New Type98/99 MBT thread

[Broccoli]

Lets be real if a shot go into hull for carousal the tank is done with or without ammo exploding.

Usually you want to keep crew alive even if tank is totaled, that's why modern tanks put ammo into seperate compartment, even if tank wont blow up there is many many videos where T-72 powder charges turn tank into funeral pyre for the crew.

 

[plawolf]

Usually you want to keep crew alive even if tank is totaled, that's why modern tanks put ammo into seperate compartment, even if tank wont blow up there is many many videos where T-72 powder charges turn tank into funeral pyre for the crew.

And how many instances of immediate turret flipping Kabooms have we actually seen in Ukraine when tanks get knocked out?

It’s rare to not see crews bailing out of hit tanks, and almost all turret flipping I have seen from
full engagements have been well after the surviving crew had evacuated and the tank had been cooking for a while.

 

[TK3600]

Usually you want to keep crew alive even if tank is totaled, that's why modern tanks put ammo into seperate compartment, even if tank wont blow up there is many many videos where T-72 powder charges turn tank into funeral pyre for the crew.

I am saying the separately stored ammo keeping crew alive part is overrated. The carousal is stored in the hull and if the region is hit it means the crew is more or less done for even without ammo cooking. If the ammo is cooking, it usually takes time to actually blow and crew can still escape.

 

[Broccoli]

I am saying the separately stored ammo keeping crew alive part is overrated. The carousal is stored in the hull and if the region is hit it means the crew is more or less done for even without ammo cooking. If the ammo is cooking, it usually takes time to actually blow and crew can still escape.

Not true. There videos from Iraq what show this system working as intended.

 

[polati]

I don't think theres any point in having a carousel autoloader anymore.

1. Anti-tank munitions are getting more and more accurate every year, the ammo rack being a target lower down in the tank will not yield much of an advantage when it comes to combat.
2. Bustle autoloaders are in fact faster than carousel autoloaders and are not limited in ammunition length.
3. Bustle autoloaders provide an easy way to implement blowout panels, which allow the tank to survive an ammo hit with minimal damage.
4. even if the carousel autoloader is seperated from the crew compartment, a hit would effectively render the vehicle useless as the turret is still blown out, and devastating damage is done to the main chassis. Meanwhile, a bustle autoloader would simply require a replacement of the turret bustle, the entire interior, including sensitive electronics, high-tech imaging/targetting equipment, and the main cannon/breach remain intact.
5. In fact, the issue with the turret bustle autoloader being easier to hit may not be a point anymore as APS systems advance. In the case of top attack / atgms fired from any direction other than the front, APS prevents a hit to any point in the tank.

 

[Biscuits]

I don't think theres any point in having a carousel autoloader anymore.

1. Anti-tank munitions are getting more and more accurate every year, the ammo rack being a target lower down in the tank will not yield much of an advantage when it comes to combat.
2. Bustle autoloaders are in fact faster than carousel autoloaders and are not limited in ammunition length.
3. Bustle autoloaders provide an easy way to implement blowout panels, which allow the tank to survive an ammo hit with minimal damage.
4. even if the carousel autoloader is seperated from the crew compartment, a hit would effectively render the vehicle useless as the turret is still blown out, and devastating damage is done to the main chassis. Meanwhile, a bustle autoloader would simply require a replacement of the turret bustle, the entire interior, including sensitive electronics, high-tech imaging/targetting equipment, and the main cannon/breach remain intact.
5. In fact, the issue with the turret bustle autoloader being easier to hit may not be a point anymore as APS systems advance. In the case of top attack / atgms fired from any direction other than the front, APS prevents a hit to any point in the tank.

5 is a glaring flaw though.

Besides, as anti tank munitions are nowadays more powerful, blowout panels can only provide protection against very dated weapons and/or glancing hits.

There is not much combat data on the efficiency of such vehicles. Type 10, Type 15 and Leclerc for example are untested. Tanks with side ammo storage performed poorly vs slightly better anti tank (HJ-8 and RPG-29 as opposed to RPG-7) armed insurgents in the most recent conflicts.

The type 15 is designed around not taking heavy tank gun hits except with APS. Same can't be said for a new frontline tank.

 

[TK3600]

Losing all the ammo in a peer conflict is basically a death sentence, minimum a mission kill. As long as crew is separate it is fine. You complain of vehicle damage even if crew separated, but a shot into hull breaks the vehicle anyway, ammo cook or not.

Lastly, what if the shot breaks the chamber isolating the shell from crew lol. Individual ammo rack hit less chance to be deadly, but ammo rack hit happen more frequent.

 

[polati]

5 is a glaring flaw though.

Besides, as anti tank munitions are nowadays more powerful, blowout panels can only provide protection against very dated weapons and/or glancing hits.

There is not much combat data on the efficiency of such vehicles. Type 10, Type 15 and Leclerc for example are untested. Tanks with side ammo storage performed poorly vs slightly better anti tank (HJ-8 and RPG-29 as opposed to RPG-7) armed insurgents in the most recent conflicts.

The type 15 is designed around not taking heavy tank gun hits except with APS. Same can't be said for a new frontline tank.

how is 5 a flaw?

I don't see how modernizing anti-tank munitions reduces the effectiveness of a blowout panel. As long as the hole you are creating is the same then the effect if the ammo is hit is the same. Blowout panels aren't designed to stop rounds, they're designed to dissipate explosive pressure out of the tank to prevent a catastrophic kill in the event the ammo is hit.

I also don't get how tanks with side ammo storage perform poorly. Perhaps you mean turret bustle ammo storage? There's either turret bustle of carousel in most modern tanks. Just take a look at how many T-72s have been destroyed by ammo fires and how many abrams have. You'll see quite a number of incidents where the abrams has survived simply because only the ammo has cooked off, everything else is fine due to blowout panels.

And is it not a given that obviously the next gen MBT will have improved armor protection? In the case of tank on tank combat both locations are fine. Not to mention that there is a NEED to place ammo in the bustle, because carousel autoloaders are restricted by the width of the chassis - future tank ammunition will be longer and will not fit inside carousel autoloaders.

 

[polati]

Losing all the ammo in a peer conflict is basically a death sentence, minimum a mission kill. As long as crew is separate it is fine. You complain of vehicle damage even if crew separated, but a shot into hull breaks the vehicle anyway, ammo cook or not.

Lastly, what if the shot breaks the chamber isolating the shell from crew lol. Individual ammo rack hit less chance to be deadly, but ammo rack hit happen more frequent.

Obviously abandonment of the vehicle and being mission killed are still problems, and this is solved by developing good combined arms strategies and generally by being on the offensive so that damaged vehicles can be repaired or taken to the rear.

In no case does the turret bustle autoloader fare worse than a carousel autoloader. In the event the vehicle takes a hit outside of the ammo, concern of damage is exactly the same. However, if it does take a hit to the ammo, you would much rather want JUST the ammo rack to be destroyed - and hence the entire tank is repairable, instead of a burnt out chassis with only the crew compartment salvagable. That's 90% of the tank instead of 10%.

And lastly due to the 2 man crew arrangement (most likely in the hull) the crew would in fact not be harmed by a shell penetrating through the turret and into the ammo rack. Obviously damage will be dealt to the turret outside of the ammo compartment, however the important thing is that it fares NO WORSE than a carousel autoloader, and in many cases better due to the numerous reasons listed above.

 

[Biscuits]

how is 5 a flaw?

I don't see how modernizing anti-tank munitions reduces the effectiveness of a blowout panel. As long as the hole you are creating is the same then the effect if the ammo is hit is the same. Blowout panels aren't designed to stop rounds, they're designed to dissipate explosive pressure out of the tank to prevent a catastrophic kill in the event the ammo is hit.

Modern top down attack munitions like HJ12 go through the roof and kill everyone inside the tank, while even older stuff like HJ8 have absurd penetration and will cook the crew the moment it enters. The only way to stop them is thicker armor and aps. There is no scenario where a heavy weapon will penetrate and not wreck the tank.

I also don't get how tanks with side ammo storage perform poorly. Perhaps you mean turret bustle ammo storage? There's either turret bustle of carousel in most modern tanks. Just take a look at how many T-72s have been destroyed by ammo fires and how many abrams have. You'll see quite a number of incidents where the abrams has survived simply because only the ammo has cooked off, everything else is fine due to blowout panels.

...the two tanks simply don't have comparable service histories at all?

How many Type 59Gs cooked off and how many Leopard 2A4s cooked off? That would not be a fair question because the Leopard 2A4 has seen way more difficult conditions.

The couple of times when Abrams went up against anything better than RPG-7, results ranged from terrible if it was hit anywhere except the front, to okay, if the hits were frontal. Look at the massacre of Iraqi tanks vs ISIS.

And is it not a given that obviously the next gen MBT will have improved armor protection? In the case of tank on tank combat both locations are fine. Not to mention that there is a NEED to place ammo in the bustle, because carousel autoloaders are restricted by the width of the chassis - future tank ammunition will be longer and will not fit inside carousel autoloaders.

The way the new PLA tank looks, it doesn't look like the turret has room for an autoloader, unless all the images were taken from very deceptive angles.

Future ammo is also just hypotheticals, clearly the design of the new tank shows that the carousel design is continued to be favored for heavy tanks for a good reason.