Russian Armed Forces News & Discussion thread

[AustinJ]

Void or any one can answer this question.

How do they deal with the problem of loose ammo inside the turret of T series tank be it T-72 or 90 ?

Do tank designer in russia see this as a fundamental weakness of T series tank , considering any perforation/penetration of turret will case the round to explode ?

I recollect in Chechnya war many tanks went just with the ammo in auto loader which is 22 rounds , the remaining loose rounds in the turret was not carried at all.

[African-European]

Russia's special forces get 30 Austrian sniper rifles

More than 30 Austrian-manufactured sniper rifles have been adopted for service with Russia’s Airborne Forces special task units, Defense Ministry spokesman Col. Alexander Kucherenko said on Friday.These are the first foreign made rifles to be officially used by this branch of service.The rifles have been delivered under a 2010 contract and more will be delivered later, Kucherenko said, declining to disclose the rifle’s full official designation.Judging by the specifications he provided, the rifle in question could be the Steyr-Mannlicher SSG-69, 7.62mm with a 10-round magazine and an effective range of more than 2,000 meters.A number of Russian servicemen have taken a special training course in handling the new rifle, he said.

http://en.rian.ru/world/20111209/169519072.html

[_GDS_]

Void or any one can answer this question.

How do they deal with the problem of loose ammo inside the turret of T series tank be it T-72 or 90 ?

Do tank designer in russia see this as a fundamental weakness of T series tank , considering any perforation/penetration of turret will case the round to explode ?

I recollect in Chechnya war many tanks went just with the ammo in auto loader which is 22 rounds , the remaining loose rounds in the turret was not carried at all.

Do you "recollect" that most of the tanks had no explosive charges in ERA tiles too?

[Hyde]

How do they deal with the problem of loose ammo inside the turret of T series tank be it T-72 or 90 ?

Do tank designer in russia see this as a fundamental weakness of T series tank , considering any perforation/penetration of turret will case the round to explode ?

How do they deal with the problem of loose ammo inside the turret of Leopard/Challenger/Leclerc/Ariete/Merkava series tank be it A5, A6 or Mk2 or MkIV ?

Do tank designer in Germany/England/France/Israel/Italy see this as a fundamental weakness of [see above] series tank , considering any perforation/penetration of turret will case the round to explode ?

[pythp3]

How do they deal with the problem of loose ammo inside the turret of T series tank be it T-72 or 90 ?

Do tank designer in russia see this as a fundamental weakness of T series tank , considering any perforation/penetration of turret will case the round to explode ?

I recollect in Chechnya war many tanks went just with the ammo in auto loader which is 22 rounds , the remaining loose rounds in the turret was not carried at all.

In what sense it is a weakness?

For conventional warfare, T series tanks have the best safe maneouvre angles, due to their design, so carring full ammo load is not a problem in that case. Those weak points which you refer to will simply not be exposed.

Situation is different for urban scenario. Such high load is not as relevant, fighting doctrine is different, and tanks can be sent with only autoloader ammo, which is quite safe.

For T series, there are many ways to improve their performance in urban scenario which can be implemented, for protection, and storage of additional ammo, but the latter is not of much necessity in my opinion.

If you consider ammo placement in those tanks particularly as a problem, no, it is not.

How do they deal with the problem of loose ammo inside the turret of Leopard/Challenger/Leclerc/Ariete/Merkava series tank be it A5, A6 or Mk2 or MkIV ?

Do tank designer in Germany/England/France/Israel/Italy see this as a fundamental weakness of [see above] series tank , considering any perforation/penetration of turret will case the round to explode ?

In Western tanks, Leopard 2, Abrams, consequence of their turret design (ammo in bustle) is that it is much more exposed, for manouver warfare, and in urban scenario. In the former, turret sides can be hit from the frontal arc. In the latter, a single hit in that exposed part will lead to complete tank innutilization, due to ignition of their load.

[AustinJ]

Hyde , pythp3 in western tanks all ammo is stored in ballistic blast proof container even though they might be inside the turret.

In T-90 the ammo are not containerised but kept freely . so any penetration is far more dangerous for T-90 and the chances of hitting a loose uncovered ammo is much higher ? Hence I reffered to what appears as a fundamental flaw in T series , barring perhaps the T-90MS.

Isnt it true that in Chechnia many takes were just blown off specially the turret due to lack of free ammo and lack of blow off panel ?

Also the side and back of T-90 is not as thicker as Western Tanks , its around 80 cm from the figures that i have seen , ofcourse the safe manouvering angles might keep the probably of hitting the side turret lower.

[Steam]

Isnt it true that in Chechnia many takes were just blown off specially the turret due to lack of free ammo and lack of blow off panel ?

In the first campaign yes but not in the second.
The amount of destroyed tanks in the second war were very low.

[Hyde]

Hyde , pythp3 in western tanks all ammo is stored in ballistic blast proof container even though they might be inside the turret.

Get a clue.
A: There is no such thing as "Western", as there are no rules which every one of them has to follow that would make them the same so that a collective name could be applied.
B: Even though the aformentioned tanks have ammunition stored in containers seperated from the crew in the back of the turret, they all still have ammunition stored in the hull, just as the T-72, T-90 and T-80.

So no, "in western tanks" not "all ammo is stored in ballistic blast proof container".

That was the whole point of my reply, to get you to look that up and understand that your question/concerns/thoughts are just as valid for your "Western tanks". Next time someone gives you a clue, follow it, and don't just ramble on without even understanding what that person has just told you.

In T-90 the ammo are not containerised but kept freely . so any penetration is far more dangerous for T-90 and the chances of hitting a loose uncovered ammo is much higher ? Hence I reffered to what appears as a fundamental flaw in T series , barring perhaps the T-90MS.

You really need to stop talking and start reading. All of your amateurish, already 8 year old internet phantasy myths have already been explained on this forum. Use the search.

And btw, there is no such thing as a "T-series".

Also the side and back of T-90 is not as thicker as Western Tanks , its around 80 cm from the figures that i have seen , ofcourse the safe manouvering angles might keep the probably of hitting the side turret lower.

The T-90 has no "side turret" in the same sense as the Abrams or Leopard tanks. The T-90 has a forward facing side of the turret and a backward facing side of the turret.

When the enemy is in a position from which he can hit the backward facing side of the turret from an angle in which he could easily penetrate it (=an angle in which the mm you have on paper really are all what will have to stop his projectile, as opposed to two-three times that because of the steep angle when the enemy is actually still in front of you when targeting these "sides" of the turret; which means that the angle is zero degrees), you have already lost on several points and the enemy is behind you or at an angle of 90 degrees to you, so that small detail makes no difference anymore, as the projectile could just as well hit in the hull (/back of the turret, engine compartment etc etc) and penetrate, millimeters on paper for the "side of the turret" in that case make no difference in the real world.

And for urban combat in hostile environment, there is the T-90MS, which has everything that is not so relevant in real maneuver warfare but relevant in urban combat against rebels adressed and improved on, to the point where it offers the crew at least the same protection as any of your "Western tanks".

[Infuser]

The only western designed tank to feature special containers for storing ammunition is in the Abrams. Every other tank including the Leo, Merk, Chally and so on have hull stored ammunition.

[my name again]

Hyde , pythp3 in western tanks all ammo is stored in ballistic blast proof container even though they might be inside the turret.

bs for example in leo 2 additional ammo is also stored in simple racks in the hull.

[mathyou8]

Hyde , pythp3 in western tanks all ammo is stored in ballistic blast proof container even though they might be inside the turret.

In T-90 the ammo are not containerised but kept freely . so any penetration is far more dangerous for T-90 and the chances of hitting a loose uncovered ammo is much higher ? Hence I reffered to what appears as a fundamental flaw in T series , barring perhaps the T-90MS.

Isnt it true that in Chechnia many takes were just blown off specially the turret due to lack of free ammo and lack of blow off panel ?

Also the side and back of T-90 is not as thicker as Western Tanks , its around 80 cm from the figures that i have seen , ofcourse the safe manouvering angles might keep the probably of hitting the side turret lower.

1. Find user named Damian
2. Reread his posts
3. Then reread your post and then delete it
Kthxbai

[pythp3]

Actually most Western tanks, Abrams, Leopard 2, are completely unsuitable for urban warfare where protection is concerned.

Their "thick" turret sides are no longer relevant against most common RPG warheads as was seen in diverse conflicts. Indeed, thickness in those tanks is not a precise indicator of protection.

For current T-90 fleet there are also add on armour kits designed for urban scenario, which can be implemented, should the need arise.

[Rubick]

Going back to metallic cartridge cases instead of semi-combustible would improve the chance of survival. Separate compartment for additional ammo is more ideal obviosly.

Also search for demian posts. Find instantly plenty of information as you see here.

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums...on-tanks/page2

[Damian90]

Going back to metallic cartridge cases instead of semi-combustible would improve the chance of survival. Separate compartment for additional ammo is more ideal obviosly.

Not good idea in very cramped insides of today tanks, it can still work a bit in bigger western design tanks, but not in much smaller russian, ukrainian or chinese tanks.

Actually most Western tanks, Abrams, Leopard 2, are completely unsuitable for urban warfare where protection is concerned.

Ah pythp3 and his opinions.

Yes pythp3 we know western designers and military are bunch of fools, they don't know how to design properly any weapon system, indeed they should beg russians or ukrainian so they could buy their weapon systems.

Mean while with up-armor kits these unsuited tanks, perform preatty well.

Their "thick" turret sides are no longer relevant against most common RPG warheads as was seen in diverse conflicts. Indeed, thickness in those tanks is not a precise indicator of protection.

Thickness means that more armor can be put there. And guess what, recently I get a knowledge how this armor looks more or less (of course! I do not get the full description and informations on materials), and it is far from any descriptions written here and there. I can only say, no ceramics or they are used in different way and forms than it was widely belived, and of course, this armor has dynamic nature.

+ Some western tanks after recent conflicts recived upgrades to side turret armor, it might be not enough against such monsters like RPG-29 with hit angle near 90 degrees, but will be enough against smaller warheads. And still these can be reinforced by addon composite armor or ERA, so all in all it will offer greater protection than ~70-80mm RHA plate + ERA... the cost is ofcourse more weight but as it seems, it isn't a big problem for western armies.

For current T-90 fleet there are also add on armour kits designed for urban scenario, which can be implemented, should the need arise.

Of course You will show to all of us these kits... oh wait You mean T-90MS? If there is any proof that it's ERA can be quickly in the field added to a tank that is not prepared from base to recive such kit? Western addon armors are designed to be modular and easy attached to a tank in the field if nececary, and tank do not need to be designed with such kit in mind, because kit just replaces some elements, like old side skirts with new heavier ones etc.

No offence but You are very biased sometimes.

Of course the fact is fact, a compartment for ammunition in bustle makes turret more exposed and vurnable to hits within safe manouvering angles, however there is no better idea to safely store ammunition away from crew in a tank with manned turret.

As a weight it is just a trade off, something for something.

But we need to remember that actually the only western tank with full ammunition stored in isolated compartments is M1, fortunetly or unfortunetly.

But all conflicts proved that non isolated ammunition will cause victims, we can of course talk about priorities, one will say that crew survivability is more important, second want more balanced design and third will say that crew doesen't matters and more important is weight for example.

Everything depends on concepts, and to be honest classic tank design with manned turret just can't bring together all these demands.

Future is in tanks with unmanned turret like TTB, EGS, Object 195 and now "Armata". Because only such design permitts to have a well protected tank, with low weight and profile with a gun elevation angles not limited by turret roof and with crew isolated from ammunition.

Of course the price for these advantages can be lower crew situational awareness because they are placed preatty low and TC can't just go through hatch and look what is goind out side tank, this effect can be minimized by use of cameras placed on vehicle. But still as You all see it is a trade off.

There is no one perfect solution or one solution definetly better than the others. And I can write about plenty of such examples.

[pythp3]

Yes pythp3 we know western designers and military are bunch of fools, they don't know how to design properly any weapon system, indeed they should beg russians or ukrainian so they could buy their weapon systems.

Mean while with up-armor kits these unsuited tanks, perform preatty well.

Because none of those tanks was designed originally for that kind of warfare.

They are not less vulnerable from the sides than russian tanks discussed here, the fact that they need such up-armor kits explains it clearly.

Thickness means that more armor can be put there. And guess what, recently I get a knowledge how this armor looks more or less (of course! I do not get the full description and informations on materials), and it is far from any descriptions written here and there. I can only say, no ceramics or they are used in different way and forms than it was widely belived, and of course, this armor has dynamic nature.

Judging protection by thichness is worthless, especially if you even do not know it´s composition. And apparent thickness may not be actual, as it can be composed of... spaced layers, which is a not so effective filler.

In conflicts that "thick" protection did not performed very well against monoblock RPG warheads.

+ Some western tanks after recent conflicts recived upgrades to side turret armor, it might be not enough against such monsters like RPG-29 with hit angle near 90 degrees, but will be enough against smaller warheads. And still these can be reinforced by addon composite armor or ERA, so all in all it will offer greater protection than ~70-80mm RHA plate + ERA... the cost is ofcourse more weight but as it seems, it isn't a big problem for western armies.

To say greater protection is an ignorant guess because of several reasons.


Not just western armies. Weight is a universal problem and applies to everyone. Another matter is fight scenario, but that is a specific case from which no such conclusions can be made, as "it does not matter".

Of course You will show to all of us these kits... oh wait You mean T-90MS? If there is any proof that it's ERA can be quickly in the field added to a tank that is not prepared from base to recive such kit? Western addon armors are designed to be modular and easy attached to a tank in the field if nececary, and tank do not need to be designed with such kit in mind, because kit just replaces some elements, like old side skirts with new heavier ones etc.

No, regular T-90 upgrade, for urban scenario, same as western kits, add on elements, no preparation needed.

If you refer to T-90MS like upgrade, current tanks would need some modification to be equipped with Relikt modules, but after that, it is an easily replaceable integral element. But that is in another level.

Of course the fact is fact, a compartment for ammunition in bustle makes turret more exposed and vurnable to hits within safe manouvering angles, however there is no better idea to safely store ammunition away from crew in a tank with manned turret.

Ammunition stored in autoloader within hull is much less exposed and better protected. In addition, if you need additional rounds you can have a detachable turret bustle storage as was realised in T-90MS for example, not exposed from safe manouvering angles, and in case of hit, will not cause catastrofic results as in some western tanks. Only a reduced amount of ammunition will be destroyed, so you continue in battle condition.