There’s the matter of space saving. With 3 crew members you can add a ton more armor to the tank compared to with 4 dudes.
Not exactly. The 3 crewman design is to reduce the produce of the tank. The amount of add on armor is based on the weight rating of the chassis and power train. If the chassis and Power train have the growth potential then you can add on the armor. If not then SOL.
The assumption you are making is based on all things being equal. That there is no difference between the chassis and power train of a tank like the Abrams and a tank like T80U. But that is not the case at all. The suspension systems are clearly different as Abrams has the addition of a longer track and more wheels 7 allowing it to take on far more weight than what the 6 wheeled T80U can.
The Power packs are also vastly different as the heavier weight of the vehicle was already considered in the design giving the larger HP rating even with 60+ tons.
And some of the add on is unneeded. Because of the larger tank to accommodate the larger crew the tank has more base armor.
If a tank is hit and penetrated in the center, it will be destroyed regardless if an ammo cook off happens or not.
Center? Center of what? The side rear roof floor? Turret hull?
If an armor penitration happens it's a question of how, where and with what?
Which results in what?
Many M1A1s and Leopard 2s were destroyed that way by Houthis and ISIS.
This is true but again how? A number of the totally destroyed Abrams export and Leopard2 tanks were demolished with large explosive charges or destroyed by VLIED.
These means that factors like cook off don't apply. As the tank is blown apart either after having been abandoned by a surviving crew or never had a chance as the explosion would have completley destroyed the tank no matter who built it.
There’s fuel and other flammables there as well
Yes and no. Fuel used in armored vehicles requires a set type of ignition. Modern tanks either run on military grade Diesel or Military grade Jet fuel. Those fuels are not easy to ignite. You can poor them on a burning camp fire and put the fire out. The EPA would draw and quarter you but the fuel will not ignite. Same is true for Gasoline.
Other flammable materials have to start the fire and heat it to a point of combustion for the fuel. Like Hydrolic fluid but only again under it's conditions for igniting.
Some vehicles as a result use "wet storage" for ammo the Wet being fuel because the chances of actually starting a fire are fairly low.
Case in point for a period of time Abrams used rubber blatters to hold extra fuel these were mounted on the back of the turret. The tank came under attack the blatter was ruptured it leaked on to the gas turbine engine that caused the fuel to evaporate which was ignited starting a fire. The Fuel in the tank didn't burn until It was heated to the point of transition to a gas. In the tank it's safe. It's a liquid with vapor blocking features. This is why Russian and other tanks often have extra fuel barrels on the side or back of the tank. As even if it's penetrated it leaks on the ground and the fuel even if ignited burns away from the tank.
The most dangerous compound in the tank the one that is most likely to start a fire or cook off is the tank ammo. The Fuel is a secondary.
not to mention the crew dying.
That's the whole point of the tank isn't it? To keep the crew safe.
More people died with a rifle in their hands than ever in a tank.
If the trade-off is between having more hard protection and the soft protection of avoiding a larger ammo cook off, the former is superior.
I am sorry but you have failed on this for a number of reasons.
Assumption #1 Only Russian Chinese and Tanks with a Carousel loader have crews of 3.
Wrong. K2, Type 90, Type 10, Leclerc all have 3 man crews with Bustle loaders. That include blow out panels in the event of a Cook off.
Assumption #2. That a penitration to the crew compartment means the same thing no matter the tank.
Wrong. The storage of the ammo in the crew compartment is the most dangerous part of turret life. From battle ships to tanks ammo propellant in the turret is deadly. Upon penitration of the turret a cook off event will kill the crew unless they evacuate. A fire elsewhere in the tank is survivable, even some forms of crew compartment penitration is survivable. The crew can evacuate the tank can even be recovered repaired and returned to service. But a Carousel cook off destroys the crew compartment renders the crew and driver KIA and the tank unrepairable.
A cook off event in a bustle rack? The rack is ruined it puts out a ton of fire works but as long as the guillotine doors are closed the crew can sit it out and wait for recovery.
For the Russians, incorporating autoloader meant they could make tanks more mobile and lower profile
The Abrams and Leopard 2 were designed to repeal attack to sit atop a hill and fire on advancing tanks. Then fall back cross bridges that would then be demolished.
The Russian tanks? They were meant to be smaller and lighter so that They could cross makeshift bridges put up to replace the demolished bridges. It's a lot easier and faster to build a replacement bridge to take a 30-50 ton tank than a 60-70+ tons tank.
The lower profile results in a vehicle that has less ability to fire at elevated or depressed targets.
The "low profile" argument only works when the Russian tank fighting across level terrain at advancing tanks.
For the Chinese, it allowed them to add heavy armor without incurring the weight of heavy 4 man MBTs, which cannot be sustained in the swampy south.
Not really. For the Chinese it allowed them to Use Russian designed Guided tank rounds and missiles. It allowed commonality with an allied state. These 125mm guns became standard after the fall of the Soviet union when relations between the PRC and Russia reached Detaunt.
Although the Chinese gun does differ from the Russian. A Chinese Variant of the AT11 Sniper is used by them.
The ammo system that the Sniper system was designed for the was Caroucel loader. If the worry was that of weight a longer wider track with additional road wheels would have solved that.
Tracks distribute weight over a wider area than wheels or even feet. Although crossing a bridge is difficult as the bridge can still break under the weight. Crossing land even swamp is easier. Many is the tanker who dismounted his vehicle over a muddy land scape that the tank glided across only for him to sink to his knees.
fftopic: necropost, but VT-4s' line is actually much more exciting, since it's design heritage dates all the way back to type 90 and beyond.
