testtest

BOOM BOOM out go the lights

Talyn said:
Fixed it for you. (y)
Click to expand...
No, not really. In my day RPG's (aka B-40's), mines & various booby traps were of main concern. Todays air assets, numerous types of armor defeating missiles, sophisticated mines and other weapons I don't have knowledge of are available. No doubt the Ukrainians are really doing a number on Russian armor. I was simply saying tank crews from any nation have a rough row to hoe.
 
Talyn said:
Fixed it for you. (y)
Click to expand...
rcurtner said:
No, not really. In my day RPG's (aka B-40's), mines & various booby traps were of main concern. Todays air assets, numerous types of armor defeating missiles, sophisticated mines and other weapons I don't have knowledge of are available. No doubt the Ukrainians are really doing a number on Russian armor. I was simply saying tank crews from any nation have a rough row to hoe.
Click to expand...
Israeli tanks got hit by Hamas drones with some disabled and destroyed on the recent attacks.
Tank crews of all nations have a bigger threat now than ever
 
KillerFord1977 said:
Israeli tanks got hit by Hamas drones with some disabled and destroyed on the recent attacks.
Tank crews of all nations have a bigger threat now than ever
Click to expand...
No Western tanks are invulnerable, but do not do turret tosses like the Russian ones do. Modern Western tanks store their ammo in compartments separate from the crew section.

Also, the Ukrainians love the M2 Bradley's, even though they're older ODS versions, due to its crew protection qualities compared to the Russian AFVs.

But then again, history has shown that Russian leaders have no concerns about casualties.
 
Talyn said:
No Western tanks are invulnerable, but do not do turret tosses like the Russian ones do. Modern Western tanks store their ammo in compartments separate from the crew section.

Also, the Ukrainians love the M2 Bradley's, even though they're older ODS versions, due to its crew protection qualities compared to the Russian AFVs.

But then again, history has shown that Russian leaders have no concerns about casualties.
Click to expand...
I get your point. But dead is dead whether the turret stays on or not. If there's enough heat the ammo is going to say BOOM.
 
rcurtner said:
I get your point. But dead is dead whether the turret stays on or not. If there's enough heat the ammo is going to say BOOM.
Click to expand...
Western tanks have blow off panels above the ammo compartment at the rear end of the turret. Crew have survived ammo cook off since they are sealed off from the ammo compartment.



You can see the panels behind the loader and commander hatches.
1705354769034.png


That being said penetrations into the crew section can cause casualties but not carbonization ones like in Russian-type tanks.
 
I've never been inside an Abrams turret. From the video it does appear these panels did their job. If a heat or sabot round penetrates the ammo compartments I believe a detonation is very possible. The fire that is shown appears to shell propellant burning and not a detonation.
 
Talyn said:
Those turret cages are an attempt to protect against drone-dropped grenades.

The T-90 annihilation was from a dedicated ATGM coming in-level from the front.

Putin has claimed the T-90 is invincible but reality has proven otherwise.
Click to expand...
A couple of things:
1. Ukraine's defense industry had some success after independence. For example, it equipped a few other newly independent FSUs with new T-72s, BTR-80s, BMPs etc. Ukraine also sold some equipment to African countries. But these were limited markets and eventually their defense industry withered away although they are successful in modifying older designs which have been successful. One interesting thing about Russia's tanks is that previously Russia relied on the Mariupol factory in Ukraine for cast turrets, which are generally stronger than welded turrets, depending on the expertise of the welders. Which means I wouldn't count on Russian turrets being all that strong.
2. Russian crew drill is horrible based upon several videos I've seen. If our crews pulled some of the same stuff the First Sergeant would smacked them with his helmet or worse. In one instance, they were proud of the fact they hit a 1000m target on the third round. Heck, we boresight and zero further than that.
 
rcurtner said:
I've never been inside an Abrams turret. From the video it does appear these panels did their job. If a heat or sabot round penetrates the ammo compartments I believe a detonation is very possible. The fire that is shown appears to shell propellant burning and not a detonation.
Click to expand...
It is a detonation of the propellant portion of the 120mm round (that's why the panels blow off) with subsequent cook-off of the remaining rounds in the magazine. Once the sensor detect a mili-second of a detonation in the ammo bustle the doors to the crew section lock up.

1705356054831.png


1705356108468.png



The 120mm ammunition cartridge case is made of a combustible (cellulose fiber) material.
1705356987099.png
 
Last edited:
Cedric said:
A couple of things:
1. Ukraine's defense industry had some success after independence. For example, it equipped a few other newly independent FSUs with new T-72s, BTR-80s, BMPs etc. Ukraine also sold some equipment to African countries. But these were limited markets and eventually their defense industry withered away although they are successful in modifying older designs which have been successful. One interesting thing about Russia's tanks is that previously Russia relied on the Mariupol factory in Ukraine for cast turrets, which are generally stronger than welded turrets, depending on the expertise of the welders. Which means I wouldn't count on Russian turrets being all that strong.
2. Russian crew drill is horrible based upon several videos I've seen. If our crews pulled some of the same stuff the First Sergeant would smacked them with his helmet or worse. In one instance, they were proud of the fact they hit a 1000m target on the third round. Heck, we boresight and zero further than that.
Click to expand...
As we've seen multiple times over time Russian tanks are death traps.
 
Cedric said:
A couple of things:
1. Ukraine's defense industry had some success after independence. For example, it equipped a few other newly independent FSUs with new T-72s, BTR-80s, BMPs etc. Ukraine also sold some equipment to African countries. But these were limited markets and eventually their defense industry withered away although they are successful in modifying older designs which have been successful. One interesting thing about Russia's tanks is that previously Russia relied on the Mariupol factory in Ukraine for cast turrets, which are generally stronger than welded turrets, depending on the expertise of the welders. Which means I wouldn't count on Russian turrets being all that strong.
2. Russian crew drill is horrible based upon several videos I've seen. If our crews pulled some of the same stuff the First Sergeant would smacked them with his helmet or worse. In one instance, they were proud of the fact they hit a 1000m target on the third round. Heck, we boresight and zero further than that.
Click to expand...
Even though the Leo 1 tanks are 70'-80's era tech the Ukrainians are finding with its 105mm they can stand-off considerable distances to pick off & penetrate all Russian tanks, including T-80's without being detected due to the superior FCS and night vision, in spite of the Leo 1's older systems. The same with the 120mm Challengers, & Leo 2's.

There's no info on the use of the M1A1's in combat yet.
 
Talyn said:
It is a detonation of the propellant portion of the 120mm round (that's why the panels blow off) with subsequent cook-off of the remaining rounds in the magazine.

View attachment 50738

View attachment 50739
Click to expand...
Granted the propellant burning would tell the crew it's time to leave. Imagine Abrams ammo also consists of HE rounds. If the warhead exploded can only guess how much damage there would be. Might not blow the turret off but sure think there would be catastrophic damage. I think we're both speculating on what could or could not happen.
 
rcurtner said:
Granted the propellant burning would tell the crew it's time to leave. Imagine Abrams ammo also consists of HE rounds. If the warhead exploded can only guess how much damage there would be. Might not blow the turret off but sure think there would be catastrophic damage. I think we're both speculating on what could or could not happen.
Click to expand...
I'm not speculating because I know how the system works.

The info & vids show the explosive energy of the ammo compartment blowing, going up out through the panels with no subsequent effect to the rest of the turret. That's how the system on all modern (post-M60, Leo1, etc.) Western Tanks (including the Israeli Merks) work. The path of least resistance works.

In Iraq Abrams have/were destroyed when they ran over large enough IEDs to lift the 70 ton tank off the ground. One can imagine how much HE was needed to do that.
 
Last edited:
Talyn said:
I'm not speculating because I know how the system works.

The info & vids show the explosive energy of the ammo compartment blowing, goes up out the panels with no subsequent effect to the rest of the turret. That's how the system on all modern (post-M60, Leo1, etc.) Western Tanks (including the Israeli Merks) work.

In Iraq Abrams have were destroyed when they ran over large enough IEDs to lift the 70 ton tank off the ground.
Click to expand...
OK getting tired of the back & forth. What tanks did you serve in? In Germany was in M-60 series, in Vietnam M-48A3's.
 
rcurtner said:
OK getting tired of the back & forth. What tanks did you serve in? In Germany was in M-60 series, in Vietnam M-48A3's.
Click to expand...
Thanks for you experience in that era armor. They served well, even though with their vulnerabilities.

Since you're experience was from those two platforms we both know that there was rounds stored everywhere. No matter where you got hit, it was likely to set off the ammo.

When they designed the M1, and the other new Euro NATO tanks they recognized those deficiencies based on the Israeli experiences, and developed the ammo bustle storage system.

Plus, I don't know if it came up in VN, but besides the ammo storage vulnerabilities in the M48/M60 series the Israelis found out in the Yom Kipper War that the hydraulic fluid was very flammable and caused may casualties, and in response, a fire resistant hydraulic fluid was introduced into both M48 and M60-series tanks. Was that your experience post 1973?

Didn't serve in any armor but I know how things are designed.
 
Last edited:
Talyn said:
Thanks for you experience in that era armor. They served well, even though with their vulnerabilities.

Don't know if it came up in VN, but besides the ammo storage vulnerabilities in the M48/M60 series the Israelis found out in the Yom Kipper War that the hydraulic fluid was very flammable and caused may casualties, and in response, a fire resistant hydraulic fluid was introduced into both M48 and M60-series tanks. Was that your experience post 1973?

Didn't serve in any armor but I know how things are designed.
Click to expand...
Returned from Vietnam in'69, discharged from the Army, immediately enlisted in the Air Force till '75. Don't have many fond memories of Vietnam. Thank you
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top