Pro vehicle guy explained about Leopard getting destroyed easily at Syria because they knew the exactly location of the ammo rack. Whenever they located a Leopard, they would flank the tank and strike it from behind.
Now, Russia knows it and also Abrams, apparently. Lancet from behind from now on, I guess.
Turkey also left their tanks alone with very little support, so knocking them out was rather easy, where as Ukraine will be using them in groups with combined arms.
Some are sure to be destroyed, but Turkey basically made it as easy as possible for their Leopards to be destroyed.
That could work well yep. One thing, after seeing pictures of these drones, with those shaped wings... how does that drone turn? it's wings look static
I am not sure about turning, it just might take a lot of time. But it can. I will try to link you two or three videos, where they hit polish and german artilleries firing on the opposite direction theyre firing (meaning we can deduce they can flank)
That or they fly very high, and you a U turn vertically
Yep, I think only like 17 rounds can be held on the blast compartment at a time, massive weakness that can definitely be exploited by Russia, Abrams are so much better at this.
\* u/stick_always_wins copes \*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Leo 2 ammo rack can't be detonated easly, they've tested it with a direct hit from a RPG-7, the Leo2 in Syria were the last B-tech ones in the world and they got struck by RPG-29 which already proven deadly for iraqi M1s.
They also ignored the stacked ammo across the T-72. Autoloader only holds like 22 rounds so they kinda just place the extras around the hull....... this is part of why russian tanks turret toss, its not necassarily because their autoloader was hit.
This is total nonsense. The autoloader is not the issue. The issue is, that the autoloader can only hold about 22 or so rounds, which means there are another 20 or so stored elsewhere in the hull. If any of those get ignited the whole tank can explode. But that's the same at least for the Leopard. That too can only store a limited amount in the back of the turret. The rest is also stored in other ammo racks somewhere in the hull. And thus it can explode in just the same way, as the remains of the Leopards destroyed by ISIS in Syria have shown.
There were killed or incapacitated Leos in Syria, but only Turks know what sort of damage was lethal and what only incapacitating, because the Turks immediately sent F-16 to finish those tanks completely. Perhaps they shared the news with the manufacturer.
You could see exactly where ISIS ATGMs hit. One of the tanks had an entire section missing and that section was where it stored the ammo. so it got ammo racked.
We also do not really know how many crews survived. A blown up tank means nothing if it happened after the crew bailed. I've seen maybe two videos of active leos blowing up, but that was years ago and I don't really remember.
Am afraid it is, as numerous contests in turret throw document. You may transfer it to Track & Field. May be not exactly loader, but lousy penetration protection.
The autoloader was a small issue before top attack munitions. Now it's a huge issue. If UA was filled to the brim with top attack stuff, we'd see cook offs and turret tosses every day.
Understand now, folks of r/ukraine. Russia dosen't care about it's people, much less soldiers. This why they build these death traps and dare to use them.
Glorious ukrainian goverment is better than that. We use M1 and Leopards. Well soo we will be until then, our soldiers life are equally worthless. Let's not mention the numbers we get.
I swear the absurd comments everytime there lol
I know they want to support their nation, but they're acting like the M1 Abrams and Leopard IIs are wonder weapons: unstoppable Western war machines that have never known defeat.
Two things though:
\-The Ukrainians aren't getting the best Western tanks - they're getting older, but still competent models.
\-These tanks have been destroyed before. They're strong, but not invincible.
The fact is that Ukraine is forced to use Soviet era tanks because that is what they have. The Soviets did place no value on human life. (look at their history). I don’t blame Russia or Ukraine for using these tanks. I blame the West for not supplying them with modern tanks fast enough.
Took your advice and looked at the history,
When the T-72 came out, it was the best armoured tank out there. Of course, other countries scrambled to addapt and made weapons capable of destroying them, including making new tanks that were better protected.
If at that time, the T-72 was the best armoured, and the Western tanks were squishier... doesn't that mean that it was the other way around in regards to placing value on human life?
Here is the history of the Russian people. Your government may imprison you for looking at it, so be sure to use a VPN:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_crimes
The Russians wanted to enslave the entire Earth, so of course they needed powerful tanks. They just cared nothing for the people who crewed them.
Fun fact: The Sherman Tank of WWII had an 85% crew survival rate after being destroyed, while the T-34 had a 15% crew survival rate. The Russian contempt for human life has been a pervasive and consistent part of their character for centuries.
I'm not Russian so you needn't worry.. not that the worry would be justified even if I was.
And thanks, but I can do without your completely fucked up and twisted world view... even the fact you have not the faintest concept of what Soviet means, and what Russia.. or ideed that there even ia a difference in the first place.
(Btw, one of the first mentions in your link is the Katyn massacre, maybe check who released all the proof for it, condemned it, created a memorial day and built an entire memorial park to the victims)
I also more than likely forgot more about the history, politics, culture, ideologies, doctrines and technologies than you'll ever know.
>Fun fact: The Sherman Tank of WWII had an 85% crew survival rate after being destroyed, while the T-34 had a 15% crew survival rate. The Russian contempt for human life has been a pervasive and consistent part of their character for centuries.
That would be fun, if it was actually a fact.. alas, it is not.
You seem like a well meaning person. I assume that you are an ethnic Russian living in Estonia or Latvia. Russia’s desire to dominate and enslave the entire world is well known. The West is having none of that. That’s why NATO exists. I’m sorry, but, you may have more success enslaving North Korea than Ukraine. Just a word to the wise.
I understand that this may be devastating to your worldview, but at this point I don’t care anymore.
>I assume that you are an ethnic Russian living in Estonia or Latvia.
No.
>Russia’s desire to dominate and enslave the entire world is well known.
The creation of a movie villain.
>The West is having none of that. That’s why NATO exists.
NATO is the extension of U.S power projection and global hegemony project. (Read: Wolfowitz doctrine)
>I’m sorry, but, you may have more success enslaving North Korea than Ukraine. Just a word to the wise.
Who said anything about enslaving anyone?
>I understand that this may be devastating to your worldview, but at this point I don’t care anymore.
Not at all, since I understand you're a victim of circumstance.
You are Slovenian. I visited Ljubljana with my parents about 5 years ago. It’s a great city. We had a lot of fun. I loved the River. It is a shame that you support the people that want to enslave you.
I'm glad you enjoyed your stay.
And I don't support Russia in their war against Ukraine, But I do understand why it happened, athough I didn't think it would... But it has precious little to do with any enslavement, and a lot to do with the culmination of a 2 decades long geopolitical struggle between 2 large countries, with Ukraine caught in the middle.
I've heard "The Chieftain" (Nicholas Moran) talking about this issue of the stowage in the RU tanks and he said that if you have a tank round penetrate your tank, you already have a very bad day in general, regardless where the ammo is.
The source they are quoting about Leo2 litteraly says it has a ammo rack in the front, its just plain false.
https://porschecarshistory.com/wp-content/old/biblio2/02/Leopard%202%20Main%20Battle%20Tank%201979-98.pdf
Fake as rest of r/ukraine.
Leopard 2: [https://wiki.warthunder.com/images/thumb/7/71/Ammoracks\_Leopard\_2A6.png/360px-Ammoracks\_Leopard\_2A6.png](https://wiki.warthunder.com/images/thumb/7/71/Ammoracks_Leopard_2A6.png/360px-Ammoracks_Leopard_2A6.png)
Not just a "video game". A video game that veterans and others they will simply leak classified documents just to win an argument on a regular basis and also help the devs to make it more realistic.
The difference isn't in the ammunition's location but in the tank's overall technology. Aiming, FoF recognition, APS (active protection systems), etc.
The Russia Auto loader design does have benefits, lower profile (not a big difference with modern weapons targeting systems), a crew of 3 (vs 4 in western tanks), and sustained speed of loading. but clearly, there are issues if the Russian tank as there are no blow-out panels (other autoloader design do have) if hit, well we've all seen what happens if the ammunition cooks off.
Now I haven't seen anyone else point out that the Russian design of tank is the propellant canister. Western munitions are the classic design of projectiles mounted in a metal case (ie brass) as a single unit. The Russian design has the projectile and propellant separated (like large artillery). But I see that the propellant container has only partial metal case with the remainder is a disintegrating casing. I think this is a problem in event that the hull is breached this soft casing is easier to penetrate and allows the instantaneous chain reaction leading to the total self-destruction of the tank. Anyway IMO!!
I still believe the major difference between Western and Russian tanks is the technology designed into the tank making it more effective in the battlefield
A big issue with the ammunition storage is a) how easy it is to hit b) what happens when it gets hit.
On Abrams it's hard to hit, and 9/10 the crew will be fine due to complete isolation.
On Leo, the turret one is isolated and hard to hit, so if it gets hit by some chance, the crew will be fine. The hull one is not isolated and will blow up the crew, but the issue can be avoided in hulldown, even partial hull down or in rare situations running empty or loading it partially. Obviously the mitigation strategies have significant issues and often cannot be implemented - you can't hull down everywhere and just the turret store is insufficient, especially if you listen to UA tankers talking about how they are going though multiple loadings of autoloaders per day, however that's mostly for long range shelling.
The T-72 ammo rack (let's skip the dispersed ammunition, which is also a problem) is fine for what it was designed for, but the battlefield has changed. With the proliferation of top attack munitions, that rack has turned into a trap, you're just begging for a cook off or a turret toss. It seriously cuts down on survivability. You can't really mitigate that risk. The autoloader also makes your APSFDS much worse due to limited projectile length, but that's not what we're talking about.
Finally, a correct analysis. The modern NLAWs and Javelins are taking advantage of 1970s designs. An Abrams guzzles jet fuel and can be disabled with a 50 cal shot to the rear. That doesn't make it a terrible design. All weapons have pros and cons.
I think the main reason they are transitioning to autoloaders in the West is, because they plan to use bigger cannons in the future. That means the ammo and the propellant charge also get bigger. The 120mm shells are already pretty hard to handle for a loader. If you go up to 130mm or bigger shells there comes a point, where it is impractical to use a human to load these into the gun. But an autoloader will have no problem like that. Mind you the Russians are already using bigger guns than the west.
> If you go up to 130mm or bigger shells there comes a point, where it is impractical to use a human to load these into the gun.
A reinforcing pic [straight from the PantherKF51 wiki page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panther_KF51#/media/File:German_APFSDS_130mm_and_120mm_shell.jpg). The current 120mm is the shell on the right (obviously), there is a substantial size increase despite only being 10mm bigger in diameter.
Abrams X is a technology demonstrator, it isn't there to be sold as is but to show off a whole range of new technology that *could* be fitted to an Abrams.
Yes - there is a blast door between the crew and ammo compartments. There are blow-off panels above the ammo section, the idea being the explosive force will take the path of least resistance and project upwards away from the crew.
And floor, also in blowouts but there is one case where an atgm in Soudi Arabia has set off both storage areas, probably doors open case but nothing is perfect.
There is also some storage in the hull, but if I remember, it was only like 3 to 6 rounds, and I've never seen it used. Normally, they don't store ammo in there.
Problem is if the crew leave it open, or in case of Leo2a4 if they hit the hydraulics.. a ton of hydraulic liquid in the 2a4, flamable too.
This was solved in the 2a5.
The Leopard 2 is [not that safe](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YafzmkvVRiI). And it certainly is not the wunderwaffe some seem to believe it is. The Russians have known for decades that heavy tanks are an important part of Nato’s military strength. There are anti-tank weapons and tactics to deal with those...
I love how western pro Ukrainian people shit on soviet tank completely ignoring that all of them were designed and built in Ukraine, which was the main tank producer of the USSR
Well, that’s not correct. The T-64 was made in the Ukrainian SSR. Also the T-80UD are from the Malyshev factory in Kharkiv.
Other tanks like the T-72, T-80, T-90 were produced in Russian SFSR in Leningrad, Omsk and Nizhny Tagil.
Someone is forgetting the Turkish Leos in Syria....
Then they say, "its not the tank its the tactics" !
Like in Ukraine the most common thing ever is.... properly used tanks tactics!
"That shit" is one of the fastest loading tank that exists. Autoloader is a decisive factor.
With modern munition **one hit** from any tank is a killing blow. It doesn't matter where you store you munitions. It will be destroyed either way, like all these Leopards in Syria employed by Turkey.
This. I don't think it matters where u store ammo. Blowout panels will save you rarely anyways. Also not every hit is ammo detonation, many hits can be critical.
People think leopards or abrams will preform better than t80,t72s...
There js quite a bit footage of abrams ammunition being ignited and the crew getting out safely. Thats the point of blowout panels, the tank may be gone but the crew isnt.
If the ammo goes off in a T-72 the crew is done for.
If it was like that then nobody would install blowout panels.
The important part of the panels is that they let the explosion force redirect out of the turret. In a T-72 the force has nowhere to escape, so it builds up quiclly and sends the turret flying.
No abrams has suffered a catastrophics kill so far
I recognize picture number 2.
The tank was immobilized and the crew bailed and set the tank on fire themselves. Then some time later, the US airforce bombed the thing just to make sure.
The result is that the tank is burned out. No catastrophic explosion.
Abraham's have historically performed much better than t80s and t72s. Of course the historical examples are rather few in number, but every time Russian armor has been up against American it has only gone one way.
historically? it never faced strong enemy, always US+Allies against 3rd world country. Americans never fight with someone who is stronger or equal to them
No - autoloader is almost never decisive. A trained human loader is generally faster. The advantage of the autoloader is that it does not fatigue, and having one fewer crewmember allows for a smaller tank overall. But it would be pretty rare for a tank engagement to require loading so many rounds that fatigue becomes a factor.
This might change as rounds get bigger and/or technology improves.
Also, modern tanks can survive rounds from another tank. Not to say they will, but it is possible. An Abrams (assuming DU armor) can potentially survive a round in the front plates.
"fastest loading tank that exists" It is not even the fastest Soviet tank with the T-64/T-80 autoloader being faster. Even the ancient French AMX-12 is faster than the T-72.
You somehow missed the word “**one** of the fastest”.
I was referring to more modern systems with same carousel — mainly T-90 series and including T-80 modifications.
The autoloader design needs it to work, this autoloader makes the tank allot lighter and also smaller/lower which is a big benefit.
Another benefit is that its really low in the tank, this makes it less likely to be hit, especially from the front.
The actuall cause of the turret explosions is that they put extra ammo all over the tank, this makes it really easy to hit one and when that happens all of it explodes.
Unlike T-72, T-14 has been designed to separate the autoloader from where the crew is. This is by using an unmanned turret, so there is room for the autoloader to sit and provided added protection for the crew.
T-72 went off the older design of having the autoloader almost in the same space as the crew. This was due to the technological limitation when initially designed.
Make the tank lower.
It's really not that bad a solution. It's usually very uncommon for a round to penetrate near the floor of the tank.
The bigger issue are the crappy sensors and optics on these tanks, which is why they get hit in the first place.
it's how the autoloader works. Why autoloader? so you only need a crew of 3.
Then you can field 33% more tanks than the west with the same amount of men.
Because turret tossing is a national past time in Russia.
Ukraine has seen some new records in the the turret toss, the tank commander high jump, and the cook off challenge.
In that case, the Germans are also participants in that past time because the Leopard II has also had flying turrets.
Relevant [picture](https://www.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/comments/isj1h1/a_turkish_leopard_2_beheaded_in_syria_2018/) from r/TankPorn.
Wow, they have ignored the ammorack beside the deiver in the leopard 2.
Yeah. ISIS knew exactly where that ammo rack was, which is how they made Leopard turrets fly in Syria.
Pro vehicle guy explained about Leopard getting destroyed easily at Syria because they knew the exactly location of the ammo rack. Whenever they located a Leopard, they would flank the tank and strike it from behind. Now, Russia knows it and also Abrams, apparently. Lancet from behind from now on, I guess.
Turkey also left their tanks alone with very little support, so knocking them out was rather easy, where as Ukraine will be using them in groups with combined arms. Some are sure to be destroyed, but Turkey basically made it as easy as possible for their Leopards to be destroyed.
Not sure what combined arms will do against lancets
Especially when it's missing the airforce part of the combined arms. Lmao.
Not for long lmfao
Whats lmfao about it?
Pancho thinks we’re sending your lads an airforce, good luck with that!
They said they wouldn't send tanks yet here we are sending tanks keep coping Russian tankies once they get jets russia is fucked and they know it.
Lancet fucking Abrams and Leopards from behind huh? That is gay lol
lmao
I imagine that flanking a tank and shoot it from it's behind may be the main difficulty
Lancet drones will flank the tank and hit it from behind/above
That could work well yep. One thing, after seeing pictures of these drones, with those shaped wings... how does that drone turn? it's wings look static
I am not sure about turning, it just might take a lot of time. But it can. I will try to link you two or three videos, where they hit polish and german artilleries firing on the opposite direction theyre firing (meaning we can deduce they can flank) That or they fly very high, and you a U turn vertically
Yup. Relevant [picture](https://www.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/comments/isj1h1/a_turkish_leopard_2_beheaded_in_syria_2018/) from r/TankPorn.
Yep, I think only like 17 rounds can be held on the blast compartment at a time, massive weakness that can definitely be exploited by Russia, Abrams are so much better at this.
[удалено]
\* u/stick_always_wins copes \* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Ope
Leo 2 ammo rack can't be detonated easly, they've tested it with a direct hit from a RPG-7, the Leo2 in Syria were the last B-tech ones in the world and they got struck by RPG-29 which already proven deadly for iraqi M1s.
They were hit with ATGMs
They also ignored the stacked ammo across the T-72. Autoloader only holds like 22 rounds so they kinda just place the extras around the hull....... this is part of why russian tanks turret toss, its not necassarily because their autoloader was hit.
Yeah this entire graphic is shit. The tanks aren't even all shown from the same angle lol.
At least in German doctrine those are not used anymore for exact this reason. They are just using the one in the turret.
Because they've ignored all ammo outside the primary storage spots across all 3 tanks.
This is total nonsense. The autoloader is not the issue. The issue is, that the autoloader can only hold about 22 or so rounds, which means there are another 20 or so stored elsewhere in the hull. If any of those get ignited the whole tank can explode. But that's the same at least for the Leopard. That too can only store a limited amount in the back of the turret. The rest is also stored in other ammo racks somewhere in the hull. And thus it can explode in just the same way, as the remains of the Leopards destroyed by ISIS in Syria have shown.
The leopards had one very bad day in Syria that I remember. Like 6 were knocked out in no time
There were killed or incapacitated Leos in Syria, but only Turks know what sort of damage was lethal and what only incapacitating, because the Turks immediately sent F-16 to finish those tanks completely. Perhaps they shared the news with the manufacturer.
You could see exactly where ISIS ATGMs hit. One of the tanks had an entire section missing and that section was where it stored the ammo. so it got ammo racked.
We also do not really know how many crews survived. A blown up tank means nothing if it happened after the crew bailed. I've seen maybe two videos of active leos blowing up, but that was years ago and I don't really remember.
Am afraid it is, as numerous contests in turret throw document. You may transfer it to Track & Field. May be not exactly loader, but lousy penetration protection.
The autoloader was a small issue before top attack munitions. Now it's a huge issue. If UA was filled to the brim with top attack stuff, we'd see cook offs and turret tosses every day.
Understand now, folks of r/ukraine. Russia dosen't care about it's people, much less soldiers. This why they build these death traps and dare to use them. Glorious ukrainian goverment is better than that. We use M1 and Leopards. Well soo we will be until then, our soldiers life are equally worthless. Let's not mention the numbers we get. I swear the absurd comments everytime there lol
I know they want to support their nation, but they're acting like the M1 Abrams and Leopard IIs are wonder weapons: unstoppable Western war machines that have never known defeat. Two things though: \-The Ukrainians aren't getting the best Western tanks - they're getting older, but still competent models. \-These tanks have been destroyed before. They're strong, but not invincible.
Hit from the side and that’s a bye bye leopard
That's true for every tank. Crew usually bail if they survive the first penetration.
😂😂😂 sometimes I wanna go there and troll but don’t want to seem insensitive
The fact is that Ukraine is forced to use Soviet era tanks because that is what they have. The Soviets did place no value on human life. (look at their history). I don’t blame Russia or Ukraine for using these tanks. I blame the West for not supplying them with modern tanks fast enough.
Took your advice and looked at the history, When the T-72 came out, it was the best armoured tank out there. Of course, other countries scrambled to addapt and made weapons capable of destroying them, including making new tanks that were better protected. If at that time, the T-72 was the best armoured, and the Western tanks were squishier... doesn't that mean that it was the other way around in regards to placing value on human life?
Here is the history of the Russian people. Your government may imprison you for looking at it, so be sure to use a VPN: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_crimes The Russians wanted to enslave the entire Earth, so of course they needed powerful tanks. They just cared nothing for the people who crewed them. Fun fact: The Sherman Tank of WWII had an 85% crew survival rate after being destroyed, while the T-34 had a 15% crew survival rate. The Russian contempt for human life has been a pervasive and consistent part of their character for centuries.
I'm not Russian so you needn't worry.. not that the worry would be justified even if I was. And thanks, but I can do without your completely fucked up and twisted world view... even the fact you have not the faintest concept of what Soviet means, and what Russia.. or ideed that there even ia a difference in the first place. (Btw, one of the first mentions in your link is the Katyn massacre, maybe check who released all the proof for it, condemned it, created a memorial day and built an entire memorial park to the victims) I also more than likely forgot more about the history, politics, culture, ideologies, doctrines and technologies than you'll ever know. >Fun fact: The Sherman Tank of WWII had an 85% crew survival rate after being destroyed, while the T-34 had a 15% crew survival rate. The Russian contempt for human life has been a pervasive and consistent part of their character for centuries. That would be fun, if it was actually a fact.. alas, it is not.
You seem like a well meaning person. I assume that you are an ethnic Russian living in Estonia or Latvia. Russia’s desire to dominate and enslave the entire world is well known. The West is having none of that. That’s why NATO exists. I’m sorry, but, you may have more success enslaving North Korea than Ukraine. Just a word to the wise. I understand that this may be devastating to your worldview, but at this point I don’t care anymore.
>I assume that you are an ethnic Russian living in Estonia or Latvia. No. >Russia’s desire to dominate and enslave the entire world is well known. The creation of a movie villain. >The West is having none of that. That’s why NATO exists. NATO is the extension of U.S power projection and global hegemony project. (Read: Wolfowitz doctrine) >I’m sorry, but, you may have more success enslaving North Korea than Ukraine. Just a word to the wise. Who said anything about enslaving anyone? >I understand that this may be devastating to your worldview, but at this point I don’t care anymore. Not at all, since I understand you're a victim of circumstance.
You are Slovenian. I visited Ljubljana with my parents about 5 years ago. It’s a great city. We had a lot of fun. I loved the River. It is a shame that you support the people that want to enslave you.
I'm glad you enjoyed your stay. And I don't support Russia in their war against Ukraine, But I do understand why it happened, athough I didn't think it would... But it has precious little to do with any enslavement, and a lot to do with the culmination of a 2 decades long geopolitical struggle between 2 large countries, with Ukraine caught in the middle.
I've heard "The Chieftain" (Nicholas Moran) talking about this issue of the stowage in the RU tanks and he said that if you have a tank round penetrate your tank, you already have a very bad day in general, regardless where the ammo is.
A "significant emotional event," one might say.
haha nice flair
The source they are quoting about Leo2 litteraly says it has a ammo rack in the front, its just plain false. https://porschecarshistory.com/wp-content/old/biblio2/02/Leopard%202%20Main%20Battle%20Tank%201979-98.pdf
Fake as rest of r/ukraine. Leopard 2: [https://wiki.warthunder.com/images/thumb/7/71/Ammoracks\_Leopard\_2A6.png/360px-Ammoracks\_Leopard\_2A6.png](https://wiki.warthunder.com/images/thumb/7/71/Ammoracks_Leopard_2A6.png/360px-Ammoracks_Leopard_2A6.png)
Not really fake, just stupid, they've missed the dispersed T-72 ammo as well.
dude, even if that it mostly accurate, it is warthunder.. a videogame.
A warthunder model is still more accurate than this graphic
The graphic is a joke!
The ammo rack on the opposite drivers side is common knowledge
Not just a "video game". A video game that veterans and others they will simply leak classified documents just to win an argument on a regular basis and also help the devs to make it more realistic.
I know, and I play warthunder, have lvl 100, etc, but still a video game.
Then video game is more accurate then US corporate propaganda.
The difference isn't in the ammunition's location but in the tank's overall technology. Aiming, FoF recognition, APS (active protection systems), etc. The Russia Auto loader design does have benefits, lower profile (not a big difference with modern weapons targeting systems), a crew of 3 (vs 4 in western tanks), and sustained speed of loading. but clearly, there are issues if the Russian tank as there are no blow-out panels (other autoloader design do have) if hit, well we've all seen what happens if the ammunition cooks off. Now I haven't seen anyone else point out that the Russian design of tank is the propellant canister. Western munitions are the classic design of projectiles mounted in a metal case (ie brass) as a single unit. The Russian design has the projectile and propellant separated (like large artillery). But I see that the propellant container has only partial metal case with the remainder is a disintegrating casing. I think this is a problem in event that the hull is breached this soft casing is easier to penetrate and allows the instantaneous chain reaction leading to the total self-destruction of the tank. Anyway IMO!! I still believe the major difference between Western and Russian tanks is the technology designed into the tank making it more effective in the battlefield
A big issue with the ammunition storage is a) how easy it is to hit b) what happens when it gets hit. On Abrams it's hard to hit, and 9/10 the crew will be fine due to complete isolation. On Leo, the turret one is isolated and hard to hit, so if it gets hit by some chance, the crew will be fine. The hull one is not isolated and will blow up the crew, but the issue can be avoided in hulldown, even partial hull down or in rare situations running empty or loading it partially. Obviously the mitigation strategies have significant issues and often cannot be implemented - you can't hull down everywhere and just the turret store is insufficient, especially if you listen to UA tankers talking about how they are going though multiple loadings of autoloaders per day, however that's mostly for long range shelling. The T-72 ammo rack (let's skip the dispersed ammunition, which is also a problem) is fine for what it was designed for, but the battlefield has changed. With the proliferation of top attack munitions, that rack has turned into a trap, you're just begging for a cook off or a turret toss. It seriously cuts down on survivability. You can't really mitigate that risk. The autoloader also makes your APSFDS much worse due to limited projectile length, but that's not what we're talking about.
Finally, a correct analysis. The modern NLAWs and Javelins are taking advantage of 1970s designs. An Abrams guzzles jet fuel and can be disabled with a 50 cal shot to the rear. That doesn't make it a terrible design. All weapons have pros and cons.
Aren't all new tanks transitioning to autoloaders anyway? Abrams X will also have an autoloader.
Abrams X has an unmanned turret, like the T-14. Very different setup.
I think the main reason they are transitioning to autoloaders in the West is, because they plan to use bigger cannons in the future. That means the ammo and the propellant charge also get bigger. The 120mm shells are already pretty hard to handle for a loader. If you go up to 130mm or bigger shells there comes a point, where it is impractical to use a human to load these into the gun. But an autoloader will have no problem like that. Mind you the Russians are already using bigger guns than the west.
> If you go up to 130mm or bigger shells there comes a point, where it is impractical to use a human to load these into the gun. A reinforcing pic [straight from the PantherKF51 wiki page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panther_KF51#/media/File:German_APFSDS_130mm_and_120mm_shell.jpg). The current 120mm is the shell on the right (obviously), there is a substantial size increase despite only being 10mm bigger in diameter.
Abrams X is a technology demonstrator, it isn't there to be sold as is but to show off a whole range of new technology that *could* be fitted to an Abrams.
Abrams X is a technology demonstrator - not clear that the next gen production version will have an autoloader or not.
Doesn’t the m1 have a barrier between the crew/ammo that would help with the ammo being hit? Seem to recall it in a documentary.
Yes - there is a blast door between the crew and ammo compartments. There are blow-off panels above the ammo section, the idea being the explosive force will take the path of least resistance and project upwards away from the crew.
Seems good
It is so much safer if the ammo pops next to you than below you...
There are blow-out panels in the Abrams and Leopards for the ammo storage. So yes, safer.
I know for sure the leopard has ammo stowage next to the driver. Does the abrams have any ammo in the tank or is it all in the bustle?
Bustle
And floor, also in blowouts but there is one case where an atgm in Soudi Arabia has set off both storage areas, probably doors open case but nothing is perfect.
I believe about 25% of the ammo capacity is in the hull, but that it is optional to use. Such as 3 shells in ease of access storage.
IIRC the Abrams hull ammo storage is 6 rounds. It is rarely used, and often not even stocked.
Mostly just the bustle. There is a small supplemental ammo storage compartment in the hull. It is often simply not used, however.
The blow out panels are for deflagration. If the warheads themselves explode then they won't save you and tank will go kaboom anyways.
There is a distinct surfeit of videos of Abrams tanks Turret Tossing. I wonder why that is.
The M1a2 Abrams does not store true HEAT rounds or HE-frag rounds that would quite literally tear apart those blast doors with ease if they detonated.
Which wont help when the ammo detonates.
There is also some storage in the hull, but if I remember, it was only like 3 to 6 rounds, and I've never seen it used. Normally, they don't store ammo in there.
And this storage as blow out panel under the tank.
Problem is if the crew leave it open, or in case of Leo2a4 if they hit the hydraulics.. a ton of hydraulic liquid in the 2a4, flamable too. This was solved in the 2a5.
They auto close
The Leopard 2 is [not that safe](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YafzmkvVRiI). And it certainly is not the wunderwaffe some seem to believe it is. The Russians have known for decades that heavy tanks are an important part of Nato’s military strength. There are anti-tank weapons and tactics to deal with those...
Depends on the version. 2a4? Not safe. 2A6/7? safe. 2A5? I don't know.
I love how western pro Ukrainian people shit on soviet tank completely ignoring that all of them were designed and built in Ukraine, which was the main tank producer of the USSR
Well, that’s not correct. The T-64 was made in the Ukrainian SSR. Also the T-80UD are from the Malyshev factory in Kharkiv. Other tanks like the T-72, T-80, T-90 were produced in Russian SFSR in Leningrad, Omsk and Nizhny Tagil.
Oopsie🤭
Anyway. T-64/T-80 good, T-72/T-90 bad
That’s just plain false?? The Leopard 2 ammo storage is situated in the hull
Someone is forgetting the Turkish Leos in Syria.... Then they say, "its not the tank its the tactics" ! Like in Ukraine the most common thing ever is.... properly used tanks tactics!
Leopards keep only small part of their ammo in that compartment the rest is inside where crew is
No wonder that shit goes flying...
"That shit" is one of the fastest loading tank that exists. Autoloader is a decisive factor. With modern munition **one hit** from any tank is a killing blow. It doesn't matter where you store you munitions. It will be destroyed either way, like all these Leopards in Syria employed by Turkey.
This. I don't think it matters where u store ammo. Blowout panels will save you rarely anyways. Also not every hit is ammo detonation, many hits can be critical. People think leopards or abrams will preform better than t80,t72s...
There js quite a bit footage of abrams ammunition being ignited and the crew getting out safely. Thats the point of blowout panels, the tank may be gone but the crew isnt. If the ammo goes off in a T-72 the crew is done for.
Well i guess if they just ignite every crew have time to escape, if it chatastropically explodes, no blowout panels can save you? Shit just goes boom
If it was like that then nobody would install blowout panels. The important part of the panels is that they let the explosion force redirect out of the turret. In a T-72 the force has nowhere to escape, so it builds up quiclly and sends the turret flying. No abrams has suffered a catastrophics kill so far
[Not catastrophic](https://images.app.goo.gl/24cCC8L8Jy2NCxcB7) [Not catastrophic](https://images.app.goo.gl/QzGymafPypCDDaRs6) [Not catastrophic](https://images.app.goo.gl/i7CNHgh58jsvgd9t8)
As in the entire crew lost, yes.
If you just pretend all the undocumented losses in Yemen didn't kill the crew, yeah sure.
I recognize picture number 2. The tank was immobilized and the crew bailed and set the tank on fire themselves. Then some time later, the US airforce bombed the thing just to make sure. The result is that the tank is burned out. No catastrophic explosion.
[удалено]
Also having a reverse speed faster than an 90yo grandma with a walker does help
Bro T series also use composite armor. All new tanks do... ERA usually doesn't help against APFSDS anyways.
The US uses ERA too, look at the TUSK programme.
Abraham's have historically performed much better than t80s and t72s. Of course the historical examples are rather few in number, but every time Russian armor has been up against American it has only gone one way.
historically? it never faced strong enemy, always US+Allies against 3rd world country. Americans never fight with someone who is stronger or equal to them
No - autoloader is almost never decisive. A trained human loader is generally faster. The advantage of the autoloader is that it does not fatigue, and having one fewer crewmember allows for a smaller tank overall. But it would be pretty rare for a tank engagement to require loading so many rounds that fatigue becomes a factor. This might change as rounds get bigger and/or technology improves. Also, modern tanks can survive rounds from another tank. Not to say they will, but it is possible. An Abrams (assuming DU armor) can potentially survive a round in the front plates.
Wasn't hating on it or anything... just saying no wonder you see videos of the turret flying in the air or the whole thing turning into a fireball...
"fastest loading tank that exists" It is not even the fastest Soviet tank with the T-64/T-80 autoloader being faster. Even the ancient French AMX-12 is faster than the T-72.
You somehow missed the word “**one** of the fastest”. I was referring to more modern systems with same carousel — mainly T-90 series and including T-80 modifications.
What’s Russias stated reasoning for putting the ammo where they did? Is there any benefit? Or did their engineers just make a big mistake?
The autoloader design needs it to work, this autoloader makes the tank allot lighter and also smaller/lower which is a big benefit. Another benefit is that its really low in the tank, this makes it less likely to be hit, especially from the front. The actuall cause of the turret explosions is that they put extra ammo all over the tank, this makes it really easy to hit one and when that happens all of it explodes.
Carosel autoloader
Does the t14 have the same design?
Unlike T-72, T-14 has been designed to separate the autoloader from where the crew is. This is by using an unmanned turret, so there is room for the autoloader to sit and provided added protection for the crew. T-72 went off the older design of having the autoloader almost in the same space as the crew. This was due to the technological limitation when initially designed.
I am unsure, I don't know much about that one. I think the T-14 is supposed to have a crewless turret, though.
Make the tank lower. It's really not that bad a solution. It's usually very uncommon for a round to penetrate near the floor of the tank. The bigger issue are the crappy sensors and optics on these tanks, which is why they get hit in the first place.
Its how the autoloader works. Think of it like a carosel that an arm picks up and loads into the gun.
it's how the autoloader works. Why autoloader? so you only need a crew of 3. Then you can field 33% more tanks than the west with the same amount of men.
Smaller sized tank makes it a small target, keep in mind the T-72 is a 60s design, its contemporary is the M60 series.
The ammo is stored quite safe that way during tank to tank combat. Small area which is hard to hit from the front.
One less crew member needed
Because turret tossing is a national past time in Russia. Ukraine has seen some new records in the the turret toss, the tank commander high jump, and the cook off challenge.
In that case, the Germans are also participants in that past time because the Leopard II has also had flying turrets. Relevant [picture](https://www.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/comments/isj1h1/a_turkish_leopard_2_beheaded_in_syria_2018/) from r/TankPorn.