That's arguably a generation ahead of current tanksI would rather be in T-14 Armata. Lol. Not that there is any in service.
Even if the ammo blows up and the turret flies out you have a fire wall and the crew capsule.
That's arguably a generation ahead of current tanksI would rather be in T-14 Armata. Lol. Not that there is any in service.
Even if the ammo blows up and the turret flies out you have a fire wall and the crew capsule.
Most NATO tanks (Leopard 2A 4 used by Turkey store ammo in the hull) after 1980s are generally made so crew has better change of survival when tank get's hit. When Type-99A gets hit from side (no armor at all) it's likely that PLA tank crew become taikonauts... ZBD-04 has same problem as BMP-3 what have been exploding in Ukraine when their 50 100mm HE shells are hit.
Russian tank crews in Ukraine have begun going into battle with only 10 shells on carousel because it decreases changes of whole tank blowing up, and we can surely pretend that carousel autoloader in a fine design, but i'd rather ride on Abrams than T-72/90 or Type-96/99.
What I heard was they simply don't keep ammo lying around inside the turret and just store it in the carousel.
The ammo around the turret is way more dangerous and likely to explode than the one in the carousel.
Aren't modern tanks fitted with anti-spall liner inside?Spalling damage is typically enough to kill crew. Little metal fragments from the penetration. Of course it you get ammo detonating inside the tank it is even more dangerous.
Aren't modern tanks fitted with anti-spall liner inside?