths that keep getting perpetuated. I mean, the autoloader CAN cause a catastrophic explosion. But it sits fairly low and it is hard to hit it. Ammo stowed in sponsoons around the turret and hull on the other hand, is extremely vulnerable.
You have to remember that if a round penetrates the armour, hot metal fragments will be sprayed around and the propellant in the autoloader is both designed to explode and is not well protected. The Russians have realised this and in the T90M, ammunition is stored in a bustle at the rear of the turret (like a US M1).
O boy! when this popped up, I remembered Nick discussing this in his virtual T72 tour. I click here and--SURPRISE! 😎 Since history has shown that the lower ammo is carried the safer, I had always wondered why essentially under-floor stowed cassette ammo was supposedly so catastrophically explosive. In-turret ammo stowage explains it, like such stowage was responsible for most fires in WWII tanks.
Can't help but think of a parallel between this and what the British Navy found out in the Dardanelles in ww1 where individual crews were taking various "Shortcuts" and ship would spontaneously go up.
@@Digmen1 Yeah I got those mixed up, thank you. Can't help but think of Russians doing the same thing with their tanks, trying to carry as much ammo as they can fit in, on or around the vehicle, because they know their logistics are f*cked and that's all they're going to get...
Before Jutland, the battlecruiser squadron was stationed in Hull, where long-range target practice was not possible without going out to sea, which was expensive. Their response was to up the rate of fire to walk the shells onto the target. This meant keeping more cordite and picric acid shells than the ready rooms were designed for, and holding open all the flash doors. Battlecruisers were not real battleships, so they were a lot more thin-skinned, which made every single hit to the turrets a potential disaster Picric acid is highly dangerous and sensitive, so much so that the shell might explode inside the barrel, which likely happened to IJN Shikishima, and the unstable nature caused the 1st-rate battleship IJN Mikasa to explode and sink in port. Today, bomb squads are called whenever people find dried-out picric acid in labs, because they must be wet to remain stable
Also happened with a Challenger 2 tank at Castlemartin during a shooting exercise. Extra bagged charges of propellant had been taken out of the magazine to speed firing. Totally against regulations but it was admitted to be a common practice.
Question with a long context explanation: a decade or so ago Ukraine was developing an elongated T-72 and T-80 with a pseudo troop compartment in the back, behind turret, but in front of the engine with space for 3 people. It got an extra set of roadwheels so it was able to handle more mass and obviously was itself heavier then normal T-72 and T-80. Project was sort of cancelled since it was leading nowhere, but prototype remained. Then there was a project to install a "NATO compliant" 120mm gun into T-80 and put the autoloader into the turret bustle and equip it with blow out panels. It existed, it worked, but budget wasn't there so it was cancelled too. Seemingly unconnected stories. Until around 2017-2019 Ukraine showcased new recovery vehicle based on T-72 which for presentation was dragging around... elongated T-80 with said turret with bustle autoloader. Comments are closed under the original video, no info was given about that monstrosity outside of possible weight of 55 tons. Since bustle is above the former "dismount" hatches, those were obviously unusable and welded shut. So, what was that? Just a way to preserve two separate prototypes? Or was it a new tank development in itself? It has massive amount of unused space in the hull thanks to former crew compartment and removal of hull autoloader. And quite a hefty weight reserve if 55ton figure is true. So what was there? Attempt to install thicker frontal armor without overloading frontal roadwheels? Crew capsule experiment? Extra fuel tanks or ammo storages to avoid using external ones that everyone's trying to mount on T-80? What was that tank?
Actually all the ammunition is behind a blowout panel in the T-70+ series. The panel is dome shaped and also houses the main gun and crew. It's a very efficient design.
Good comment, i'd like to add something else, the biggest issue is modern day tank combat depends more on who shoots first. With that being said whatever allows a crew to shoot first is a big plus ( stabilizer, crew training, gun accuracy, rangefinders, thermal optics etc ) Another big plus that isnt taken into account is somewhat similar to the survivorship bias ( yeah that one from bombers in WW2 ) is that we are looking from a perspective that isnt helpful, we are somehow easily able to measure how many tanks are destroyed after they are hit ( and how many of those are "jack in a box" explosions ) but dont take into consideration other very important factors such as how many times the tank wasnt able to get hit, and this has to do with size. Besides that, one very important thing is crew training and manpower avaiable, training someone to become a tank crewman isnt cheap and certainly isnt fast either. So having a reduced crew does have its advantages ( and also disadvantages ) And finnaly, logistically, its a good idea to have tanks that are cheaper on the gas, maintenance and are easier to be serviced again as fast as possible, or with longer time inbetween repairs. There is no Wunderwaffe, but it surely depends more on whether you can afford all the manpower upkeep, army economy, logistics and obviously each country's military doctrine. With all that said, its foolish to underestimate enemies, and Russians are not ones to be effed around, and this has been proved historically wise.
The carousel in T-72 series is actually not completely exposed (inside the tank) but pretty well protected and can withstand some levels of fragment/spall. Most of ammo explosion happen from extra ammo scattering around the tank, which would trigger the ammo in carousel as well
T-80 has the advantage of speed, T-72 has the advantage of the autoloader being low in the tank, i personally prefer the T-80 over the T-72 one way or another spall liner saves the day lol
What "explodes" - high-explosive shells. What does NOT explode - high velocity powder for them and APFSDS. It just burns out (and still kills the crew, yeah). I don't remember the US Army using anything other than APFSDS in their Abrams. This is the only reason their panels are effective.
@@binhvuthanh5804 Yep, you're right. But, by the explosive effect Soviet/Russian standard ZOF26 (ЗОФ26) much more powerful and deadly for the tank itself: it's 3 kilo of A-IX-2 for fuck sake!
(I served in Russian Army from 2008-2014 in T-72B, now living Romania) Biggest flaw of our tanks are several - First one and most important one is reverse speed. RUS doctrine was mechanized force and which will fast assault through objectives. Reverse speed was probably no big priority because urban or sub-urban type warfare or even asymmetrical warfare was simply not a vision for him. It completely needs correction in this century in my opinion. Next flaw is that our government are cheap people. What I mean by this is for example - T-72B/B1 is selected for upgrades for bulking of RUS ground forces to T-72B3 level, but why? Even with upgrades and heavy ERA protection is still inferior for modern standard because tanks base armor is never upgraded and ERA have simply a huge gaps in them. Some years ago it was agreed to upgrade few thousands of T-72 to B3 standards because it is cost effective, but I will argue that 1000 T-14 and few thousand T-90M would have been much more better choice and than continue production of T-14 slowly or offer T-90M for exporting to set costs from the Army. But it is my opinion that decision for T-72B3 and T-80BVM upgrades was only to have sufficient numbers for war with UA. It does make sense for it, but in my opinion you will have superior results in a war with the superior vehicle. And last problem which I think are biggest of them is that RUS Army still use Kontakt-1 ERA as if that shit even will do anything at all now. They literally will slap Kontakt-1 on anything and call it protected. I rather will drive in my personal car, pizdets! Really in my honesty, biggest flaw in our tanks in RUS MoD. xaxaxa... Bureaucrats which never even saw a war, and give all of Army funding to missile forces for Navy forces. We are LAND Army, nahui! xD Army simply need more funds, but even now, every year missile heads and big boat douchebags will run to beg for Moscow - 'Please!! Daddy we need even more nuclear and big boats!' and they will get them.
My understanding is that many T-62 or T64 tanks were stored properly under cover but latter T-72 often were stored in the open and thus rapidly rotted and need more work. Yes the Leopard drivers like their reverse gears but Leopard 2A6 drivers are jealous of 2A7 because the latter has a reversing camera. Perhaps would have been better to scrap the T-62 and store, maintain and upgrade the T-72 better. A lot of western armies scrap equipment quickly because they can not afford to store and maintain it. The British scrapped all of their Rapier SAM systems the moment they had a single SkySabre in production. Too soon.
@@williamzk9083 It is depending where you are in the country. As an example, in the North and most of central military area there is only a tarps for covering the vehicle. In West and South districts there are mostly metal buildings for them. There was only 1000 or something of T-64B when I leave the Army, but most of that give them to DPR or LPR. I never even saw T-64 in my time actually or T-62. Russian government always liked to keep huge storage of old shit for this type of reason.. tanks can be used like sort of artillery so you dont need better than T-62 or old T-72A for that.
I note what you say about better having fewer superior tanks (T90 / T14) over lots of upgraded T72 BUT in 1940 the German tanks utilized were inferior in overall numbers and also inferior in quality Panzer 3 being the most numerous armed only with 37mm as opposed to French H39 (47MM gun ) -- why the Germans won was superior operational doctrine, concentration of force and superior communication. The Russian Federation armed forces in the first Chechen war had superiority in armoured forces but had their arses handed to them -- what the Russian army needs is a complete replacement of Officer corps from top to bottom (which is rapidly happening in the Ukraine, permanently ) a complete rethink of Tank / combined arms operations - a logistics system that actually keeps tanks supplied with go juice . It would also help the survivability of Russian tanks if crews were trained - no one can forget the images of the T14 that stopped in Red square and the comical efforts to TOW it until someone decided to take the hand brake off. What the Rus army needs is a new doctrine, a new empowering comnd and control system -- a professional army not an army where there are no NCO's , officers who despise the men, where the men despise officers and each other. THEN decide what type of tank the army needs T90's maybe , T14 I think not, that's just a vanity piece' which they can't afford. Having "better tanks" won't make a jot difference to the Russian army -- it is a corrupt.incompetent,gang of war criminals from top to bottom - lets hope they never get their act together so this war that Russia started ends soon.
My understanding one of the reasons autoloaders are becoming common is the 120mm cannons are being replaced with 130 ~ 150mm cannons and the shells are becoming physically to large and heavy to man handle
Great video guys! The issue here is not the autoloader, it's the failure to separate/protect semi-combustible main gun ammo. Main gun ammo (ready-rack, etc.), has been stored in the turret/around the crew for decades on almost all tanks...the difference is that that ammo wasn't semi-combnustible. That changes everything...the Soviets decided not to fundamental react to the new danger to the crew...on the T-64/T-72/T-80/T-90, the crew is litterally sitting on and is surrounded by a powder keg.
Mmmhhh you should consider that this is true for all NATO tanks of Cold War too..... "safe" NATO tanks came in the late 80s and the Soviet Union never had time to realize more modern tanks due to its dissolution in 1991. Just that. Too many people compares modern NATO tanks with much older Soviet models as if they were contemporary tanks.... that's a great mistake!
3:53 YES! This has been my hang-up ever since I first heard of this! By the time conditions have deteriorated to the point that the turret decides to cross train to the Air Force, the rest of the tank is totaled.
Western tanks are much heavier that's why almost never their turrets never pop off only the leopard in syria had a catastrophic failure even worse than soviet tanks that even the hull was torn apart and the other is the challenger in ukraine although the turret was pop off but only a few inches from its place
Thanks for making this video. I see way too many citing the turret pop problem as evidence against autoloaders. Turret pop is a problem of carousel storage system, not the autoloader.
It iant. The turret popping off is a massive issue turning otherwise recoverable mission kills into catastrophic falioures. If it happebs quickly after penetrating hits it is also an indication of an event that killed all the crew. What it is not, is itself a flaw. Its a result and indicator of a flaw, namely the loose stored ammunition around the turret, which is an isssue shared by many other tanks, like leopard 2A4, which coincidentally also likes to toss turrets when penetrated.
@@egoalter1276 I think what you are saying is there or there about correct. Personally I'd change it around a bit to say that the thing that makes the difference between a mobility kill and a total loss of the vehicle is when the ammo cooks off. At that point it honestly doesn't matter where the turret is located other than it might need to get loaded on to a seperate truck. Sure, it's more spectacular to lose a turret, but when the tracks are melted into the ground it's of no real consequence. I'd dare say pretty much every MBT is going to turret toss because they pretty much all store ammo in the hull except one or maybe two standout examples. If you look about there is also pictures of Merkava killed by ATGM that have suffered catastrophic failures and even M1 Abrams in Iraq that hit IED's made up of artillery shells large enough to break apart the vehicle, at which point the crew is dead regardless of the fact the ammo didn't burn at all. In Ukraine, given how many vehicles are actually mobility kills from mines or artillery that are later finished off by drones delivering munitions through an open hatch, I'm not convinced there is any provable parallel between seeing vehicles with catastrophic failures and crew fatality. Maybe more so at the start of the war when ATGM's were doing the lions share of the dirty work and the initial hit cooked off the ammo instantly. Maybe not so much so now? Hopefully I live long enough to see the post war analysis of the armoured conflict there. It will make some interesting reading and I will be able to stop guessing at what's happening.
if the carousel was in an armored segmented "donut" with several blow out panels on top it could work. Downside is of course if any of the segmenting doors jam.. no ammo. True for the M1 Abrams as well.
The chief complaint I think is that a hit on the passenger compartment often results in complete destruction of the vehicle. The question becomes in that case whether one or more members of the crew would otherwise have survived the hit. The reason cited for the blow out is the fact that there is basically no separation between ammunition store and the crew. Thus *any* hit that penetrates the armor can trigger a secondary detonation or an ammunition burnout. So in any case, the crew is guaranteed dead and the tank is totally scrap, save for the tracks and supports.
Only half of the Abrams ammunition is ready for instant use. The ammunition behind the commander is to be considered as reserve. So the practical difference between tanks is much smaller than it seems.
I think a distinction should be made between a propellant fire (flames shooting from all the hatches) and a shell detonation (turret throwing). propellant fires are survivable, as some videos from Syria demonstrate, and I remember you quoting a German manual roughly stating about firefighting: "but when the ammunition has caught fire, there is no hope: get out". A simple risk mitigation therefore is to put your inert APFSDS shells in the hull, leaving the dangerous HE/HEAT rounds in the blow-out protected bustle. In theory the high explosive inside the shells can only be triggered by shock or impact, not by the heat from a fire.
I've seen a statistics somewhere that the Russians first tried carrying just 22 rounds in their tanks during the Chechen war (I don't remember which one), and after they did, the number of tanks permanently lost in combat decreased of around 80%.
anyone who plays Warthunder knows to not take too much ammo enought to have full turret ammo stowage but no extra ammo in hull becouse if they pen ur hull most likely they will got ur ammo
@@Hubert_G I mean, WT takes this to the extreme as one usually doesn't live in the battle for longer than a couple of minutes, but even in WT you can see that difference - when you hit a western tank, you have to hit somewhere around the ammo to set it off, when you hit a Soviet or Chinese tank with a full ammo load, anywhere you hit there will be either a propellant charge or a projectile (which is either explosive itself or, in case of the APFSDS, is "wrapped" with propellant as well) in there.
Look at what happened to Turkish Leopard 2's in Syria when they were sent against ISIS. They got torn to pieces. The Saudis lost so many Abrams in Yemen that they stopped deploying them all together. The Ukraine war is a high intensity conflict, that's the difference.
The auto loader carousel on the hull floor was designed before top attack munitions existed. At the time, the ammo was pretty safe from direct fire, as only a hit to the lower glacias was likely to ignite the ammo. Top attack munitions changed all that. So yes, storing ammo under the turret is exactly the problem. Newer models of T-72 have an armor plate over the top of the carousel but it’s not very effective.
There was, after the Chechen war, explicit instruction to load ammunition only in the autoloader. No other ammo in the crew compartment. Russian created the whole tactic for a tank platoon and a tank company, called Rochlin carousel, how to fight with only 22 rounds. Russian stick to this rule also in Syria. I think their problems in Ukraine come from poor logistics. They've got no idea when there will be a possibility to resupply ammunition, so they put in as many rounds as possible and pray for the best. In theory, the autoloader was created in a way that in case of penetration and ammo hit it should "cook-off" inside the autoloader without catastrophic detonation. Autoloader of course might explode, but it should buy enough time for the crew to bail out.
Correct, most turret tosses happen after a fire long after the crew had their chance to get out. That is why you see lots of cuts to the ending in tank kill videos.
I think what most people don't get about the location of the carrusel autoloader is that while in theory it *can* take a hit, specially trough mines, IED's or shot from the side and being able to see the lowest part of the tank, it is in one of the least likely places to get hit. Usually when the ammo there detonates it's mostly because of penetration or damage occuring in or trough the crew compartment, and if that kind of damage occurs in the crew compartment, then the crew is not having a good day to begin with.
Red Effect made a video talking about one of the Russian modernization tanks, and I believe he said T-72B3 or T-80BVM has no Turret ammo since they discovered most hits were on the turret, which lead to mag detonation.
7:03 Finland hasn't had carousel autoloaders in any of their tanks since the early 2000s. Not sure if our tankers do the same with the Leopards (using only the compartment with blowout panels), though.
As a crewman I don’t think I care much but on a higher level it does matter in a long war. Can the carcass of the tank be salvaged? If it can (with a new drivetrain, crew etc) and be put into action in a reasonable amount of time it is a better design than a tank that is unsalvageable. This is of course provided that the design changes are not so costly as to make the tank which maintains it turret twice as expensive.
You can't salvage a tank that has burned. A lot of components in a tank is heat sensitive. When they burn their properties change. For example rolled homogenous steel armor after burning and cooling down will be much softer. Engine is very delicate when it comes to burning too because a lot of parts in there were made with extremelly sensitive heat treatment. Not even going to mention electro optical systems. Gun barrel is also heat treated so you can't salvage that. You can however salvage a tank that didn't burn down. Ukranians for example fix captured tanks with parts from broken tanks. In a real war time a crew is much much more valuable than a tank. It takes few days to build a tank. 18 years to make a good experienced tanker. Thats why you always run out of crew and not tanks. Thats why nazis had to use child soldiers at the end of the war in their tanks.
Even if a tank is designed in a way that the turret does not fly off after the ammo explodes there will be no salvaging it. That’s why chieftain was saying it doesn’t matter. Because ammo fires are to catastrophic to the interior to the tank that they can’t be salvaged this would apply to western tanks as well. All that heat damages the hull of the tank and ruins the integrity of the armor.
@@crown7639yup even an Abrams that the blow panels worked correctly, the turret will not be repaired. The hull can be mated with a new turret and the major systems removed from the turret but armor around the ammo area is toast
@@Phapchamp Yeah. When I was in the techs could gut a Leo2 pretty quick. Turret gets lifted, drivetrain out, electrical monkeys jump in with wires and bob’s your uncle. And while I agree on crew (having been one) we had about 10 trained conscript crews/tank when I was young and fresh. Why? Because while we take 18 years to grow we can keep ourselves in reasonable nick after we got out.
Before Desert Storm, the Medical Service Corps asked the Armor branch what special equipment would be needed to extract crew involved in tank-on-tank combat. The answer was, a spatula.
Disregarding where your ammunition is, once the armor is penetrated, the tanker is in the world of shit. Even if there is no ammunition in the tank, once armor is defeated, the game is over. Weapons are designed to kill everything inside once they penetrate. Disregarding what type of principle they use, they are all designed to do that job. Regarding ammunition protection, this is also a very hard topic. If the tank carries only cinetic penetrators, then the only dangerous thing is the propellant. Though operational tanks need other types of ammunition as well. If it is HE type and there is an explosion of multiple rounds at the same time, is the protection good enough to save life every time? In the case of HEAT ammunition, which is not used that often, there is a logical issue as well. Something that is designed to defeat the armor explodes in closed space. Multiple rounds, multiple streams of molten metal. If the armor is defeated, you are f-ed. There was a case where lucky hit with disposable laucher has penetrated soviet type of tank. No blowup. Two man dead one survived. That poor soul begged to be put out of his mystery. Even the smallest antitank weapon burned his whole body. No doctor can save you. People look at the videos of this conflict and do not get it. Doesn't matter whose tank it is, it is not the game, and real people are getting killed. Families lose their loved once. It is death and not a computer game. If you had been there you wouldn't think about it the same anymore. People getting killed around you, and you being exposed to the same thing, changes your perspective fir ever. Do not glorify the war. War sucks. Period.
Serving on the Leo 2A7V, I can definitely attest to how this hydraulic track tensioner saves quite a bit of work, but it's a bit tricky to use and at times dangerous (although...to be fair, working on the tracks always bears quite a few risks. As long as they're on the tank, linked together as they should be, there is an immense amount of tension on them, nevermind the weight of the individual links). But yeah, the ammunition is still stowed the same way as it was before. As for the blowout panel in the turret: It opens relatively fast and closes fast, too, and you can hit the switch with your hip pretty much as you're loading the round. However, for the sake of achieving the best reload times, most loaders tend to leave it open in excercise/shooting range scenarios.
@@ari_a2764 Yes, that is entirely possible. Though it would have to be a hull penetration, the turret has a blowout panel, meaning that if the turret ammo stowage blows up, the fighting compartment is protected as all the energy just goes out the rear.
Most of the time it doesn't matter if the the m1 abrams has blast doors if the crew compartment is hit from the side it will peneterate the ammo access panels on the inside and flames will come in it happened in Yemen when iranian konkours hit 2 abrams
As you said at the end of the video, many T-64/72/80/90 go into battle with just the 22 or 28 ammunition that stay inside the auto-loader (28 are for T-64 and T-80). A reason for the turret to fly-off that easy, is that it is very very very small compared to western tanks, thus making it much lighter and easier to throw in the air. Also, auto-loader ammunition are exactly below it, so the explosion-push comes exactly from below the turret along a vertical line, making the turret itself the "blow-out panel" of the tank basically.... that said, as you correctly stated, with or without the turret in the air, after an explosion the tank is killed anyway, so i think it's useless to care about it.
Not really getting the whole "RuSsiAn TaNks ExPLoDe WhEn Hit WiTh sTaTe oF tHe ArT AnTi-TaNk WeApOnS!"-Wojackery. Every tank does that, nobody survives a properly functioning top attack missile in a tank, NOBODY. You're a tanker one moment and vapor the next, which is, considering the alternatives, a blessing.
On the T-90M, the "Carousel" is armored around the perimeter and from above and below. In order for the shells to explode in it, you need a direct penetration into the carousel dimension. This is a 40 cm tablet on the floor of the tank. This is not the easiest task. All the lost T-90ms at the moment were burning for quite a long time and there were no crew losses in the tanks at the moment.
Impossible shots HAPPEN, just see HMS HOOD (and British battlecruisers in WWI)! However armored, there always seems to be a weak spot that gets hit with dramatic results, no matter how good the design is.
We're not saying the autoloader itself causes the turret to go boom, rather its the way the ammo needs to be stored for the autoloader to function that is the problem. The issue presented, is that it is poorly protected and prone to detonating upon hit or is far worse for the tank and crew in the event of an ammo detonation. No one thinks the actual autoloading mechanisms are detonating, and I don't know how that interpretation has been taken from this. Just the same, flying turrets in of themselves aren't the point of concern, the cause of the turrets flying on the other hand is what draws the concern. You've mixed up the identified symptoms with the things people actually are criticizing. And somehow we've still arrived at similar conclusions.
Bernhard, the T90M doesn't have a bustle autoloader. They have spare ammo storage in the bustle, which may or may not have a blast proof door and blowout panels. I think they have it. Truth be told, I think the carousel autoloader only became a problem when either 1: you face top attack munitions, or 2: you're exposed during maneuvers and some ATGM team pops a shot low on your hull. Unfortunately for the tankers in Ukraine, both factors which makes carousel autoloaders deadly are omnipresent. Javelins and NLAWs strikes directly at the carousel, and Stuhnas or TOWs shot low on the side hull does the same. Ukrainian tank crews manage this by maintaining situational awareness. It helps, but it's still a gamble. Russians, especially earlier on in this war, has tended to use tanks as if they're an invincible fighting vehicle... With predictable results.
More NLAW than javelins. Javs sucks, saw plenty of videos where they miss . Even ukrobots complained jav sucks but nlaw is good. Oh yea and don t forget artillery attacks, both sides suffered tanks casualties from artillery which is very precise today
One of the reasons Britain still uses two part ammunition - the round stays in the turret and is effectively inert whilst the propellant charge goes in the bustle. That and loading whilst on the move is easier and safer. I once read a description of loading one-piece ammo as trying to hit a hole in one with a sledgehammer from the back of a moving truck...
Bernhardt strikes me as a teetotaler. On the other hand... when the new Panther was mentioned, somehow I was expecting a Mojito to show up. Random reasons, of course. And great vid, of course! Loved the info insert a-la classic MHV 😀 Have a good one guys.
Hi SweCenturion here.... The Swedish Strv103 "S-Tank" was early out with separate ammo storage and blow out pannels. It stores all its ammo behind the crew in safe compartments all the way back and rear of the tank for it´s formidable auto loader. The accuracy of the extra long 105mm (1 m longer than regular L7 105) was incredible. The tank design was so ahead of its time so no one understood. How ever Strv103 never was seen in real battle it now dominates computer tank war games like War Thunder. It is so unorthodox so the game developers have a hard time figuring out how to develop a MBT that can operate with only one crew as well as a driver/radioman who can drive backwards. In War Thunder the Strv103 is so good and dominant it has to be crippled of its performans and fire rate so it doesn't completly ruin the whole game. Kind of mind blowing how a turret on tracks probably was the most clever tank development ever. The mighty Merkava design is partly based on the Strv103 with engine in front and severly sloped armor.
Swedish Strv103 "S-Tank" --- is not a Tank -- it does not have a turret -- which means it has significant tactical handicaps. Relevance of WAR thunder to real life is seriously questionable.
@@guythomas7051 turret or no turret is not defying a tank. It is the tactical use and operation of the vehichle who does. The S-tank (Strv103) was deployed for traditional heavy tank war tactics. It is how ever correct of you that the lack of separate hull and turret inflict some disadvantages in comparison. Especially fire on the move. The constructionn had on the other hand several advantages compared to "classic" design and that was the superb accurassy of the gun, the extreme silhouette, the rate of fire and the surviveability of the crew. There was war doctrines for S-tank brigades for both defensive warfare as well as offensive warfare. In real life wargames against "classically" designed tanks the s-tank brigades performed extremely well. Bobo Bergstrom, former tank company commander and sub leuitenent Swrdish armoured forces. ( i was deploeyed on Centurion )
People keep calling the autoloader on Russian tanks a design flaw, it is not a design flaw, it is a trade-off. With the autoloader, they need one less crew which means they can field more tanks and get better loading from crews with low experience. Russia has NEVER placed a high premium on the lives of its soldiers. Before you can talk about blowout panels you need to understand what they are, they are weaker areas of the armor meant to give way, which for obvious reasons can not be used without the ammo being completely separated from the crew. In the M1 for instance the ammo is stored in a separate area at the back of the turret by thick blast doors. If something penetrates the ammo area, the door between the crew and ammo is stronger than the blowout panel which vents the explosive force AWAY from the crew. That is why autoloaders can not work in a space where crew and ammo are mingled.
Chieftan says no downside to the T-14, Experimental M1 approach of a bulkhead between the autoloader and crew, but he's previously mentioned the benefit for a tanker to be able to clamber out of the turret to look at near and far objects with the mk.1 eyeball, and as someone who has had experience with earth moving equipment I really took his point on that.
More of these chats with the Chieftain as they really do give a good perspective on current armour related topics, I have always wondered why the Leopard 2 fared so badly in Turkish hands was it a design fault or poor tactics, be interested to hear you guys thoughts on that.
Imo, id say poor tactics for sure. Leo2 was not built to be in the thick of if, but instead fire support from a distance. Its hull is actually fairly weak frontally.
If a tank has to carry ammo in the hull put it in armored wet stowage like in the Challenger 2 which has shown that if ammunition fire occurs in the fighting compartment the ammo behind sealed stowage will be safe.
another reason why the carousel is a major weakness is because as REDEFFECT has pointed out before the Russians have reached the limit of what they can fit inside. Newer more powerful projectiles are to big to be loaded in it which puts Russian tanks at a significant disadvantage over western rivals. The solution is a bustle auto loader like the one featured in the Leclerc and K2 something the Russians have curiously done before with the Black Eagle design.
Are there any studies of the comparative flammability of Russian two part ammo and NATO single piece? Propellant charges just look more vulnerable to fire to my eye than single piece designs. I know the case is combustible on western ammo but still.
Is this the most prominent example of internet memes impacting our perceptions of armored vehicles? Or is there an even more memed factor that I am forgetting?
@@DogeickBateman no cap the Ka 52 is performing very well and the t90 is performing resonably well. The t72 are performibg meh mainly due to failure of command and logistics.
That was sort of the point, the autoloader in the bustle can be isolated from the crew. The under turret carousel autoloader would be difficult or impossible to isolate, unless you move the crew from the turret. A problem if one was to isolate a carousel autoloader from the crew of a manned turret that wasn't mentioned is how do you work on it? If the autoloader is under the turret, and sealed off from the crew, do you have climb under the tank? Or just pull the turret every time you have to do maintenance? With a bustle autoloader, it would make sense to go through the blowout panels in the top of the turret.
T-84M/BM/U with 125mm gun in Ukrainian service still use the same carousel auto loader like the T-80UD and will go boom in the same way. T-84-120 presumably used a cassette auto loader for NATO ammo, but it never entered production.
What is difficult for some people to understand is the fact that the autoloader basket at the bottom of the turret on all Russian tanks of the T-64, T-72, T80, T90 family has a square opening in the floor just behind the gun breech - this is the way through which the autoloader raises first propellants, but inserts a grenade, then pushes the propellants. The first thing the fire will catch when it passes through this opening in the bottom of the basket are all 22 propellant charges - self-igniting propellant powder, packed in self-igniting grease-moisterproof paper with a 10 cm metal section at the bottom that looks like a regular case bottom. When it all pushes up, we see a violent jet of fire coming out of the upper hatches - the commander and the gunner, but when the turret flies off in "Jack in the Box" fashion, it means that all the ammunition stored in the carousel of the tank or on the sides of the turret EXPLODED, after high heat, ammo was cook off and exploded in a simultaneous explosion. And that's all about T-72 - T80 or T90 tanks. The only difference is that the T-72 and T90 have tank shells mounted horizontally first, and the propellant charges are above them. The T-64 and T80 received shells horizontally in the carousel, and the propellant was fixed vertically at the end of the shells. But in any case, the propellant bags are very close and will explode very easily if caught by any open fire or glowing shrapnel piercing the propellant charge, or cumulant jet fire, or bombs dropped from drones, etc.
I'm only about five minutes into the video but I want to share my two cents about the problem: Carousel Autoloaders would be practically impossible to blow-out protect with manned turrets, as whatever set off the ammunition is also most probably gonna go right through the internal armor between the ammunition and the crew compartment, providing a nice hole for flames and flaming debris to come spilling into the turret in a super hot jet of ammuntion being cooked off.
I don't see why that argument couldn't also be made for a human loader configuration. It's down to the separation of stowage vs crew. Arguably leclerc bustle ammo stowage is safer than Abrams bustle ammo stowage, for example
@@TheChieftainsHatch If a tank with a carousel autoloader is struck in the front of the Hull, then the shell would create a hole between the crew compartment and the ammo stowage, hence negating the blowout panels... it would essentially be like an abrams getting shot in the back of the turret through the blowout panel into the crew compartment (but reversed). I think that's what he was getting at. The Abrams and Leos blowout panels located in the back of the turret are probably mainly there to separate the ammo from the crew (if all the ammo is stored in a tight/ compact space, there is less chance of the ammo getting hit; that's if the turret is penetrated frontally). If the ammo compartment is struck from the side or above then the blowout will do its job. So turret cheeks to stop frontal threats, blowout panels to stop side and top down threats. (Obviously, this massively depends on the angle at which the shell penetrates into the tank)
@@EasyAL_YT Then the og comment and you aren't making sense. If projectile struck the front, and hit the autoloader, how would that projectile create a hole between this steel plate between the crew and autoloader?
@@jintsuubest9331 Inorder for the shell to strike the ammo inside the carousel autoloader, the shell must have penetrated the shield that's meant to separate the crew from the ammo. Look back at my abrams example.
@@jintsuubest9331 Essentially, the problem is that you can't make it compact enough to be safe. (Since carousel autoloaders must be placed in the middle of the tank), the blow out hatch door (separating metal sheet) will likely be penetrated, crew will be exposed to the ammo detonation.
You gentlemen have missed another important point - the antifratricide material surrounding each warhead in the Abrams storage system. When designing the TTB autoloader we went through pains to ensure there was room for Abrams-equivalent anti-fratricide collars around each of the 44 warheads to prevent sympathetic detonation of adjacent warheads. AND there exists a bustle autoloader system that retains the ammo isolation, blow-off panels, and anti-fratricide around each warhead. It’s called the “Compact Autoloader” developed by Western Design Corporation in cooperation with ARDEC and GDLS in the late ‘90’s.
There was no such protection on any of my M1s. The Meggitt Compact Autoloader I have referred to on other videos. A pretty good design, but arguably pointless.
There was no such protection on any of my M1s. The Meggitt Compact Autoloader I have referred to on other videos. A pretty good design, but arguably pointless.
One extremelly important advantage of autoloader over manual loader is machine never gets tired. Even an experienced loader will get tired after fourth or fifth shell and will slow down and eventually he will be too tired to load. This is very important in infantry popping missions because you will need to shoot a lot of shells at the enemy infantries.
The manual loader do not break, the autoloader can break and will break. and if you need more then 4-5 shell in a short time you might be doing the "war" thing wrong. You should use your MG against Infantry
@@tranquoccuong890-its-orge By the time a manual loader has slowed down to the point they're slower than an autoloader the tank has essentially fired off all its ammunition
The engagement against tanks ends on the 1st shot, infantry can be shredded by the 12.7mm machine gun and pillboxes will not go anywhere. If you use an autoloader, the 3 remaining guys must fix everything, and adding a complex autoloader makes everyone too tired to perform properly. It will also break, the Ukrainian team came last in a tank competition against western tanks because the autoloader developed a fault. The Leclerc gets away because it is deployed alongside wheeled and light support vehicles only, so the rest of the company helps insead
Leclerc MBT 22 rounds in the bustle autoloader have blowout panels, segregating ammo from the crew. But There's an 18 rounds drum that sits next to the driver in the front hull (most protected area). This drum is to reload the autoloader, takes about 8 minutes. So technically the spare rounds in the drum are not segregated but good luck piercing frontally a Leclerc and cookig these rounds off. A Emirati Leclerc got hit by a kornet or Konkurs-M ATGM in Yemen and the 18 round drum im the hull did not go off. As it did not pierce the hull and the tank was repaired. Shame spall and hot jet from the kornets went trough the episcopes and killed the commander.
The Germans solved the issue of the ammo storage in the hull by making ammo that doesn't explode when hit (DM63 and later DM73 for the A7V) so it makes the lack of complete blow out panel coverage not really an issue anymore.
@@remliqa To my knowledge there are none and other militaries will probably adopt it in time, but it only entered service recently and there already exists large stocks of conventional ammo which is both expensive and time consuming to replace.
The autoloader problem actually had an alternative answer, 20 years ago, by the Russians. There was a prototype tank, known by some as the 'Black Eagle', which incorporated a turret bustle, which would have blowout panels and carry the charges, while the carousel in the hull would carry the projectiles.
T-90M has extra armour around carroucel. All other T-72 and T-90 had a 20mm rha plate on the front. You could make a armoured roof and blow out panels below the tank. Like the hull ammo rack on the abrams. T serie tank turret is shorter. Smaller. The from armour turret extend to the side. There is barely a visible side turret whit no composit. Most shots will hit the turret.
You build the blow out panels below the tank, and you're going to make that tank extra vulnerable to mines. Any seams in the lower hull significantly weaken the integrity to mines/IEDs.
Gotta say, the Abrams door does NOT take forever. It's actually very fast. You bump to slide it, then grab and slam the round into the tube and by the time youre activating the gun breach to close it it's already closed the blowout panel.
T-90M doesn't have blowout panels. It has the same 22 round autoloader as earlier tanks, extra ammunition is 8 rounds between the autoloader and engine firewall and 10 rounds externally behind the turret, which I think you are mistaking for blowout panels. It hasn't got blast doors seperating this storage from the crew compartment, it has the turret wall, and can't be accessed by the crew under armor
The rounds in the bustle do have blow-out panels; I think that Russia should store rest of the rounds in the bustle and add a bustle autoloader; it would bring ready rounds to 40
@@thephoenix756 there aren't blow out panels. It's just ammo stores outside the tank in a steel box that protects it from MG bullets and artillery fragmentation. Blow out panels implies the crew/autoloader have access to the ammunition from inside the tank which they dont.
@@01Laffey No, blow-out panels imply that propellant explosions are directed outward and that's precisely the case with the rounds in the T-90M bustle. The fact that tank crews can't access these rounds is immaterial.
@@thephoenix756 Yeah, a blow out panel directs the explosion outside instead of into the crew compartment. The ammunition is already outside, the explosion isnt directed anywhere on the T-90M. It's just a thin steel box that will blow up when that ammo storage is hit, but it is not critical since it is outside that tank and the turret wall protects the insides. It bears no resemblance to the blowout panel design in Abrams, Leopard 2 or the like, because it has no blowout panels in the first place. It's just external stowage of ammunition.
@@01Laffey The design of the bustle in the T-90M is explicitly meant to redirect the explosions upwards; it doesn't have to be crew accessible to qualify as a blow-out panel.
I think a blow out panel is not really the question here. I note that you would see Ukraine drop drone dropped grenades into a tank and the ammo goes off. Panels over the bottom carousel is more to prevent the bagged propellant from being easily set off by damage that enters the tank. Russian ammo, even if had a brass/steel shell casing like NATO guns, would be more survivable. Drop anything hot into a open carousel tank and it’s very easy to set off bagged charges. I suspect that factor alone accounts for the reputation for turret pop.
It's not the auto loader or the lack of blow out panels or ammo storage. It's the weapon that is enter the tank. There are so many that can do it and do it well tank as we know will go the way of the battleship.
Turret separation is not an issue. A kill is a kill! It is a common reaction for components to separate during catastrophic explosions. The whole concern over this issue is childish. Turrets flying off is NOT a design flaw.
The Chieftain always gives detailed information that sets things in context and perspective.
He is brilliant.
what i like most about him is that he didnt go full shill after the war now a days thats a sign that a dude is legit
Meh, the time he decided to use arracourt as an example that the Sherman was better tank than the Panther, I lost my ability to really trust he didn't come at things with an agenda. Because using arracourt, a large combined arms battle with one side making a major tactical blunder, to judge which tank was better is frankly ridiculous.
@@hummingbird9149 he doesn't have to use Arracourt.
NO German tank was worth much because they were unreliable and there weren't enough of them.- especially the Tigers. Trash they were.
The Panzer V and Panzer IV's were excellent. BUT -- their over-engineering and constant changes, caused HUGE production delays.
A tank that cannot be mass produced is useless.
The fact that 50,000 Shermans were produced, automatically makes it the best tank in the war, IMO.
Don't use World of Tanks or other game to judge.
@@craigkdillon How can you judge how reliable one tank is vs another if one of them doesn't get proper maintenance, heck even regular oil changes?? See that's the problem with all the armchair experts out there wanting to compare stuff, they completely forget/ignore the operating conditions of the vehicles they're trying to compare. For example, despite FAR worse operating conditions, by late 44 the latest Panthers were actually doing 3000 km stretches before needing part changes, thats A LOT even for a Sherman, esp. one that doesn't get the luxury of timely maintenance halts and logistics. Heck by late 1944 Tiger II's were more reliable than Pz.IV's (!!), which themselves ironically were considered very reliable before the oil shortages started to take effect - So what does that say? Well its pretty obvious isn't it ? = under equal conditions Tigers & Panthers were just as reliable as Pz.IV's.
Moving on to Chieftains use of Arracourt as some sort of example to jduge one vehicle vs another, as a historian you simply can't use the results of a standalone engagement to judge the worth of a vehicle, esp. not without also considering the conditions each side had to content with. At Arracourt for example, try to reverse the situation, give the Germans side the hills, arty and air power (when the fog cleared), and let it be a mass of Shermans that are incompetently led into fog ridden boggy ground surrounded by hills on three sides. I think its pretty clear not a single Sherman would've left the field in that case, first of all because they lacked the armour to resist a clean hit from most German tanks & AT guns, let alone a Panther or Tiger, and secondly because they quite simply would've gotten stuck in the boggy ground due to their high ground pressure (even the Panthers struggled at Arracourt). So what does the result of that battle even tell us? Nothing other than that proper tactics and combined arms always wins vs poor tactics with a single arm. Also finally it's kind of funny you brought up World of Tanks (which I've never played and never will), as guess who works for them? = Chieftain. But hey, at some point all this revisionist history crap will die down, and people will start looking logically at things again, and judge either sides equipment for their true merits and cons, instead all this overblown nonsense of "A Tiger or Panther could only cover 10 km, then it would break down", "All German tanks were crap, and if you say otherwise you a damn wehraboo!" or the equally dumb "it always took 5 Shermans to kill a Tiger" etc.. We dont get any smarter by replacing one myth with another.
@@hummingbird9149 Germans are good mechanically, and I don't suspect the German army of ignoring maintenance.
Now, the Russian army is different.
However, you do raise a good point. Judging how good a tank is from one country vs one from another is difficult, with many factors, each hard to know.
How many tanks break down in an army can be found out. Why they broke down is more difficult.
If a part breaks -- was it due to being poorly designed? or, poorly built? or, not maintained? Or, not enough oil? Or, something else?
What we can see is how many were built. Good records on that.
There are a few points about the autoloader and the "jack in the box effect" that I would like to add. One very common misconception is that any tank missing its turret also lost all of its crew. While this sometimes does happen, this rests on two flawed assumptions: first, the assumption that there was anyone inside of the tank when it was initially hit (many tanks are destroyed when abandoned or parked), and second, the assumption that a catastrophic exposition occurred instantly after a penetrating hit. Combat reports from Chechnya, corroborated by footage from Syria and Ukraine, note that most "jack in the box" explosions are secondary explosions that occur significantly after a fire started in the crew compartment (typically 10-30 minutes). The reports that I have been able to come across, although often anecdotal, demonstrate considerably higher crew survivability than what I would have expected. Often, all or 2/3 of the tankers get out before lethal fires or explosions occur. In fact, the autoloader is often not considered the primary issue with T-72 crew survivability, rather, it is the stored ammunition arrayed around the tank outside the autoloader. These rounds and charges are largely unprotected and occupy a lot of the tank's internal volume. As such, fires are extremely common in the event of a penetration if all possible ammunition is carried. While typically survivable if the crew gets out fast enough, burns on the face and hands are quite common among tankers using T-72s and similar vehicles. Additionally, the powder charges have a tendency to deflagrate very violently after being burnt for long enough. This leads to cook-offs, often leading to several small secondary explosions and huge jets of flame shooting out of open hatches. This often happens only several seconds after a penetration, which is one of the most serious issues with crew survivability. Overall, I personally think that T-72 survivability is underestimated, but it is considerably worse than most other modern tanks.
Basically that. Spare ammo scattered everywhere, which unlike carousel, don't have nozzles of automated firefighting equipment pointing at it, which if working, can delay major fires enough to give time to get away.
The main problem of tank survival is the stupidity of its commander, and 2 no less important part is the intensity of the conflict and the number of anti-tank weapons, have you ever seen other tanks involved in a high-intensity conflict of such duration and with so many anti-tank weapons.
@@ДанилСеливерстов-ц3ъ сразу вспоминаются несколько леопардов, 2а4 емнип, откинувших башни в результате детонации бк, после попадания ракеты TOW😄
Yes I have seen a video of a T72 hit in Syria with an AT rocket. T72 started to smoke, crew bailed out, then T72, literally went up in a pillar of fire seconds later. I think it really depends on how soon your T64/T72/T80/T90 catches fire. If the crew weren't there or if they get out in time, they will survive. In WW2 tank crews carried pistols with the intention of shooting themselves if the tank caught fire (as did fighter pilots). Russian tank crews don't have to bother about that. The fire will kill them fast.
did you know that america is developing or has developed rounds and charges that dont burn like that its kinda cool
in addition to the blowout panels the M1's have now. I just learned the other day the stuff thats in the compartment has a blowout too its just vented downward instead of up or side
Dont let certain UA-camrs see this. Specifically ones with pig mascots
too late the pig has already seen it.
Aren't they basically saying the same thing?
Not sure what's the benefit of trying to escalate completely unnecessary drama
@@Stunkos No, they really aren't. Lazerpig is very often wrong because of his strong anti-Russian bias and general contrarian stance, plus the need to dumb everything down to fit his "drunken scotsman" persona. . It clouds his ability to look at the topic rationally. It was hilarious when over on Reddit, LP's brain damaged cultists actually tried to bring the Chieftain down to LP's level as a "meme historian" after the T-14 engine source debacle when Chieftain is an actual expert on armor and armor history.
Anyone in Ukraine want to give the Chieftan a tour of a T-90? 😁
Please!!!!!
those are probably not in ukraine any more... at least not t90m
@@jebise1126 Actually the T90m they captured has been seen in combat. Either NATO shows no interest in examining the T90m or this video was recorded before or after they examined it.
@@jebise1126 T90 or not, there is now a lot of Russian equipment Chieftain has been wanting to get hands on with but never been able to do so that is now in Ukraine hands. Once things quiet down, lets hope he can arrange a field trip.
How about that T-90M they captured
That was very cool. I never thought about it that far before. Auto-loaders have certainly come a long way over the years. Does the auto-loader slow down the process of putting the ammunition in the vehicle? Is it faster? Does the speed of rearming the tank even matter?
It is funny how people focus on things that do not really matter that much as opposed to significant issues. The turret pops off, but the crew has perished and the vehicle is wrecked. The turret lying on the ground is the most visible aspect, so it gets focused on.
It does slow down loading a tank up considerably, at this time. I believe the Abrams X includes a rapid loading cassette. Sort of more like HIMARS or MRLS systems where the ammo is supplied in a magazine, and just winched on or off of the vehicle.
That's probably where it will end up eventually. But yeah, it does impact the loading speed. Which in turn impacts tank availability for infantry support. That's not a new concept at all. German forces in ww2 noted that infantry attacks would bog down the moment the Stugs would leave to rearm. I believe some commanders would try to establish a force of assault guns would drive up and replace the ones running low on ammo. But that's just good combined arms.
It also would be similar to the carousel tank tactics used by Russians. The goal is that while one group of tanks are being reloaded, one group is firing, and the other group is moving up to the support positions to refill the tanks that run out of ammo. Granted this is way over simplified.
Another impact to think about with excessively long reloading, is the amount of time spent at a forward resupply base could encourage suppressive artillery on the area.
it depends on the style of autoloader, how ammo is set up, how the autoloader is set, turret and gun alignment when firing
On short term, a human loader is definetly faster than an autoloader. On long term however, an autoloader does not accumulate fatigue, does not need to rest, sleep, eat or go to the bathroom.
@@SlavicCelery no it does not. It's been proven human vs machine, machine always wins. Idk why we keep going with this silly discussion. We know future is robots and automation. Accept it lad
@@Lucian00311 exactly there is a reason robots and automation is becoming more prevalent in our lives.
Minor correction: the first fielded Abrams tanks (circa 1982), armed with the 105mm cannon, did not have all the rounds segregated from the crew/behind a blowout panels. There were three ready rounds on the turret floor to the left of the main gun, plus an additional eight rounds in hull storage. In 1985, one of our Abrams had a turret electrical fire and the three rounds cooked off. The crew escaped prior to the explosion and were uninjured. Turret was shredded inside, but it did not separate from the hull.
yep, seems like the only reason for soviet tank turrets blowing off is that they probably werent bolt to the hull, just placed on the turret ring and thats it
either way, in an ammunition cook off, the crew is done for regardless of whether the turret blow off or not
@@tranquoccuong890-its-orge no turret in existancd is bolted on to the hull
Were these storages deleted on the 120mm gun variants, or are they still there?
I suspect that the turret not flying off might have something to do with turret weight. Now I don't know the weight of an Abrams tank turret off the top of my head but for comparison, the turret on the Leopard 2 weighs about 22 metric tons, that's approx. half the total weight of a T-72. So there is a lot less explosive force needed to lift the turret off a T-72 than off a western MBT.
@@tranquoccuong890-its-orge The Leo 2's turrets also went flying in Syria. Would have been a good comparison for the video
I was in Desert Storm where I saw dozens of tanks destroyed by a variety of means and got to poke around in the remains of many of them looking for souvenirs afterwards. The thing to understand about tank death is that the ammunition has 2 distinct parts, the propellant and the projectile, and these are nowadays so big that they're usually loaded separately. Also, you can have a standard cartridge for a variety of projectiles. The propellant is by far the easiest part to ignite when the tank is hit because it's designed to be readily combustible. And while the propellant is in a metal case, when the projectile and cartridge are loaded separately, the front end of the cartridge case is cardboard, which offers no protection from fire propagation. So, the most usual case of a "brew up" is a massive propellant fire where all the cartridges burn more or less simultaneously. This results in a bright pink gush of flame pouring out every crack of the tank forming a brief fireball above it, and that's usually it. But it's just a flash fire, not an actual explosion. Most times, the turret remains in place even as the tank continues to burn from fuel and other combustibles inside. Very occasionally, the tank is air-tight enough that the propellant fire generates sufficient internal pressure to slightly unseat the turret, so you'll see the turret still on the tank but slightly askew.
The other part of the ammo is the projectile, some of which is solid sabots and others HEAT and/or HE. Only the HEAT and HE can explode, of course but, as high explosives, they're relatively hard to ignite. They can burn without exploding in most cases, or even come through fire unscathed (especially as the explosive is in a sealed, steel shell), and usually require a significant shock to detonate, provided by their fuse. But if one detonates, it can set off all others nearby. THIS is what pops turrets off and can even mangle the hull, too, depending on how many shells detonated and where they were stored. The pressures released by high explosives are WAY WAY greater than flash fires from propellant, and it's this overpressure that pushes tanks apart. So, to get this sort of catastrophic tank explosion, you have to set off the projectile fillers, which requires either a hit on such a thing or a pre-fused shell being triggered. This is relatively rare compared to flash fires from propellant but, of course, does happen often enough. And the results get more pictures because they're more dramatic than a burnt-out but still physically intact tank, which are way more numerous on the battlefield.
Now, if the tank has an autoloader, it might be that it uses fixed (1-piece) ammunition because the mechanism can handle heavier loads than a human. But even so, to blow a turret clean off a tank, you have to get internal high explosive involved. And that's harder to do than getting just propellant involved.
"the propellant and the projectile, and these are nowadays so big that they're usually loaded separately" WTF are you talking about. The main gun ammo on an Abrams is NOT loaded as two separate items.
@@protonneutron9046 Yeah, but all Soviet tanks after T-62 had (and have now) separate propellant charge and projectile.
@@protonneutron9046 Depends on the tank. Should have read my whole post. But regardless, turrets pop because HE in shells detonates. Nothing else inside the tank has the power to pop the turret off. Detonating relatively insensitive HE, protected by the thick body of the shell, is not easy or common, and the loader has nothing to do with it. But when one shell detonates, it can set off the rest in close proximity due to the power of the HE shock. THAT is what pops turrets. Period.
@@TheBullethead no, you should chose your words better. You are incorrect
@@protonneutron9046 OK, if not high explosive, W|HAT ELSE inside a tank has the power to pop the turret off? Fuel?| Nope. Propellant? Nope. So you tell me.
I’m fairly certain most people are aware that it’s not necessarily the auto loader in Russian Tanks but the exposed nature of the ammunition in the carousel type auto loader that causes the catastrophic self deletion.
Another factor to consider would be the more common top attack feature in antitank munitions being employed. While as you said the crews are no longer taking the extra ammunition stowed in the various random parts of the tank including the turret, top attack weapons penetrate the roof and go directly down into the tank and into the ammo carousel.
Nope. It's the spare ammunition that is stored in every free space of the turret. Thus during the Grozny war the tank crews were ordered to remove any spare ammo from the turret.
you still get idiots insisting that all autoloaders are inherently less safe. so more stuff combatting that is always good imo
Given the issues with the modern weapons being able to penetrate the tank you could as well carry the ammunition on the outside instead in boxes just able to cover it from rifle fire.
@@schuylerhayes9283 depends on the autoloader Type-90, Leclerc have a safe autoloader. T-64/80, T-72/90 even without the spare ammo aren't safe.
@@ehsnilsyou don’t want ammunition exposing on the outside of the tank and killing friendlies or it being exposed to the elements.
Imagine driving around all day in heavy rain and snow making your rounds not work
The classic illustration of what happens to a tank being attacked by a top attack missile is the demonstration Bofors made using a remotely controlled Centurion tank, with a full 105 mm ammunition, machine gun ammo and fuel, sans crew obviously :) Spoiler alert, the RBS26 Bill hits the top of the turret, and then the Centurion goes though a process of rapid uncommanded disassembly looking like a phosphorous grenade on a rolling skateboard! reference: ua-cam.com/video/LieUSOgq-bU/v-deo.html
Excellent share, thank you!
the turret on the centurion didnt blow off in that ammunition cook off
or rather, soviet tank turret blow off when the ammunition cook off is because it wasnt bolted to the tank, just placed on the hull ring
either way, the crew are gone when the ammo cook off regardless if the turret blow off or not
@@tranquoccuong890-its-orge No turrets are bolted on to any tank, that is just unneeded complexity when you need to fix something, so nobody does it. Propellant burns much more slowly than the explosive filler in shells, so the difference is that the centurion driver might escape with 3rd degree burns before it explodes, but everyone in the soviet tank dies instantly
I cry at that video....I love Centurions.....poor tank....
Cremation... is your preference.... well it is now...
I'd say the biggest fault with russian tanks is their terrible reverse speed. When it has to retreat it either needs to take its time(which you don't want to do under fire) or turn around and show the rear(which you also do not want to do as there isn't much armor there).
What about tiny non-existant visibility outside? What you don't see will kill you.
Russians crews don't see much of anything.
It’s one of several glaring design problems in Russian tanks that while useful during the cold war as the Soviet union are a detriment to the modern Russian federation.
Its coz they don't want them to retreat and fight another day. ruzzian known for shooting retreating troops, so why would they give tanks reverse gears so they can flee quicker, they gave slow reverse so they have no choice but to stand fight & die
@@d.i.l.l.i.g.a.f.594 braindead take
The funny thing is, up until a few years after WW2, Russian built their tanks to have some of the best reverse speeds of any tanks at the time. The KV and T- tanks were good, the SU series SPG's had great reverse, and the IS tanks also up till the T-10. Then they suddenly forgot with the T-55 and later MBT's. Weird.
The only person that could have cared about turrets popping off, I saw in a Ukrainian war video. The turret landed on a Russian soldier, well the barrel of the cannon technically landed on him. He was unavailable for comment on the gravity of the situation.
Russian soldier from the grave: Gravity sucks!
carlos!
Thank you for informing people of this. Also, a tanks turret being blown off after the ammo being struck is not the problem you should focus on, rather the issues lies in letting your tank be seen, targeted, hit, penetrated and THEN you should worry about the ammo detonation... Most tanks ammo being struck wont fair well in the first place, but if you can prevent being seen targeted hit or penetrated then it negates the ammo worry. See the survivability onion for reference.
That's one of the reasons they made them low to the ground, although that gives bad gun depression
ya but its all about making fun of "the enemy" instead of being objective isn't it?
@@JeanLucCaptain Sadly that is the case these days...
@@JeanLucCaptain People: haha enemy tanks bad
also people: we made those tanks
@@1KosovoJeSrbija1 also people those tanks majically not bad when Nazis use them.
This content is fantastic- real conversations between experts. Thank you, gentlemen.
"Rapid uncommanded disassembly." Comforting phrase if you're in one of these "Jack-in-the-Box" tanks.
Awww, man, I've been arguing most of this on a regular basis for almost a whole year. This'll be great!
Thank you. This is one of those myths that keep getting perpetuated. I mean, the autoloader CAN cause a catastrophic explosion. But it sits fairly low and it is hard to hit it. Ammo stowed in sponsoons around the turret and hull on the other hand, is extremely vulnerable.
basically it sounds as if the modern tank, is in general very vulnerable.
@@kittymervine6115 not particularly no. In the Ukraine they have been invaluable for offensives.
@@kittymervine6115 I would argue that the modern tank is still the best protected vehicle in the military.
You have to remember that if a round penetrates the armour, hot metal fragments will be sprayed around and the propellant in the autoloader is both designed to explode and is not well protected. The Russians have realised this and in the T90M, ammunition is stored in a bustle at the rear of the turret (like a US M1).
@@kittymervine6115 not so much, high level AT weapons that create this dialogue are still relatively rare.
O boy! when this popped up, I remembered Nick discussing this in his virtual T72 tour. I click here and--SURPRISE! 😎
Since history has shown that the lower ammo is carried the safer, I had always wondered why essentially under-floor stowed cassette ammo was supposedly so catastrophically explosive. In-turret ammo stowage explains it, like such stowage was responsible for most fires in WWII tanks.
Can't help but think of a parallel between this and what the British Navy found out in the Dardanelles in ww1 where individual crews were taking various "Shortcuts" and ship would spontaneously go up.
You mean Jutland in WW1 - yes the British crews took short cuts there!
@@Digmen1 Yeah I got those mixed up, thank you.
Can't help but think of Russians doing the same thing with their tanks, trying to carry as much ammo as they can fit in, on or around the vehicle, because they know their logistics are f*cked and that's all they're going to get...
Leaving blast doors on the turret ammunition feed propped open so a turret explosion traveled down into the magazine.
Before Jutland, the battlecruiser squadron was stationed in Hull, where long-range target practice was not possible without going out to sea, which was expensive. Their response was to up the rate of fire to walk the shells onto the target. This meant keeping more cordite and picric acid shells than the ready rooms were designed for, and holding open all the flash doors. Battlecruisers were not real battleships, so they were a lot more thin-skinned, which made every single hit to the turrets a potential disaster
Picric acid is highly dangerous and sensitive, so much so that the shell might explode inside the barrel, which likely happened to IJN Shikishima, and the unstable nature caused the 1st-rate battleship IJN Mikasa to explode and sink in port. Today, bomb squads are called whenever people find dried-out picric acid in labs, because they must be wet to remain stable
Also happened with a Challenger 2 tank at Castlemartin during a shooting exercise. Extra bagged charges of propellant had been taken out of the magazine to speed firing. Totally against regulations but it was admitted to be a common practice.
I really love this format! More of that, @Military History and @Chieftain!
Love both of you!
Question with a long context explanation: a decade or so ago Ukraine was developing an elongated T-72 and T-80 with a pseudo troop compartment in the back, behind turret, but in front of the engine with space for 3 people. It got an extra set of roadwheels so it was able to handle more mass and obviously was itself heavier then normal T-72 and T-80. Project was sort of cancelled since it was leading nowhere, but prototype remained.
Then there was a project to install a "NATO compliant" 120mm gun into T-80 and put the autoloader into the turret bustle and equip it with blow out panels. It existed, it worked, but budget wasn't there so it was cancelled too.
Seemingly unconnected stories. Until around 2017-2019 Ukraine showcased new recovery vehicle based on T-72 which for presentation was dragging around... elongated T-80 with said turret with bustle autoloader. Comments are closed under the original video, no info was given about that monstrosity outside of possible weight of 55 tons. Since bustle is above the former "dismount" hatches, those were obviously unusable and welded shut.
So, what was that? Just a way to preserve two separate prototypes? Or was it a new tank development in itself? It has massive amount of unused space in the hull thanks to former crew compartment and removal of hull autoloader. And quite a hefty weight reserve if 55ton figure is true. So what was there? Attempt to install thicker frontal armor without overloading frontal roadwheels? Crew capsule experiment? Extra fuel tanks or ammo storages to avoid using external ones that everyone's trying to mount on T-80?
What was that tank?
I greatly enjoy the videos each of you makes, and this collaboration is even better!
Actually all the ammunition is behind a blowout panel in the T-70+ series. The panel is dome shaped and also houses the main gun and crew. It's a very efficient design.
Good comment, i'd like to add something else, the biggest issue is modern day tank combat depends more on who shoots first.
With that being said whatever allows a crew to shoot first is a big plus ( stabilizer, crew training, gun accuracy, rangefinders, thermal optics etc )
Another big plus that isnt taken into account is somewhat similar to the survivorship bias ( yeah that one from bombers in WW2 ) is that we are looking from a perspective that isnt helpful, we are somehow easily able to measure how many tanks are destroyed after they are hit ( and how many of those are "jack in a box" explosions ) but dont take into consideration other very important factors such as how many times the tank wasnt able to get hit, and this has to do with size.
Besides that, one very important thing is crew training and manpower avaiable, training someone to become a tank crewman isnt cheap and certainly isnt fast either. So having a reduced crew does have its advantages ( and also disadvantages )
And finnaly, logistically, its a good idea to have tanks that are cheaper on the gas, maintenance and are easier to be serviced again as fast as possible, or with longer time inbetween repairs.
There is no Wunderwaffe, but it surely depends more on whether you can afford all the manpower upkeep, army economy, logistics and obviously each country's military doctrine.
With all that said, its foolish to underestimate enemies, and Russians are not ones to be effed around, and this has been proved historically wise.
I believe Leo 2 turrets popped in Syria.
@@enclavesoldier1915and new German ammo is hard to ignite so there low chances of that happening again
The carousel in T-72 series is actually not completely exposed (inside the tank) but pretty well protected and can withstand some levels of fragment/spall. Most of ammo explosion happen from extra ammo scattering around the tank, which would trigger the ammo in carousel as well
Its better then the t64 and t80 autoloaders too
T-80 has the advantage of speed, T-72 has the advantage of the autoloader being low in the tank, i personally prefer the T-80 over the T-72 one way or another spall liner saves the day lol
What "explodes" - high-explosive shells. What does NOT explode - high velocity powder for them and APFSDS. It just burns out (and still kills the crew, yeah). I don't remember the US Army using anything other than APFSDS in their Abrams. This is the only reason their panels are effective.
@@Ailasher they use mpat and apfsds
@@binhvuthanh5804 Yep, you're right. But, by the explosive effect Soviet/Russian standard ZOF26 (ЗОФ26) much more powerful and deadly for the tank itself: it's 3 kilo of A-IX-2 for fuck sake!
In Siria you can see Leopards with their turrets blown up
(I served in Russian Army from 2008-2014 in T-72B, now living Romania) Biggest flaw of our tanks are several - First one and most important one is reverse speed. RUS doctrine was mechanized force and which will fast assault through objectives. Reverse speed was probably no big priority because urban or sub-urban type warfare or even asymmetrical warfare was simply not a vision for him. It completely needs correction in this century in my opinion. Next flaw is that our government are cheap people. What I mean by this is for example - T-72B/B1 is selected for upgrades for bulking of RUS ground forces to T-72B3 level, but why? Even with upgrades and heavy ERA protection is still inferior for modern standard because tanks base armor is never upgraded and ERA have simply a huge gaps in them. Some years ago it was agreed to upgrade few thousands of T-72 to B3 standards because it is cost effective, but I will argue that 1000 T-14 and few thousand T-90M would have been much more better choice and than continue production of T-14 slowly or offer T-90M for exporting to set costs from the Army. But it is my opinion that decision for T-72B3 and T-80BVM upgrades was only to have sufficient numbers for war with UA. It does make sense for it, but in my opinion you will have superior results in a war with the superior vehicle. And last problem which I think are biggest of them is that RUS Army still use Kontakt-1 ERA as if that shit even will do anything at all now. They literally will slap Kontakt-1 on anything and call it protected. I rather will drive in my personal car, pizdets! Really in my honesty, biggest flaw in our tanks in RUS MoD. xaxaxa... Bureaucrats which never even saw a war, and give all of Army funding to missile forces for Navy forces. We are LAND Army, nahui! xD
Army simply need more funds, but even now, every year missile heads and big boat douchebags will run to beg for Moscow - 'Please!! Daddy we need even more nuclear and big boats!' and they will get them.
My understanding is that many T-62 or T64 tanks were stored properly under cover but latter T-72 often were stored in the open and thus rapidly rotted and need more work. Yes the Leopard drivers like their reverse gears but Leopard 2A6 drivers are jealous of 2A7 because the latter has a reversing camera. Perhaps would have been better to scrap the T-62 and store, maintain and upgrade the T-72 better. A lot of western armies scrap equipment quickly because they can not afford to store and maintain it. The British scrapped all of their Rapier SAM systems the moment they had a single SkySabre in production. Too soon.
@@williamzk9083 It is depending where you are in the country. As an example, in the North and most of central military area there is only a tarps for covering the vehicle. In West and South districts there are mostly metal buildings for them. There was only 1000 or something of T-64B when I leave the Army, but most of that give them to DPR or LPR. I never even saw T-64 in my time actually or T-62. Russian government always liked to keep huge storage of old shit for this type of reason.. tanks can be used like sort of artillery so you dont need better than T-62 or old T-72A for that.
@@williamzk9083 I was wondering why no Rapier systems had been sent ti Ukraine.
@@williamzk9083 RAPIER WAS NOT GOOD - did not hit anything that it was fired at in anger - Falklands war.
I note what you say about better having fewer superior tanks (T90 / T14) over lots of upgraded T72 BUT in 1940 the German tanks utilized were inferior in overall numbers and also inferior in quality Panzer 3 being the most numerous armed only with 37mm as opposed to French H39 (47MM gun ) -- why the Germans won was superior operational doctrine, concentration of force and superior communication. The Russian Federation armed forces in the first Chechen war had superiority in armoured forces but had their arses handed to them -- what the Russian army needs is a complete replacement of Officer corps from top to bottom (which is rapidly happening in the Ukraine, permanently ) a complete rethink of Tank / combined arms operations - a logistics system that actually keeps tanks supplied with go juice . It would also help the survivability of Russian tanks if crews were trained - no one can forget the images of the T14 that stopped in Red square and the comical efforts to TOW it until someone decided to take the hand brake off. What the Rus army needs is a new doctrine, a new empowering comnd and control system -- a professional army not an army where there are no NCO's , officers who despise the men, where the men despise officers and each other. THEN decide what type of tank the army needs T90's maybe , T14 I think not, that's just a vanity piece' which they can't afford. Having "better tanks" won't make a jot difference to the Russian army -- it is a corrupt.incompetent,gang of war criminals from top to bottom - lets hope they never get their act together so this war that Russia started ends soon.
My understanding one of the reasons autoloaders are becoming common is the 120mm cannons are being replaced with 130 ~ 150mm cannons and the shells are becoming physically to large and heavy to man handle
They’re also just better in almost every way and allow for safer tanks
Also loader requires space inside a tank, more space than a modern autoloader
@@captainfactoid3867 Historically debatable. I think newer ones are better, but autoloaders have been hit and miss in the past.;
@@thysonsacclaim sorry for lack of clarification, Im meant modern ones
@@captainfactoid3867 no, they allow for fewer crew members, meaning less problems recruiting and training enough expensive soldiers.
Great video guys! The issue here is not the autoloader, it's the failure to separate/protect semi-combustible main gun ammo. Main gun ammo (ready-rack, etc.), has been stored in the turret/around the crew for decades on almost all tanks...the difference is that that ammo wasn't semi-combnustible. That changes everything...the Soviets decided not to fundamental react to the new danger to the crew...on the T-64/T-72/T-80/T-90, the crew is litterally sitting on and is surrounded by a powder keg.
Mmmhhh you should consider that this is true for all NATO tanks of Cold War too..... "safe" NATO tanks came in the late 80s and the Soviet Union never had time to realize more modern tanks due to its dissolution in 1991. Just that. Too many people compares modern NATO tanks with much older Soviet models as if they were contemporary tanks.... that's a great mistake!
@@RiccardoTheBeAst I am going to disagree. A brass case is some protection, semi-combustible cases by their very nature, burn!
@@zedeyejoe You are right about the shell 👉
3:53 YES! This has been my hang-up ever since I first heard of this! By the time conditions have deteriorated to the point that the turret decides to cross train to the Air Force, the rest of the tank is totaled.
I think the thing that people notice about the T-72 turret lifting is the extreme heights that such a heavy turret reaches.
Western tanks are much heavier that's why almost never their turrets never pop off only the leopard in syria had a catastrophic failure even worse than soviet tanks that even the hull was torn apart and the other is the challenger in ukraine although the turret was pop off but only a few inches from its place
Thanks for making this video. I see way too many citing the turret pop problem as evidence against autoloaders. Turret pop is a problem of carousel storage system, not the autoloader.
What? You mean the turret popping off is just meaningless propaganda that’s repeated endlessly by a slack jawed internet? Who woulda thunk it!
The turret does pop off, it’s just overstated how big the problem is.
It iant. The turret popping off is a massive issue turning otherwise recoverable mission kills into catastrophic falioures. If it happebs quickly after penetrating hits it is also an indication of an event that killed all the crew.
What it is not, is itself a flaw. Its a result and indicator of a flaw, namely the loose stored ammunition around the turret, which is an isssue shared by many other tanks, like leopard 2A4, which coincidentally also likes to toss turrets when penetrated.
@@egoalter1276 I think what you are saying is there or there about correct. Personally I'd change it around a bit to say that the thing that makes the difference between a mobility kill and a total loss of the vehicle is when the ammo cooks off. At that point it honestly doesn't matter where the turret is located other than it might need to get loaded on to a seperate truck. Sure, it's more spectacular to lose a turret, but when the tracks are melted into the ground it's of no real consequence. I'd dare say pretty much every MBT is going to turret toss because they pretty much all store ammo in the hull except one or maybe two standout examples. If you look about there is also pictures of Merkava killed by ATGM that have suffered catastrophic failures and even M1 Abrams in Iraq that hit IED's made up of artillery shells large enough to break apart the vehicle, at which point the crew is dead regardless of the fact the ammo didn't burn at all.
In Ukraine, given how many vehicles are actually mobility kills from mines or artillery that are later finished off by drones delivering munitions through an open hatch, I'm not convinced there is any provable parallel between seeing vehicles with catastrophic failures and crew fatality. Maybe more so at the start of the war when ATGM's were doing the lions share of the dirty work and the initial hit cooked off the ammo instantly. Maybe not so much so now?
Hopefully I live long enough to see the post war analysis of the armoured conflict there. It will make some interesting reading and I will be able to stop guessing at what's happening.
Please go on doing this kind of videos!
if the carousel was in an armored segmented "donut" with several blow out panels on top it could work. Downside is of course if any of the segmenting doors jam.. no ammo. True for the M1 Abrams as well.
The chief complaint I think is that a hit on the passenger compartment often results in complete destruction of the vehicle. The question becomes in that case whether one or more members of the crew would otherwise have survived the hit. The reason cited for the blow out is the fact that there is basically no separation between ammunition store and the crew. Thus *any* hit that penetrates the armor can trigger a secondary detonation or an ammunition burnout. So in any case, the crew is guaranteed dead and the tank is totally scrap, save for the tracks and supports.
Only half of the Abrams ammunition is ready for instant use. The ammunition behind the commander is to be considered as reserve. So the practical difference between tanks is much smaller than it seems.
I think a distinction should be made between a propellant fire (flames shooting from all the hatches) and a shell detonation (turret throwing). propellant fires are survivable, as some videos from Syria demonstrate, and I remember you quoting a German manual roughly stating about firefighting: "but when the ammunition has caught fire, there is no hope: get out". A simple risk mitigation therefore is to put your inert APFSDS shells in the hull, leaving the dangerous HE/HEAT rounds in the blow-out protected bustle. In theory the high explosive inside the shells can only be triggered by shock or impact, not by the heat from a fire.
I've seen a statistics somewhere that the Russians first tried carrying just 22 rounds in their tanks during the Chechen war (I don't remember which one), and after they did, the number of tanks permanently lost in combat decreased of around 80%.
anyone who plays Warthunder knows to not take too much ammo
enought to have full turret ammo stowage but no extra ammo in hull becouse if they pen ur hull most likely they will got ur ammo
@@Hubert_G I mean, WT takes this to the extreme as one usually doesn't live in the battle for longer than a couple of minutes, but even in WT you can see that difference - when you hit a western tank, you have to hit somewhere around the ammo to set it off, when you hit a Soviet or Chinese tank with a full ammo load, anywhere you hit there will be either a propellant charge or a projectile (which is either explosive itself or, in case of the APFSDS, is "wrapped" with propellant as well) in there.
Thank you. I've been wondering about this. Also the effect of adding another piece of complex equipment to inspect and maintain on crew efficiency.
But an autoloader saves space and weight.
Look at what happened to Turkish Leopard 2's in Syria when they were sent against ISIS. They got torn to pieces. The Saudis lost so many Abrams in Yemen that they stopped deploying them all together. The Ukraine war is a high intensity conflict, that's the difference.
The auto loader carousel on the hull floor was designed before top attack munitions existed. At the time, the ammo was pretty safe from direct fire, as only a hit to the lower glacias was likely to ignite the ammo. Top attack munitions changed all that.
So yes, storing ammo under the turret is exactly the problem. Newer models of T-72 have an armor plate over the top of the carousel but it’s not very effective.
There was, after the Chechen war, explicit instruction to load ammunition only in the autoloader. No other ammo in the crew compartment. Russian created the whole tactic for a tank platoon and a tank company, called Rochlin carousel, how to fight with only 22 rounds. Russian stick to this rule also in Syria. I think their problems in Ukraine come from poor logistics. They've got no idea when there will be a possibility to resupply ammunition, so they put in as many rounds as possible and pray for the best. In theory, the autoloader was created in a way that in case of penetration and ammo hit it should "cook-off" inside the autoloader without catastrophic detonation. Autoloader of course might explode, but it should buy enough time for the crew to bail out.
Correct, most turret tosses happen after a fire long after the crew had their chance to get out. That is why you see lots of cuts to the ending in tank kill videos.
I think what most people don't get about the location of the carrusel autoloader is that while in theory it *can* take a hit, specially trough mines, IED's or shot from the side and being able to see the lowest part of the tank, it is in one of the least likely places to get hit. Usually when the ammo there detonates it's mostly because of penetration or damage occuring in or trough the crew compartment, and if that kind of damage occurs in the crew compartment, then the crew is not having a good day to begin with.
Red Effect made a video talking about one of the Russian modernization tanks, and I believe he said T-72B3 or T-80BVM has no Turret ammo since they discovered most hits were on the turret, which lead to mag detonation.
Great question and answers. Thank you both
7:03 Finland hasn't had carousel autoloaders in any of their tanks since the early 2000s. Not sure if our tankers do the same with the Leopards (using only the compartment with blowout panels), though.
So you went backwards
that note about the hydraulic track tension made me laugh :D
As a crewman I don’t think I care much but on a higher level it does matter in a long war. Can the carcass of the tank be salvaged? If it can (with a new drivetrain, crew etc) and be put into action in a reasonable amount of time it is a better design than a tank that is unsalvageable. This is of course provided that the design changes are not so costly as to make the tank which maintains it turret twice as expensive.
You can't salvage a tank that has burned. A lot of components in a tank is heat sensitive. When they burn their properties change. For example rolled homogenous steel armor after burning and cooling down will be much softer. Engine is very delicate when it comes to burning too because a lot of parts in there were made with extremelly sensitive heat treatment. Not even going to mention electro optical systems. Gun barrel is also heat treated so you can't salvage that. You can however salvage a tank that didn't burn down. Ukranians for example fix captured tanks with parts from broken tanks.
In a real war time a crew is much much more valuable than a tank. It takes few days to build a tank. 18 years to make a good experienced tanker. Thats why you always run out of crew and not tanks. Thats why nazis had to use child soldiers at the end of the war in their tanks.
Even if a tank is designed in a way that the turret does not fly off after the ammo explodes there will be no salvaging it. That’s why chieftain was saying it doesn’t matter. Because ammo fires are to catastrophic to the interior to the tank that they can’t be salvaged this would apply to western tanks as well. All that heat damages the hull of the tank and ruins the integrity of the armor.
@@crown7639yup even an Abrams that the blow panels worked correctly, the turret will not be repaired. The hull can be mated with a new turret and the major systems removed from the turret but armor around the ammo area is toast
@@Phapchamp Yeah. When I was in the techs could gut a Leo2 pretty quick. Turret gets lifted, drivetrain out, electrical monkeys jump in with wires and bob’s your uncle. And while I agree on crew (having been one) we had about 10 trained conscript crews/tank when I was young and fresh. Why? Because while we take 18 years to grow we can keep ourselves in reasonable nick after we got out.
@@thomasstevenhebert Exactly. A turret, when properly designed, can be replaced. The hull can live on.
Looking like Batman and Robin at this point Gentleman, thank you for the information.
Before Desert Storm, the Medical Service Corps asked the Armor branch what special equipment would be needed to extract crew involved in tank-on-tank combat. The answer was, a spatula.
Disregarding where your ammunition is, once the armor is penetrated, the tanker is in the world of shit. Even if there is no ammunition in the tank, once armor is defeated, the game is over. Weapons are designed to kill everything inside once they penetrate. Disregarding what type of principle they use, they are all designed to do that job. Regarding ammunition protection, this is also a very hard topic. If the tank carries only cinetic penetrators, then the only dangerous thing is the propellant. Though operational tanks need other types of ammunition as well. If it is HE type and there is an explosion of multiple rounds at the same time, is the protection good enough to save life every time? In the case of HEAT ammunition, which is not used that often, there is a logical issue as well. Something that is designed to defeat the armor explodes in closed space. Multiple rounds, multiple streams of molten metal.
If the armor is defeated, you are f-ed. There was a case where lucky hit with disposable laucher has penetrated soviet type of tank. No blowup. Two man dead one survived. That poor soul begged to be put out of his mystery. Even the smallest antitank weapon burned his whole body. No doctor can save you. People look at the videos of this conflict and do not get it. Doesn't matter whose tank it is, it is not the game, and real people are getting killed. Families lose their loved once. It is death and not a computer game. If you had been there you wouldn't think about it the same anymore. People getting killed around you, and you being exposed to the same thing, changes your perspective fir ever. Do not glorify the war. War sucks. Period.
Serving on the Leo 2A7V, I can definitely attest to how this hydraulic track tensioner saves quite a bit of work, but it's a bit tricky to use and at times dangerous (although...to be fair, working on the tracks always bears quite a few risks. As long as they're on the tank, linked together as they should be, there is an immense amount of tension on them, nevermind the weight of the individual links). But yeah, the ammunition is still stowed the same way as it was before.
As for the blowout panel in the turret: It opens relatively fast and closes fast, too, and you can hit the switch with your hip pretty much as you're loading the round.
However, for the sake of achieving the best reload times, most loaders tend to leave it open in excercise/shooting range scenarios.
So is it possible that even with the modern leopard tanks their turrets will pop off or the ammo ignites and burns everyone
@@ari_a2764 Yes, that is entirely possible. Though it would have to be a hull penetration, the turret has a blowout panel, meaning that if the turret ammo stowage blows up, the fighting compartment is protected as all the energy just goes out the rear.
@@hunter_0221 hmm idk about the a7v but i think the previous versions dont have blowout panels/or ammo stored completly seperated like in the abrams
@@ari_a2764 Wrong. Every Leopard 2 version that saw service has had seperate stowages, hull and turret.
@@hunter_0221 hmm i thought the chieftain and military history visiualized claimed different in a video together
Most of the time it doesn't matter if the the m1 abrams has blast doors if the crew compartment is hit from the side it will peneterate the ammo access panels on the inside and flames will come in it happened in Yemen when iranian konkours hit 2 abrams
The turret is the blowout panel. 😅
This is a great interview, thanks guys!
As you said at the end of the video, many T-64/72/80/90 go into battle with just the 22 or 28 ammunition that stay inside the auto-loader (28 are for T-64 and T-80). A reason for the turret to fly-off that easy, is that it is very very very small compared to western tanks, thus making it much lighter and easier to throw in the air. Also, auto-loader ammunition are exactly below it, so the explosion-push comes exactly from below the turret along a vertical line, making the turret itself the "blow-out panel" of the tank basically.... that said, as you correctly stated, with or without the turret in the air, after an explosion the tank is killed anyway, so i think it's useless to care about it.
I love the idea of the turret being a 'blow off panel'
Seeing you two together is like full english breakfast on the oktoberfest. Best from beast.👍
Not really getting the whole "RuSsiAn TaNks ExPLoDe WhEn Hit WiTh sTaTe oF tHe ArT AnTi-TaNk WeApOnS!"-Wojackery. Every tank does that, nobody survives a properly functioning top attack missile in a tank, NOBODY. You're a tanker one moment and vapor the next, which is, considering the alternatives, a blessing.
Leopards 2 in Suria were also making turret pop and even complete destruction. And they do not have autoloader and blow out pannels.
On the T-90M, the "Carousel" is armored around the perimeter and from above and below. In order for the shells to explode in it, you need a direct penetration into the carousel dimension. This is a 40 cm tablet on the floor of the tank. This is not the easiest task. All the lost T-90ms at the moment were burning for quite a long time and there were no crew losses in the tanks at the moment.
Impossible shots HAPPEN, just see HMS HOOD (and British battlecruisers in WWI)! However armored, there always seems to be a weak spot that gets hit with dramatic results, no matter how good the design is.
We're not saying the autoloader itself causes the turret to go boom, rather its the way the ammo needs to be stored for the autoloader to function that is the problem. The issue presented, is that it is poorly protected and prone to detonating upon hit or is far worse for the tank and crew in the event of an ammo detonation. No one thinks the actual autoloading mechanisms are detonating, and I don't know how that interpretation has been taken from this. Just the same, flying turrets in of themselves aren't the point of concern, the cause of the turrets flying on the other hand is what draws the concern. You've mixed up the identified symptoms with the things people actually are criticizing. And somehow we've still arrived at similar conclusions.
This marriage is definitely working out well.
The STRV-103 had isolated ammo back in the -60’s
Bernhard, the T90M doesn't have a bustle autoloader. They have spare ammo storage in the bustle, which may or may not have a blast proof door and blowout panels. I think they have it.
Truth be told, I think the carousel autoloader only became a problem when either 1: you face top attack munitions, or 2: you're exposed during maneuvers and some ATGM team pops a shot low on your hull.
Unfortunately for the tankers in Ukraine, both factors which makes carousel autoloaders deadly are omnipresent. Javelins and NLAWs strikes directly at the carousel, and Stuhnas or TOWs shot low on the side hull does the same.
Ukrainian tank crews manage this by maintaining situational awareness. It helps, but it's still a gamble. Russians, especially earlier on in this war, has tended to use tanks as if they're an invincible fighting vehicle... With predictable results.
More NLAW than javelins. Javs sucks, saw plenty of videos where they miss . Even ukrobots complained jav sucks but nlaw is good.
Oh yea and don t forget artillery attacks, both sides suffered tanks casualties from artillery which is very precise today
wow... easy to listen, easy to understand.. thumbs up for you man.. great video
One of the reasons Britain still uses two part ammunition - the round stays in the turret and is effectively inert whilst the propellant charge goes in the bustle. That and loading whilst on the move is easier and safer. I once read a description of loading one-piece ammo as trying to hit a hole in one with a sledgehammer from the back of a moving truck...
Bernhardt strikes me as a teetotaler. On the other hand... when the new Panther was mentioned, somehow I was expecting a Mojito to show up. Random reasons, of course.
And great vid, of course! Loved the info insert a-la classic MHV 😀 Have a good one guys.
Hi SweCenturion here....
The Swedish Strv103 "S-Tank" was early out with separate ammo storage and blow out pannels. It stores all its ammo behind the crew in safe compartments all the way back and rear of the tank for it´s formidable auto loader. The accuracy of the extra long 105mm (1 m longer than regular L7 105) was incredible. The tank design was so ahead of its time so no one understood. How
ever Strv103 never was seen in real battle it now dominates computer tank war games like War Thunder. It is so unorthodox so the game developers have a hard time figuring out how to develop a MBT that can operate with only one crew as well as a driver/radioman who can drive backwards. In War Thunder the Strv103 is so good and dominant it has to be crippled of its performans and fire rate so it doesn't completly ruin the whole game. Kind of mind blowing how a turret on tracks probably was the most clever tank development ever.
The mighty Merkava design is partly based on the Strv103 with engine in front and severly sloped armor.
Swedish Strv103 "S-Tank" --- is not a Tank -- it does not have a turret -- which means it has significant tactical handicaps. Relevance of WAR thunder to real life is seriously questionable.
@@guythomas7051 turret or no turret is not defying a tank. It is the tactical use and operation of the vehichle who does.
The S-tank (Strv103) was deployed for traditional heavy tank war tactics. It is how ever correct of you that the lack of separate hull and turret inflict some disadvantages in comparison. Especially fire on the move. The constructionn had on the other hand several advantages compared to "classic" design and that was the superb accurassy of the gun, the extreme silhouette, the rate of fire and the surviveability of the crew.
There was war doctrines for S-tank brigades for both defensive warfare as well as offensive warfare.
In real life wargames against "classically" designed tanks the s-tank brigades performed extremely well.
Bobo Bergstrom, former tank company commander and sub leuitenent Swrdish armoured forces. ( i was deploeyed on Centurion )
People keep calling the autoloader on Russian tanks a design flaw, it is not a design flaw, it is a trade-off. With the autoloader, they need one less crew which means they can field more tanks and get better loading from crews with low experience. Russia has NEVER placed a high premium on the lives of its soldiers. Before you can talk about blowout panels you need to understand what they are, they are weaker areas of the armor meant to give way, which for obvious reasons can not be used without the ammo being completely separated from the crew. In the M1 for instance the ammo is stored in a separate area at the back of the turret by thick blast doors. If something penetrates the ammo area, the door between the crew and ammo is stronger than the blowout panel which vents the explosive force AWAY from the crew. That is why autoloaders can not work in a space where crew and ammo are mingled.
Chieftan says no downside to the T-14, Experimental M1 approach of a bulkhead between the autoloader and crew, but he's previously mentioned the benefit for a tanker to be able to clamber out of the turret to look at near and far objects with the mk.1 eyeball, and as someone who has had experience with earth moving equipment I really took his point on that.
The biggest downside to the T-14 is that Russia doesn't seem to be capable of making more than 10 🤣
I am loving this mix up of presenters. Great minds thinking stuff out. Should do a collaboration with Perun as well 🇦🇺👍
More of these chats with the Chieftain as they really do give a good perspective on current armour related topics, I have always wondered why the Leopard 2 fared so badly in Turkish hands was it a design fault or poor tactics, be interested to hear you guys thoughts on that.
Imo, id say poor tactics for sure. Leo2 was not built to be in the thick of if, but instead fire support from a distance. Its hull is actually fairly weak frontally.
@@that207guy7
That's simply not true. You should look at leo 2 design document and us evaluation of Leo w.
@@jintsuubest9331 what's not true?
Lev 2 yes, he is not ready to fight on the front line, because he has weak hull sides and turrets.
@@ДанилСеливерстов-ц3ъ which Leo 2? like Leo 2a4 or 2 PL which has super thick turret sides
If a tank has to carry ammo in the hull put it in armored wet stowage like in the Challenger 2 which has shown that if ammunition fire occurs in the fighting compartment the ammo behind sealed stowage will be safe.
Fun fact. 100% of the destroyed Challengers - threw towers.
If designers would remove all ammo from the tank then they could greatly reduce the risk of ammo exploding after receiving a hit.
They might need to remove the fuel tanks as well, since they present a secondary source of volatility
@@obzai Very true,you sound like you know what you are talking about,are you in the military?I bet you are.
another reason why the carousel is a major weakness is because as REDEFFECT has pointed out before the Russians have reached the limit of what they can fit inside.
Newer more powerful projectiles are to big to be loaded in it which puts Russian tanks at a significant disadvantage over western rivals. The solution is a bustle auto loader like the one featured in the Leclerc and K2 something the Russians have curiously done before with the Black Eagle design.
Looking forward to footage of the turret altitude record being broken. Think it currently stands at about 160 feet.
Totally love chieftain and military history's colabs
In soviet russia, the turret is the blow out panel
Are there any studies of the comparative flammability of Russian two part ammo and NATO single piece? Propellant charges just look more vulnerable to fire to my eye than single piece designs. I know the case is combustible on western ammo but still.
Is this the most prominent example of internet memes impacting our perceptions of armored vehicles? Or is there an even more memed factor that I am forgetting?
T90 and Ka52 has actually performed quite well in the war, specially T90.
@@dragonstormdipro1013 Cap
@@DogeickBateman no cap the Ka 52 is performing very well and the t90 is performing resonably well. The t72 are performibg meh mainly due to failure of command and logistics.
@@iplaygames8090 Sounds like a cope
@@DogeickBateman remember, its a cope cage if the russians use it but slat armor when anybody else uses it. The cope bucket is a cope bucket tho.
Can’t believe mister Chieftain without a glass of ‘Apple juice’
You can have a crew protected from an autoloader . Ukrainian t-84 has a turret-mounted autoloader (not beneath the turret but at its back).
Yes, like the Leclerc, the K2, Type 10 etc.
That was sort of the point, the autoloader in the bustle can be isolated from the crew. The under turret carousel autoloader would be difficult or impossible to isolate, unless you move the crew from the turret.
A problem if one was to isolate a carousel autoloader from the crew of a manned turret that wasn't mentioned is how do you work on it? If the autoloader is under the turret, and sealed off from the crew, do you have climb under the tank? Or just pull the turret every time you have to do maintenance?
With a bustle autoloader, it would make sense to go through the blowout panels in the top of the turret.
T-84M/BM/U with 125mm gun in Ukrainian service still use the same carousel auto loader like the T-80UD and will go boom in the same way. T-84-120 presumably used a cassette auto loader for NATO ammo, but it never entered production.
We don’t if they have a lot of them or are even in active service
What is difficult for some people to understand is the fact that the autoloader basket at the bottom of the turret on all Russian tanks of the T-64, T-72, T80, T90 family has a square opening in the floor just behind the gun breech - this is the way through which the autoloader raises first propellants, but inserts a grenade, then pushes the propellants. The first thing the fire will catch when it passes through this opening in the bottom of the basket are all 22 propellant charges - self-igniting propellant powder, packed in self-igniting grease-moisterproof paper with a 10 cm metal section at the bottom that looks like a regular case bottom. When it all pushes up, we see a violent jet of fire coming out of the upper hatches - the commander and the gunner, but when the turret flies off in "Jack in the Box" fashion, it means that all the ammunition stored in the carousel of the tank or on the sides of the turret EXPLODED, after high heat, ammo was cook off and exploded in a simultaneous explosion.
And that's all about T-72 - T80 or T90 tanks. The only difference is that the T-72 and T90 have tank shells mounted horizontally first, and the propellant charges are above them. The T-64 and T80 received shells horizontally in the carousel, and the propellant was fixed vertically at the end of the shells. But in any case, the propellant bags are very close and will explode very easily if caught by any open fire or glowing shrapnel piercing the propellant charge, or cumulant jet fire, or bombs dropped from drones, etc.
I'm only about five minutes into the video but I want to share my two cents about the problem: Carousel Autoloaders would be practically impossible to blow-out protect with manned turrets, as whatever set off the ammunition is also most probably gonna go right through the internal armor between the ammunition and the crew compartment, providing a nice hole for flames and flaming debris to come spilling into the turret in a super hot jet of ammuntion being cooked off.
I don't see why that argument couldn't also be made for a human loader configuration. It's down to the separation of stowage vs crew. Arguably leclerc bustle ammo stowage is safer than Abrams bustle ammo stowage, for example
@@TheChieftainsHatch If a tank with a carousel autoloader is struck in the front of the Hull, then the shell would create a hole between the crew compartment and the ammo stowage, hence negating the blowout panels... it would essentially be like an abrams getting shot in the back of the turret through the blowout panel into the crew compartment (but reversed). I think that's what he was getting at.
The Abrams and Leos blowout panels located in the back of the turret are probably mainly there to separate the ammo from the crew (if all the ammo is stored in a tight/ compact space, there is less chance of the ammo getting hit; that's if the turret is penetrated frontally). If the ammo compartment is struck from the side or above then the blowout will do its job.
So turret cheeks to stop frontal threats, blowout panels to stop side and top down threats. (Obviously, this massively depends on the angle at which the shell penetrates into the tank)
@@EasyAL_YT
Then the og comment and you aren't making sense.
If projectile struck the front, and hit the autoloader, how would that projectile create a hole between this steel plate between the crew and autoloader?
@@jintsuubest9331 Inorder for the shell to strike the ammo inside the carousel autoloader, the shell must have penetrated the shield that's meant to separate the crew from the ammo. Look back at my abrams example.
@@jintsuubest9331 Essentially, the problem is that you can't make it compact enough to be safe. (Since carousel autoloaders must be placed in the middle of the tank), the blow out hatch door (separating metal sheet) will likely be penetrated, crew will be exposed to the ammo detonation.
You gentlemen have missed another important point - the antifratricide material surrounding each warhead in the Abrams storage system. When designing the TTB autoloader we went through pains to ensure there was room for Abrams-equivalent anti-fratricide collars around each of the 44 warheads to prevent sympathetic detonation of adjacent warheads.
AND there exists a bustle autoloader system that retains the ammo isolation, blow-off panels, and anti-fratricide around each warhead. It’s called the “Compact Autoloader” developed by Western Design Corporation in cooperation with ARDEC and GDLS in the late ‘90’s.
There was no such protection on any of my M1s. The Meggitt Compact Autoloader I have referred to on other videos. A pretty good design, but arguably pointless.
There was no such protection on any of my M1s. The Meggitt Compact Autoloader I have referred to on other videos. A pretty good design, but arguably pointless.
One extremelly important advantage of autoloader over manual loader is machine never gets tired. Even an experienced loader will get tired after fourth or fifth shell and will slow down and eventually he will be too tired to load. This is very important in infantry popping missions because you will need to shoot a lot of shells at the enemy infantries.
The manual loader do not break, the autoloader can break and will break. and if you need more then 4-5 shell in a short time you might be doing the "war" thing wrong. You should use your MG against Infantry
@@xendk same argument against manual loader, they can tire and will tire
@@tranquoccuong890-its-orge By the time a manual loader has slowed down to the point they're slower than an autoloader the tank has essentially fired off all its ammunition
The engagement against tanks ends on the 1st shot, infantry can be shredded by the 12.7mm machine gun and pillboxes will not go anywhere. If you use an autoloader, the 3 remaining guys must fix everything, and adding a complex autoloader makes everyone too tired to perform properly. It will also break, the Ukrainian team came last in a tank competition against western tanks because the autoloader developed a fault.
The Leclerc gets away because it is deployed alongside wheeled and light support vehicles only, so the rest of the company helps insead
@@xendk manual loaders can break, they can get sick, get shocked, get injured, and other things. They can break
“How many tanks have the ammunition entirely seperate from the crew”
Yeh the Abrams bro 😂
Leclerc MBT 22 rounds in the bustle autoloader have blowout panels, segregating ammo from the crew. But There's an 18 rounds drum that sits next to the driver in the front hull (most protected area). This drum is to reload the autoloader, takes about 8 minutes. So technically the spare rounds in the drum are not segregated but good luck piercing frontally a Leclerc and cookig these rounds off. A Emirati Leclerc got hit by a kornet or Konkurs-M ATGM in Yemen and the 18 round drum im the hull did not go off. As it did not pierce the hull and the tank was repaired. Shame spall and hot jet from the kornets went trough the episcopes and killed the commander.
The Swedish Strv 103 (S-tank) was early with separate, blow out pannel ammo storage, already in late 50-ies, from point of construction in 1967...
The Germans solved the issue of the ammo storage in the hull by making ammo that doesn't explode when hit (DM63 and later DM73 for the A7V) so it makes the lack of complete blow out panel coverage not really an issue anymore.
What are the downside of this method to the point that other military doesn't adopt it?
@@remliqa To my knowledge there are none and other militaries will probably adopt it in time, but it only entered service recently and there already exists large stocks of conventional ammo which is both expensive and time consuming to replace.
If a 120mm round is hit by something hot it will burn not explode
@@xendk Releasing nasty chemicals into the tank that the crew will then breathe. Still better to have it sealed off
@@remliqa large stocks of ammo around maybe price... also surely that ammo will ignite because otherwise you cant fire with it anyway
The autoloader problem actually had an alternative answer, 20 years ago, by the Russians. There was a prototype tank, known by some as the 'Black Eagle', which incorporated a turret bustle, which would have blowout panels and carry the charges, while the carousel in the hull would carry the projectiles.
T-90M has extra armour around carroucel.
All other T-72 and T-90 had a 20mm rha plate on the front.
You could make a armoured roof and blow out panels below the tank.
Like the hull ammo rack on the abrams.
T serie tank turret is shorter. Smaller.
The from armour turret extend to the side. There is barely a visible side turret whit no composit.
Most shots will hit the turret.
What about anti tank mines or IEDs in that scenario?
Its hard to make a armored roof if your autoloader needs to extend upwards through it. Its propably possible but much harder and more expensive.
You build the blow out panels below the tank, and you're going to make that tank extra vulnerable to mines. Any seams in the lower hull significantly weaken the integrity to mines/IEDs.
It would still be bad. Even whit safr ammo rack in turret Ieds are desdly
@@SlavicCelery There is already an escape hatch on the T-72's belly armor.
Gotta say, the Abrams door does NOT take forever. It's actually very fast. You bump to slide it, then grab and slam the round into the tube and by the time youre activating the gun breach to close it it's already closed the blowout panel.
T-90M doesn't have blowout panels. It has the same 22 round autoloader as earlier tanks, extra ammunition is 8 rounds between the autoloader and engine firewall and 10 rounds externally behind the turret, which I think you are mistaking for blowout panels. It hasn't got blast doors seperating this storage from the crew compartment, it has the turret wall, and can't be accessed by the crew under armor
The rounds in the bustle do have blow-out panels; I think that Russia should store rest of the rounds in the bustle and add a bustle autoloader; it would bring ready rounds to 40
@@thephoenix756 there aren't blow out panels. It's just ammo stores outside the tank in a steel box that protects it from MG bullets and artillery fragmentation. Blow out panels implies the crew/autoloader have access to the ammunition from inside the tank which they dont.
@@01Laffey
No, blow-out panels imply that propellant explosions are directed outward and that's precisely the case with the rounds in the T-90M bustle. The fact that tank crews can't access these rounds is immaterial.
@@thephoenix756 Yeah, a blow out panel directs the explosion outside instead of into the crew compartment. The ammunition is already outside, the explosion isnt directed anywhere on the T-90M. It's just a thin steel box that will blow up when that ammo storage is hit, but it is not critical since it is outside that tank and the turret wall protects the insides. It bears no resemblance to the blowout panel design in Abrams, Leopard 2 or the like, because it has no blowout panels in the first place. It's just external stowage of ammunition.
@@01Laffey
The design of the bustle in the T-90M is explicitly meant to redirect the explosions upwards; it doesn't have to be crew accessible to qualify as a blow-out panel.
I think a blow out panel is not really the question here. I note that you would see Ukraine drop drone dropped grenades into a tank and the ammo goes off. Panels over the bottom carousel is more to prevent the bagged propellant from being easily set off by damage that enters the tank. Russian ammo, even if had a brass/steel shell casing like NATO guns, would be more survivable.
Drop anything hot into a open carousel tank and it’s very easy to set off bagged charges. I suspect that factor alone accounts for the reputation for turret pop.
The Russians have just saved money by using the main turret as one big blowout panel
The turret toss being bad is more that routinely suffering from dramatic cookoffs is only good on a TV cooking channel.
It's not the auto loader or the lack of blow out panels or ammo storage. It's the weapon that is enter the tank. There are so many that can do it and do it well tank as we know will go the way of the battleship.
Tell me what can replace the tank’s role in combat but another tank?
Turret separation is not an issue. A kill is a kill! It is a common reaction for components to separate during catastrophic explosions. The whole concern over this issue is childish. Turrets flying off is NOT a design flaw.
A kill is not a kill. Whether the crew survives the death of the tank makes a huge difference.