Sounds great. I really do hope your work makes some kind of change. I have high belief that you’ll be able to pull it off (no pressure btw, considering it is gaijin after all) I hope to see it soon cause I’m eager to read in on it
1 Like
It’s about design principles. When Soviet tanks were on top, had the best protection even compared to the early Merkava, and MBT-70. It made sense. But that’s because the carousel layout assumes you are stopping the threats, if you’re tank is being penetrated its outside of the design principles, and you get walked. But because the Oplot M has better protection than the average Soviet MBT currently. It’s okay. If the Yatagan had that layout and APS it would be the best. Also UA industry isn’t/hasn’t been funded/backed by powerful western nations for decades directly. So what they’ve managed to do so far is astonishing ngl.
Funny part is, the Merkava, Leopard 2, Ariete, Challenger 2s, etc all have hull ammunition that isn’t well protected either, I doubt a real scenario like what’s happening in UA would a Merkava or a Leo 2 take 10 to 16 rounds to avoid hull ammo… The engine itself isn’t stoping a modern dart. If you’re fighting serious MBTs with modern munitions? Any unprotected hull ammo that isn’t like DM63 is a danger.
Only the Abrams truly excels in this kind of protection. Most everything else is an essentially a glorified Russian MBT (In regards to ammo separation from hull and crew) if you want enough ammo to stay in battle. It is the best in regards to ammo crew protection, nothing comes close.
Yes but the armor of most MBTs doesn’t fray, and come apart in many pieces the way the Merks do no?
I do not surmise it would do all that well in Ukraine compared to even the T-90M OBR 2025… The Abrams is the most survivable tank ammunition storage wise… And it wasn’t invincible. The Merk would’ve not tanked drones the way I’ve seen T-90Ms do so as they have smaller ERA blocks that can block damage and get blown off. Too many hits, and the Merks modular armor comes completely apart catastrophically. Which is bad in a real active warzone full of drones, and peer to peer engagement.
This isn’t even to speak of modern Kinetic threats. Kornets would be the least of the Merks worries. Not to even mention it’s “80” (or “81?”) tons would be stuck in the marshlands worse than the Chally 2, and Abrams (which faired probably the best of the NATO MBTs in this regard. Maybe the Leopard 2A6 being better). The ground pressure is too high for it to be a reasonable tank for the conflict. Not only this, we’ve seen that tanks being slow can be a detriment (T series reverse speeds) and get tanks knocked out. I can imagine a slow accelerating MBT the size of manhattan wouldn’t be uniquely safe.
But you can’t really design a tank that assumes 100 protection from penetration… Modern tanks have accepted this as a fact of life, you are gonna be penetrated. What are you gonna do now ?
the carousel is basically a ready rack with now ammo protection as they need to be ready to be loaded…
(I’m talking about the current state of soviet tank design, obviously if these tanks were in active development like the rest of the tanks in the world, then of course the deal would be different. But like all things in russia it’s all smoke and mirrors there is no active development)
Ammo explosions is one of the first issues you need to address if you want to ensure crew survivability, and the thing is that we saw a lot of merkavas getting hit in the back, as it is a weak spot, but we never see ammo explosions. So the issue has been fixed.
Different issue is the ready rack that has metal plate separating the crew from the ammo, in the merkava there is a 10 drum ammo the small hatch that opens and closes, ehile it’s open there is a risk of ammo explosion. In the abrams the hatch is a lot larger and slower, so while the tank is loading there is higher risk of catastrophic failure of ammo explosion.
Idk and even if it does it diesnt say anything about its effectivnes
Hold on I said Merkava frontal armor is higher in irl than in game how is that bs?
MB misunderstood.
No problem, as for the latest kenetic rounds that are about 900mm in length can the upper front plate of a Merkava tank covering the engine withstand that? 3bm-60 is not the latest Ru round available it is cheap to manufacture and fits in the improved carrousel auto loader. Can the Merkava withstand 829 A3 round, I am not sure either?
1 Like
Turret will most likely stand against M829A3 but not so sure about hull armor.
Yes that is what I meant, the turret which has many layers of armor but the hull (armor covering the engine) probably not.
2 Likes
Some one here actually pays attention to modern warfare, these deductions are quite accurate, however what makes Abrams more survivable than leo tanks or Strvs?
1 Like
I guess because the M1 has most of its ammo in the back of the turret while the Leopards still carry a lot of bullets on the driver’s side.
Ahh yes that is true, but I thought in irl they did not carry ammo there due to cook-offs.
1 Like
Starting from DM63 all German ammunition has insane low chance to detonate.
2 Likes
According to what I read, for example, in Ukraine, the Leopards would only be transported with turret ammunition, but as our colleague also said, the most modern NATO ammunition is usually much safer. Because in all the videos and images, you don’t see NATO tanks exploding upon impact, with the turret ammunition being the most likely to blow the roof off, thus saving the crew. In any case, I believe it is safer to carry the ammunition in the turret in a closed compartment than to carry it on the chassis, unless a closed compartment is created so that only the roof of the chassis where the ammunition is carried blows off, saving the crew.
For example, another curious vehicle is the Merkava and its ammunition arrangement.
1 Like
That is one advantage of carrying the ammo in the turret since you have roof blow-out panels, however ammunition can be ignited easier since the compartment is at the back of the turret therefore hitting it with drones becomes easier than lets say T-series tanks but it is also safer for crews in that respect. DM-63 might be harder to ignite but sabot rounds are barely used in present day tvt battles (since they rarely occur). Leo tanks would also be carrying heat and high fragmentation rounds which will cook-off just like in any other tank.
Carrying all the armor on the turret doesn’t really matter when facing drones. It’s clear that carrying it on the turret would make it easier to hit them from above, but as has been seen thousands of times, a simple drone with an RPG hitting the back of a T-series tank’s turret at a certain angle hits the ammunition dump, or at least hitting the side of the tank is enough for a catastrophic explosion. After all, with drones, you can choose where to hit.
Regarding the Leopard’s ammunition, the main issue would be the propellant, which seems to be much safer than the Russian propellant.
Well yes well placed drone strikes to the back of the turret on T-series tanks do that, the armor value is significantly lower there than in other areas. True the porpllent also ignites on t-series tanks in addition t-series tanks carry more power high fragmentation rounds when ignited do contribute to the explosion.
But then again there is no 100% proof tanks, when designing building one there will always be advantages and draw backs.
Abrams isolated ammo compartment gives CREW better odds of walking it out unlike… pretty much every other tank that stores majority of the ammo in the hull without isolation.
But as Ukraine had shown, blow out compartment is intended armor weakspot every drone operator will try their best to exploit even by dropping some “garbage tier” anti tank ordnance, like bomblets extracted from dual purpose cluster bombs. Then in best case scenario, tank needs to be hauled back to the factory/major repair depot for full overhaul, worse case, it burns out abandoned or gets destroyed by either side unable to recover it.
In that sense T-series tanks without such weakspot and frequently plastered with ERA all over the place will require something beefier than potato to destroy. But when you hit them with something bigger than potato, results likely won’t be pretty for crew involved.
1 Like