Re: Russian military news thread
No bar it can't. Abrams uses a compartmentalized ammunition system. The only ammo in the crew compartment is being loaded into the breach otherwise the ammo magazine is only open to the crew compartments when the doors are open and the loader is grabbing a round and a set of guillotine doors separate the the two compartments the doors are only open for about a second when the loader places weight on the leaver the enemy would have to strike at that exact time. Otherwise the Blow off panels would prevent the spread the explosive force. If a Opfor tank hit the ammo which is in a magazine located in the back of the turret. The crew compartment and the turret ring would remain intact.
For what ever reason you choose to claim, the fact is in combat the T72 failed and failed spectacularly against western tanks and ATGMs including turret separation.
. T90 was meant to correct this with APS and improvements in armor for the intermediate period until the next great Russian tank design which was to be T14 armada which would have featured a totally unmanned turret. Isolating the crew from the Ammo and upping the protection, this hull would also be the basis for heavy IFVs, howitzers and other platforms and have a weight of 55 tons.
I consider the Abrams to be a better design than the T-72/T-90. But that doesn't change the fact that the carousel system is better for protection than the separated compartment system on the Abrams.
In the Abrams, if the ammo compartment is hit, it is over for the tank as a fighting force. In the T-90, unless the shell penetrates and kill or injures the crew, the tank is still a fighting force. The probability of hitting the ammo in the carousel is extremely low compared to hitting the back of the turret. And the ammo cooking off in the separated compartment doesn't mean the crew could be safe.
If we only talk about the Abrams, then it is true that it is a better protected tank than every other tank out there, but if we classify all the western tanks as being better protected, then that is wrong. For eg: The Leo2 carries only 15 protected shells, the rest are not protected. The Challenger 2 has no protected shells, the same as the Merkava Mk4. Leclerc too has 18 unprotected shells. Point being I wasn't referring to the Abrams in particular. I just pointed out that even the Abrams can have its turret blow up if the ammo is sticking out.
The turret of their Challenger is reported to have been blown off in the attack, which happened in pitch darkness.
This was blue on blue, but the result was the same as the T-72.
As for the T-72, it did not fail. What failed was Iraqi armor tactics, training and the fact that the tanks were 20-30 years behind their time compared to the latest in technology for the blue forces. Bring in a M1A1 Gulf War model against a T-90A, even with an equally trained crew rather than the lopsided crews of the Gulf War. The result will be the exact opposite of the Gulf War. The Iraqis fielded very old shells of the post-WW2 vintage which were made of steel. They never had a chance.
The T-72 would never have had its top blown off had the crew not been sitting next to unprotected live ammo. They made that mistake again and again.
BTW, the Obj 195 was 55 tonnes, the Armata family will be less than 50 tonnes.
