Interesting piece on CNN about Russian tanks.

[grumpyduck]

https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/27/europe/russia-tanks-blown-turrets-intl-hnk-ml/index.html

The article says that there's a design flaw in the way the ammo is stored in the turrets of Russian tanks: they are liable to all go off in the event of a direct hit, blasting the turret right off the tank. The stated reasoning for the design is to give the tanks a lower profile.

It would seem to me, however, that, given how dangerous this is for the crew (as opposed to how other Western tanks are designed), that it might just be that the Russian designers -- or their bosses -- just didn't care about the crews. "Heck, they're expendable, right?" Back in WWII, the Russians just kept sending masses of troops to the front lines even as they were wiped out. So maybe the real reasoning behind the design is, just keep sending tanks and if they get blown up... well... send more tanks.

Which then makes you wonder if the tank factories are also run by oligarchs who just want to profit from having to sell more and more tanks.

Sometimes I can be a suspicious old fart.

[ck4829]

1. Hey, Putin's not going to be in one, so it's no biggie to them

[Crunchy Frog]

2. I've seen some cool videos showing turrets flying through the air.

I don't think that they have the demographics to do now what they managed in WWII. Unless they decide to start throwing babushkas into the battlefield.

[JHB]

3. Being a suspicious OF doens't disqualify you from being right on the money.

Was that way under the Soviets too, and probably some earlier version of it was true under the Tsars.

[underpants]

4. M1A1 American tanks store ammo behind a fire wall

At least the loaders that I saw had to hit a paddle with their knee. M1 ammo fires via an electrical charge - basically a 9 volt battery.

[mitch96]

5. "Sometimes I can be a suspicious old fart."....join the club... I question everything..

I have been burned b4...
m

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

6. Those crews were dead regardless of where the ammo was stored

You have a very very low survivability chance if a modern tank round penetrates into the crew compartment. Doesn't matter if you are in a Abrams, a LeClerc, or a T72. If a HEAT or sabot round punches through, your day is ruined. The popped top just makes for better images.

And it's less of a design flaw and more of a tradeoff. My understanding(and some tankers on here might correct me) is there are 2 basic designs for autoloaders in tanks in use right now, the carousel style, which the Russian and Chinese tanks use, and a conveyor style that the French, Japanese, and South Koreans use. The first system can cause popped turrets due to where the ammo is stored. But it allows for a lower profile tank but is more compact and less mechanically complicated. The 2nd system allows for ammo to be stored separate from the crew, with blow off panels to prevent cookoffs from killing the crew, but the system is very large, requires a larger turret(which is more visible), and is mechanically more complicated. In both cases, using an autoloader requires less crew which means less loss of life if the tank is taken out and the ability to crew more tanks than you could if you had a 4th man as a loader(like we do). The other thing to point out is the first system was designed in the 50's, the 2nd system was designed in the 80's. The Russians decided the higher rate of fire, less required crew, and lower profile was ok tradeoff for the high likelihood that the tank will pop its top when hit. But like I said, the crew is likely roasted regardless of what tank they are in if the crew compartment is penetrated. Extreme overpressure, spall, and heat all in a compact space is what you face if a tank round punches through your armor.

[Calista241]

8. The design flaw stems from potential adversary tanks back in the 60's and 70's.

The M60 and early M1 tanks had a 105mm rifled gun that didn’t have the penetrating or destructive power of todays 120mm NATO guns, or the more recently developed Javelin, NLAW and other NATO antitank weapons.

Russian tank armor installed at the time was believed to be enough to defeat the ammunition used by legacy NATO adversaries.