New Type98/99 MBT thread

[HighGround]

It's very dubious if this is actually an advantage. In the battlefield, a M1 effectively only has whatever thin armor shields the blowout panels in the turret, which will be the most exposed part of the tank. The crew can often survive a M1 being mission killed from ammo cook off, but then you have a likely wounded crew stranded as dismounted infantry in a modern battlefield environment where their survival chances range from low to very low.

It's not dubious at all. Many crews in Ukraine survived due to better safety. A crew being "stranded" is far more preferable than a crew being blown up. Which has happened even to the T-90M, where the autoloader is far better protected from any catastrophic explosion. The tank crew is easily the most important part of the tank and should be protected at all costs, even if it means increasing the chance of a mission kill.

It's all moot anyway, a tank can be fairly easily disabled, blinded, and stopped by a competent military unit. Experienced crews are well aware of their vehicles' capabilities and weaknesses. They will approach any engagement with intent to minimize those weaknesses and increase their own chance of survival.

You can't compensate or plan for your tank suffering a catastrophic explosion because your auto-loader carousel blew up from a mine.

 

[Index]

It's not dubious at all. Many crews in Ukraine survived due to better safety. A crew being "stranded" is far more preferable than a crew being blown up. Which has happened even to the T-90M, where the autoloader is far better protected from any catastrophic explosion. The tank crew is easily the most important part of the tank and should be protected at all costs, even if it means increasing the chance of a mission kill.

It's all moot anyway, a tank can be fairly easily disabled, blinded, and stopped by a competent military unit. Experienced crews are well aware of their vehicles' capabilities and weaknesses. They will approach any engagement with intent to minimize those weaknesses and increase their own chance of survival.

You can't compensate or plan for your tank suffering a catastrophic explosion because your auto-loader carousel blew up from a mine.

Again, penetrating turret and penetrating lower hull are not comparable situations.

Lower hull penetration into Abrams kills everyone as well. The problem för Abrams is that you can also disable it with lighter weapons against a much less armored and more exposed turret, especially the sides.

 

[HighGround]

Again, penetrating turret and penetrating lower hull are not comparable situations.

Lower hull penetration into Abrams kills everyone as well.

It does not. You'd actually have to get quite lucky to get everyone, or employ a pretty sizeable explosion. Conversely, a catastrophic explosion in a T series tank will almost certainly kill everyone inside it. The Russians themselves have taken pretty direct measures to reduce the chances of that happening and it shows in the T-90M. They are much less prone to blowing up, but it does still happen occasionally.

The problem för Abrams is that you can also disable it with lighter weapons against a much less armored and more exposed turret, especially the sides.

This is true for every tank, and the T-90M does have a larger turret than the T-72, it's a worthwhile tradeoff. Tanks are going to have vulnerabilities, and enemies will exploit them. The purpose of a tank isn't to be anti-everything.

I would argue that China, with its massive industrial base, should absolutely place a premium on crew safety. Tanks can be replaced quite easily, people take 20+ years to mature. Eliminating any chance of a catastrophic explosion should be in the cards.

 

[Index]

It does not. You'd actually have to get quite lucky to get everyone, or employ a pretty sizeable explosion. Conversely, a catastrophic explosion in a T series tank will almost certainly kill everyone inside it. The Russians themselves have taken pretty direct measures to reduce the chances of that happening and it shows in the T-90M. They are much less prone to blowing up, but it does still happen occasionally.

If something makes it through into the crew compartment, it would have penetrated the nearly meter thick plate on the way in, the energy unleashed turns the crew compartment into a pressure cooker, killing everyone.

This is true for T90M as it is for Abrams (or T99, Merkava and so on). With the difference that in the Abrams, the ammo will not explode and make the tank unsalvageble. Because the ammo is stored in the turret, not on the tank's bottom.

This is true for every tank, and the T-90M does have a larger turret than the T-72, it's a worthwhile tradeoff. Tanks are going to have vulnerabilities, and enemies will exploit them. The purpose of a tank isn't to be anti-everything.

The problem is not turret size, but that the Abrams has all it's ammo in the turret blowout panel area. It gets disabled by hits other tanks can shrug off.

I would argue that China, with its massive industrial base, should absolutely place a premium on crew safety. Tanks can be replaced quite easily, people take 20+ years to mature. Eliminating any chance of a catastrophic explosion should be in the cards.

Yes and for maximum crew safety, there are many arguments for placing the ammo on the bottom and not the turret. The latter introduces a possibility of easily disabling the tank either by long range artillery splinters, light insurgent weapons and so on.

The strongest current solution would be an armored crew capsule which would vent away the explosion caused by a lower chassis hit into the carousel. Then, either the tank is destroyed, or the crew is, but not both at the same time. Without losing the advantages of storing the ammo in a more difficult to hit area.