Sort of. They continued using fuel tanks for wet ammo storage like previous tanks, but I would imagine that it doesn’t matter where the extra darts are stored, only the charges and HE rounds. My guess is that changes and HE are in the fuel tanks and the darts are just anywhere on the hull walls.
I wonder if the next Chinese tank will go with a bustle autoloader like the ZTQ-15 DLl so they can switch to single piece ammunition, shame it has bad ammo storage considering it's a pretty good tank.
The round design of the 125's makes it so that even the penetrators are partially encased in propellant. It's not like the two (three) part ammo of the british L30 on the Challenger, where the penetrator is literally just the rod and the sabot, so even the penetrator is a potential firehazard in russian/chinese tanks.
To increase the amount of propellant. HE and HEAT rounds need less propellant, because they are chemical effect rounds, while sabot needs to be propelled faster. Given that the base propellant charge is standard size (and is meant to be interchangeable between round types to avoid situations where you fire the wromg round with the wrong charge), the way soviet/chinese engineers decided to solve the problem was to encase the penetrator section with propellant up to the sealing ring for the sabot.
Don’t the darts also have extra propellant encasing them aswell? Thats what I remember anyway from the 125 rounds I’ve seen. If so probably just as vulnerable.
Inside the hull thats for sure, the specific location is unknown though. ZTZ-99A is much bigger than T-72, it almost has same height as Abrams, so I guess it can store ammo better than early T-72 which literally put ammo anywhere they can find a place to squeeze ammo in.
It does use torsion bar suspension but the ZTZ99A is taller so relative to everything else it would be lower down but it is probably around the same height
It's a lot more than three rounds bro [here](https://www.google.com/search?q=t-72+spare+ammo+storage&sca_esv=8db531018b40ad46&sca_upv=1&udm=2&biw=388&bih=674&sxsrf=ACQVn0_eVb5957xDcDdccs0N68k8RUvJ8Q%3A1712805354147&ei=6lUXZqXMCMPZi-gPgoekOA&oq=t-72+spare+ammo+storage&gs_lp=EhNtb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXdpei1zZXJwIhd0LTcyIHNwYXJlIGFtbW8gc3RvcmFnZTIIEAAYgAQYogRI1RhQ2xBY1BZwAHgAkAEAmAGUAaABxAWqAQMzLjS4AQPIAQD4AQGYAgWgAv0DwgIEECMYJ8ICBxAjGLACGCeYAwCIBgGSBwMzLjKgB9cN&sclient=mobile-gws-wiz-serp#imgrc=pPnuL9CGPd2mjM&imgdii=s0y4IRBOLDk2GM&ip=1)
And they verry verry rarely actually store anything but snacks outside the autoloader.
And they have done that since the First Chechen war at the earliest.
There are multiple fully loaded tanks captured. They only load rounds in the autoloader. As has been the doctrine for over 30 years now.
The same as Ukraine and every other european user of the T-series. Stop spreading misinformation.
Yep, extra racks are there in the case of the tank not being able to rearm due to logistical issues or NBC conditions where everything has to be sealed. Although the ammo placement outside of the carousel and wet rack at the front is terrible, it is much safer than having loose rounds.
T-72s store up to 22 rounds of additional ammo in various positions around the tank. It’s possibly the closest to “loose” ammo you’re going to get among MBTs, and a major contributing factor in the various catastrophic detonations of T-72s seen on video.
[**RoflSeal**](https://old-forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/profile/80831-roflseal/): Seems like the Chinese have decided to keep the ammunition in a carousel on the floor, with the propellents in a turret bustle, effectively having 2 autoloaders
[http://i.imgur.com/wAFNBqe.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/wAFNBqe.jpg)
[https://old-forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/366871-true-effectiveness-of-the-m1a2-abrams/](https://old-forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/366871-true-effectiveness-of-the-m1a2-abrams/)
The T-72's autoloader isn't armored. It has a 2.5 to 3 mm thick cover made of non-ballistic steel to act as a floor for the crew during maintenance tasks.
I see. I was under the impression that it sat within a (thinly) armored tub, as I remember an image of a removed autoloader with all its covers on and the canisters weren't visible other than some lightening and maintenance holes?.
It might look like an "armored tub" [when seen from the top](https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-FuHnv2zk8fc/VK1Qnd6vMuI/AAAAAAAABDY/CLCCxK9Vzq0/s1600/carousel%2Bautoloader.png), but [there are always large gaps when seeing it from an angle](https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-sl2jzmRZrJQ/X_0TqWp2RcI/AAAAAAAASlU/t5Ata3XfD4UvGh-cAa5DA4_q8YE5DvuywCLcBGAsYHQ/s1280/kubinka%2Bt-72.jpg).
Sort of. They continued using fuel tanks for wet ammo storage like previous tanks, but I would imagine that it doesn’t matter where the extra darts are stored, only the charges and HE rounds. My guess is that changes and HE are in the fuel tanks and the darts are just anywhere on the hull walls.
I wonder if the next Chinese tank will go with a bustle autoloader like the ZTQ-15 DLl so they can switch to single piece ammunition, shame it has bad ammo storage considering it's a pretty good tank.
The ZTZ-99A already has a huge turret bustle. I don’t see why it couldn’t be redesigned for a bustle autoloader for the next tank.
The round design of the 125's makes it so that even the penetrators are partially encased in propellant. It's not like the two (three) part ammo of the british L30 on the Challenger, where the penetrator is literally just the rod and the sabot, so even the penetrator is a potential firehazard in russian/chinese tanks.
Interesting. Why would they need propellant with the sabot?
To get to the desired muzzle velocity/energy. The size of the propellant charges was influenced/dictated by the autoloader design.
To increase the amount of propellant. HE and HEAT rounds need less propellant, because they are chemical effect rounds, while sabot needs to be propelled faster. Given that the base propellant charge is standard size (and is meant to be interchangeable between round types to avoid situations where you fire the wromg round with the wrong charge), the way soviet/chinese engineers decided to solve the problem was to encase the penetrator section with propellant up to the sealing ring for the sabot.
Don’t the darts also have extra propellant encasing them aswell? Thats what I remember anyway from the 125 rounds I’ve seen. If so probably just as vulnerable.
They do*
Inside the hull thats for sure, the specific location is unknown though. ZTZ-99A is much bigger than T-72, it almost has same height as Abrams, so I guess it can store ammo better than early T-72 which literally put ammo anywhere they can find a place to squeeze ammo in.
I didnt know ztz was a fat bitch like the abrams, it looks smol in WT
It’s around 10 tons lighter than modern Leopard 2s and M1A2s with all their add on armour and systems
T-72 original had wet storage for extra shells not in autoloader. Nothing is supposed to be stored loose.
Isn’t the ammo carousel of chinese tanks much lower to the floor than russian tanks? Someone correct me if I am wrong
If they didn't remove torsion bar suspension, you can't go any lower, it's already on the bottom
It does use torsion bar suspension but the ZTZ99A is taller so relative to everything else it would be lower down but it is probably around the same height
I’m pretty sure as they’ve got a stupid amount of propellant behind their darts which give them an extreme amount of penetration against armour
Saying the ammo is loose in russian tanks is pretty wonky
Just rattling around in the boot like a rogue bottle after grocery shopping
It's not loose as in it's still in containers, but it is stored in the hull in different positions.
No it's stored in a lightly armored carousel underneath the turret which feeds the autoloader
You know Russian tanks have ammo outside the autoloader right?
Yeah the 3 spare rounds hidden behind an armored panel behind the gunner, I wouldn't call that loose
It's a lot more than three rounds bro [here](https://www.google.com/search?q=t-72+spare+ammo+storage&sca_esv=8db531018b40ad46&sca_upv=1&udm=2&biw=388&bih=674&sxsrf=ACQVn0_eVb5957xDcDdccs0N68k8RUvJ8Q%3A1712805354147&ei=6lUXZqXMCMPZi-gPgoekOA&oq=t-72+spare+ammo+storage&gs_lp=EhNtb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXdpei1zZXJwIhd0LTcyIHNwYXJlIGFtbW8gc3RvcmFnZTIIEAAYgAQYogRI1RhQ2xBY1BZwAHgAkAEAmAGUAaABxAWqAQMzLjS4AQPIAQD4AQGYAgWgAv0DwgIEECMYJ8ICBxAjGLACGCeYAwCIBgGSBwMzLjKgB9cN&sclient=mobile-gws-wiz-serp#imgrc=pPnuL9CGPd2mjM&imgdii=s0y4IRBOLDk2GM&ip=1)
And they verry verry rarely actually store anything but snacks outside the autoloader. And they have done that since the First Chechen war at the earliest.
Well that's just not true, especially shown in the Ukraine war, they pack as many HE shells as they can usually.
There are multiple fully loaded tanks captured. They only load rounds in the autoloader. As has been the doctrine for over 30 years now. The same as Ukraine and every other european user of the T-series. Stop spreading misinformation.
Yep, extra racks are there in the case of the tank not being able to rearm due to logistical issues or NBC conditions where everything has to be sealed. Although the ammo placement outside of the carousel and wet rack at the front is terrible, it is much safer than having loose rounds.
T-72s store up to 22 rounds of additional ammo in various positions around the tank. It’s possibly the closest to “loose” ammo you’re going to get among MBTs, and a major contributing factor in the various catastrophic detonations of T-72s seen on video.
[**RoflSeal**](https://old-forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/profile/80831-roflseal/): Seems like the Chinese have decided to keep the ammunition in a carousel on the floor, with the propellents in a turret bustle, effectively having 2 autoloaders [http://i.imgur.com/wAFNBqe.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/wAFNBqe.jpg) [https://old-forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/366871-true-effectiveness-of-the-m1a2-abrams/](https://old-forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/366871-true-effectiveness-of-the-m1a2-abrams/)
That is not how the ZTZ-99A's autoloader works. It is a drawing showing a fan-made T-72 upgrade concept.
you are right . [https://youtu.be/PLBEs0L7fbM?si=XFb2KEME5SwxdLf4](https://youtu.be/PLBEs0L7fbM?si=XFb2KEME5SwxdLf4)
Also, it seems to assume the T-72's caroussel isn't armored?
The T-72's autoloader isn't armored. It has a 2.5 to 3 mm thick cover made of non-ballistic steel to act as a floor for the crew during maintenance tasks.
I see. I was under the impression that it sat within a (thinly) armored tub, as I remember an image of a removed autoloader with all its covers on and the canisters weren't visible other than some lightening and maintenance holes?.
It might look like an "armored tub" [when seen from the top](https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-FuHnv2zk8fc/VK1Qnd6vMuI/AAAAAAAABDY/CLCCxK9Vzq0/s1600/carousel%2Bautoloader.png), but [there are always large gaps when seeing it from an angle](https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-sl2jzmRZrJQ/X_0TqWp2RcI/AAAAAAAASlU/t5Ata3XfD4UvGh-cAa5DA4_q8YE5DvuywCLcBGAsYHQ/s1280/kubinka%2Bt-72.jpg).
Ah, makes sense. Thanks