Apologies, the intention wasn’t to strawman you, but to rather make the greater point that nothing either of us has said is “absolute”. I don’t think the hull is always going to get hit. Blah blah.
So we are gonna ignore the most likely place for a tank to be hit during WW2 was the upper hull? Usually the front, and sides. From my understanding I don’t think turret ammunition is the most exploded ammunition area of the Tiger II, but the hull rather ammunition. But I’m willing to admit that could be for multitude of reasonings.
The safest place for ammunition imo however was the hull floor at the time. Because blowouts were not a thing.
Tanks are very likely to be hit now, so not separating the ammunition from the crew is just not forward thinking. There will always be evolving ammunition that can reach that floor. T series tanks would be safest if what you said was true. That remains false.
Most times that they’ve ever carried extra ammunition it was not in the turret above the ring. That’s been maintained in practice. Most the extra ammunition were in the front hull on either side of the driver (can’t remember which side was most likely to be filled). And after a certain point in the conflict, crews stopped carrying hull ammunition outside of the carousel, because unlike the NATO Leopard 2s, and Strv 122s it isn’t needed as the carousel carries a decent amount of ammunition on its own.
In the case of the T-90M. It has blast door protections for its remaining ammunition in the bustle rack. I can assure you 9/10 times the reason a T-90M blows up it isn’t because of “ammunition above the turret ring”.
Like you’ve claimed before, the Merkava has very little in the turret. Same goes for the T-72, T-90M, and T-80s. However, we must now break down the differences as you specified “above the ring”.
• T-80 Family : Looking at the T-80 layout. Only the T-80U family (excluding I think T-80UK) has significant turret ammunition in the back of the turret. Having 4 charges, and 6 warheads/projectiles. T-80B family (excluding the Object 292 which was a prototype) has no turret ammunition at all. The BVM having slightly less loose ammunition behind the carousel in comparison to the B variant being the major layout difference.
• T-72 Family: The T-72 from the A to the B3 (2014) to my knowledge all have only two war heads above the turret ring. All the other loos ammunition is actually tightly packed around the carousel. But it is the messiest of the Soviet MBTs in its ammunition layout. But still noticeably less profile than the T-80 Autoloader layout despite this (doesn’t mean it’s safer, this layout against Top Attack is worse because it’s horizontal layout).
Onto the extension of the T-72 Family. The T-90s! T-90 I’m not sure if it has turret ammunition as the T-80UK doesn’t, but it is the same turret as T-72B essentially. If you have information on that specific model let me know. T-90A has no turret ammunition (above the ring). T-90M has turret ammunition in a bustle rack (10 charges, 10 warheads or projectiles).
The mysteries: Idk if the T-80UM2 that got taken out had turret ammo. But the fact the UK didn’t. Makes me believe it may have not. Which then begs the question why did it blow up? If the ammunition was below the ring it should’ve been “safer” which is my point.
It featured in lower intensity combat than the Abrams. And the Abrams had it easy for a good while too. Which had it easier than the T-72 which gets into some of the most hellish conflict scenarios. Hence why the hull armor remained the way it did for a long long time. It wasn’t likely to need it (that’s the explanation given). For the conflicts it arose in. Combat record doesn’t mean all that much on its face without diving into the details.
Heck even going back to WW2 the Sherman, T-34, Tiger, etc tanks combat records fluctuated heavily depending on intensity, their enemies logistics, changes in tactics, the financial aspect of it. Even the difference from WWI to the Spanish Civil War, to WW2. A lot of things changed based on that. I can’t go to one conflict soemthing participated and claim it was the best. As much as I’d love to say the CR.32 was the king of the sky, because it got the most Ariel victories even compared to the monoplane Bf 109. That isn’t the full picture. The CR.32 wasn’t the future. The Biplanes reign of domination was up. The BF 109 was dealing with high intensity combat whilst not being a matured platform.
Modern inert projectiles aren’t exploding. Charges are.
Not even the same size lol. 18 vs 27 is a massive diff. Also the Leclerc can carry 22 rounds in its bustle. The Leo only 16, the Merkava only 10. What makes the racks more dangerous isn’t being at the front necessarily. But rather it’s vulnerability to too attack. If the Merkava was targeted in its ammunition area the effects would be the same, no difference. But again the Merkava has never been in a large scale conflict such as the tanks aforementioned. Besides maybe the Leclerc. No Merkavas are in Ukraine to test that theory. For its sake, hope it never happens, we might get another nerf. We already are trying to get Trophy fixed. Unprotected hull ammunition without a crew capsule like the Object 477, Object 195 Abrams TTB, Armata, Abrams X, etc isn’t safer to the crew vs blowout panel systems. Besides the crews have blamed ammunition near the engine for ammo detonations too in studies. This is behind strong composite, carousel, and an assortment of plates separating yet still it’s unsafe. An engine won’t change this, it isn’t dense enough to put a modern KE on pause, and it doesn’t matter when the top attack munition hits anywhere it can.
Conclusion: In the case of the Merkava the hull ammunition is higher than the T series MBTs hull ammunition (not only because the ride height, and the hull is insanely tall, but also because it’s stacked all on top another), and they lay completely horizontally. Not to mention it has forward hull ammunition right behind the engine. Unless we are gonna do the “they can decide to move it, or not use that rack”. That can be done in any tank. In the case of the T series why even talk about the ammunition outside the carousel at that point when many crews don’t use those racks anymore. One thing the Merkava I think imo would be better than the T series in is dealing with being attacked by artillery. It definitely isn’t mobility kill immune, but it is harder to be put in that position by weaker smaller caliber artillery top down. At least on the first hit. If it’s taking multiple hits, then again that armor fray dynamic is gonna be detrimental.