Ammo storage question regarding T-90M/T-90MS

[FallenZulu 436]

Been reading up on these two models I'm wondering, both still use the carousal loading mechanism as other T series tanks. But it states and both have added protection on the carousal and both have a ammo storage bin though I read it can't be accessed inside of the tank. Does anyone know if these two similar models rectified the fatal Turret flying off syndrome or do they also share the same weakness as previous T series? Would it be just as easily killed in Warthunder?

[RandomPineapple 1]

From what I understand, the additional protection is to protect it against spalling and shrapnel. So in game a direct hit would still cause an ammo rack, I believe. How ever there may be a slight increase to survive ability.

[GoddePro 1,087]

from what I know, there is a ton of composite armouring around the ammo rack. It should be theoretically impossible to get an ammo det from the front, since you've gotta pen around 400mm of effective armour (I think around 200mm at the thinnest?) and then you get "spaced armour" of the crew compartment and then it hits the composite protection around the ammo rack, which is several hundred mm thick. 

 

The main purpose was to stop what happened in Chechnya to the USSR's T-80Us.

They were penned by ATGMs from the side for an instant ammo rack. So when it came time to release another T-90, they incorporated composite surrounding the sides to prevent ammoracks from the side.

 

as for its effectiveness against APFSDS, I think it's fair to say that it should prevent all shrapnel from getting to the ammo bustle. However the actual APFSDS penetrator would probably be able to make it in all circumstances excluding frontal penetration of the thickest armour array. 

[watch_your_fire 1,521]

19 minutes ago, GoddePro said:

from what I know, there is a ton of composite armouring around the ammo rack. It should be theoretically impossible to get an ammo det from the front, since you've gotta pen around 400mm of effective armour (I think around 200mm at the thinnest?) and then you get "spaced armour" of the crew compartment and then it hits the composite protection around the ammo rack, which is several hundred mm thick. 

 

The main purpose was to stop what happened in Chechnya to the USSR's T-80Us.

They were penned by ATGMs from the side for an instant ammo rack. So when it came time to release another T-90, they incorporated composite surrounding the sides to prevent ammoracks from the side.

 

as for its effectiveness against APFSDS, I think it's fair to say that it should prevent all shrapnel from getting to the ammo bustle. However the actual APFSDS penetrator would probably be able to make it in all circumstances excluding frontal penetration of the thickest armour array. 

Would stop you from getting one-tap ammo racked by SPAA from the side as well

[GoddePro 1,087]

3 minutes ago, watch_your_fire said:

Would stop you from getting one-tap ammo racked by SPAA from the side as well

I'd say it depends on the calibre tbh

a 40mm+ APFSDS round might be able to just side-pen the ammo rack

although at this point it doesn't really matter since they'd shred your crew long before the turret has rotated to face the threat

[FallenZulu 436]

That's what I expected, though wasn't sure if they had some sort of safety measure to ensure they don't explode violently. But it seems the only tank Russia has that is similar to Western nations in terms of survivability is the T-14 with the armored capsule design.

[WulfPack 1,597]

On 09/03/2021 at 01:30, FallenZulu said:

Does anyone know if these two similar models rectified the fatal Turret flying off syndrome or do they also share the same weakness as previous T series?

If the incoming rounds are good enough to get past the main armor, they'll probably get past the sheet metal protecting the autoloader. 

[GoddePro 1,087]

On 11/03/2021 at 01:20, WulfPack said:

If the incoming rounds are good enough to get past the main armor, they'll probably get past the sheet metal protecting the autoloader. 

that's not how armour penetration works

penetrating armour degrades the penetrator, meaning it will have lost most/all of its energy by the time it makes it through the main armour. 

when an APFSDS round penetrates armour, its tip is degraded the more armour it penetrates. When it successfully penetrates a lot of armour, the degraded tip is mostly in fragments, which scatter throughout the interior of the tank and screw everyone and everything up. Therefore, the T-90M autoloader's new composite armour - which is not sheet metal - will absorb these fragments, and probably also stop the main penetrator (depending on its remaining energy)

[WulfPack 1,597]

20 hours ago, GoddePro said:

Therefore, the T-90M autoloader's new composite armour - which is not sheet metal - will absorb these fragments

What is the source the the auto loader is any better protected than B3 and the likes.

[GoddePro 1,087]

8 hours ago, WulfPack said:

What is the source the the auto loader is any better protected than B3 and the likes.

every source you can find, starting at wikipedia and ending at tank manuals themselves. It's a fundamental addition brought by the T-90AM upgrade package and onwards

[somebody_Else 523]

20 minutes ago, GoddePro said:

every source you can find, starting at wikipedia and ending at tank manuals themselves.

 

Not exactly specific.

[GoddePro 1,087]

1 minute ago, somebody_Else said:

 

Not exactly specific.

I'm saying

it's that well known that you could go and check yourself and find as many sources as you'd possibly need

I for one am not going to bother searching when I don't want to confirm something I already know