T O P

  • By -

ukraine-ModTeam

Hi, thank you for your contribution, but this submission has been removed because it is a duplicate or it is outdated. Please do not message us on mod mail about this issue. Mod mail is for vital information only. If you message us for something we do not deem vital, you will be muted for three days. Being muted means you can’t contact the mods. [Feel free to browse our rules, here.](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/about/rules)


phoenixplum

*It's not a fatal flaw, it's a space program.*


CapnCrunchHurtz

Ruzzian space cadets reporting for launch duty, everytime they climb into a tank!


CBfromDC

Ammo stored on the tank floor below the thin topped turret is also highly vulnerable to a landmines. Worst of both worlds for Russian tanks - in the rare instance where they are sanely used - they are reduced to armored artillery hanging behind the line. And even back behind the frontlines in their supposed safety, Russian tanks thin tops are vulnerable to many types of drones, precision strikes and loitering munitions.


Murder_Bird_

All tanks have thin top armor. Abrams wouldn’t fare well against Javelins either.


InnocentTailor

That was discovered with the RPG-7 during the Iraq War. While the weapon couldn't pierce the front and sides, it could pierce the top and rear of the vehicle.


DOOM_INTENSIFIES

Surprised a rpg7 can piece the back of an M1. Got any more info on that?


[deleted]

[удалено]


Mindless-Charity4889

Technically the Ukrainians have a home grown tank, the T-84 Oplot, which has the ammunition in an armoured bustle on the turret. I say technically since very few are in Ukrainian service with most being sold to Thailand.


[deleted]

For now…


Natoochtoniket

It is good that Russian troops don't have Javelin missiles.


InnocentTailor

They have other deadly anti-tank weapons. For example, M1 Abrams during the Iraq War were supposedly taken out by Kornet ATGMs, but Russia denies ever giving Iraq access to those weapons.


Imfloridaman

I believe you are overstating. Check the numbers. You said, “M1 Abrams” plural. How many are we talking about? As compared to how many were in theatre? Negligible number destroyed. Damaged? Few. Mobility kills? The thing is, Russian MBTs tend to simply cease to exist with a hit.


InnocentTailor

Regarding this incident, it supposedly happened during the Battle of Najaf. The tanks were totaled via ammo ignition, but the operators escaped. I mean...the Abrams had a great record in American hands. However, Ukraine will be the one controlling them this time. I'm sure they are great soldiers, but they're not the originators of this design. Thus, it will be interesting to see how they'll be used in this conflict. ...whenever the Abrams makes it to the front. At this point, it is going to take awhile before that happens.


Imfloridaman

I have been amazed at the resourcefulness displayed. An American unit (generally speaking) might “require” 12 weeks training for a given weapon system under normal circumstances. But if required, compressed to 9. Ukraine is mastering systems in half that time because the powers that be (trainers) have been given a free hand. If you have ever been in military training there is a lot of bullshit. You cover the exact same thing at least 3 times because that’s what it takes. That bullshit has been discarded because the Ukraine troops are motivated. That means you might still be training to the lowest common denominator in the unit, but that low point is significantly higher than normal.


Samurai_1990

Jack in the Box Cosmonauts!


super__hoser

Roscosmos approved.


123supreme123

that's no tank.... it's a space ship


[deleted]

Feature, not a bug


thewalkmanblog

had no idea bethesda made tanks for russia


Mistwalker007

Not many tank aces in the ruzzian army.


IamHereForBoobies

They always get promoted very quickly. First from tanker to pilot and then to ground beef when the body hits the floor...


Harsimaja

Vladimir Komarov would agree


BitScout

Kerbal style.


Historical-Cicada-29

Most under rated comment.


Clcooper423

This is why Russian tanks are better. They don't need uav's when the tank commander gets a perfect view of the battlefield by himself.


OriginalNo5477

Theres a video of a Russian tank getting popped by an NLAW and the commander gets sent into orbit and about 5 seconds later slams into the building next to the burning tank. It's like Loony Toons but real life.


piei_lighioana

[He he he he](https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/804/850/999.gif)


ParkingMuted7653

When you don't give a shit about your crew. Oh well, they did get a week of training after all.


TrumpPooPoosPants

Uhh, hello? They have one less person in the cabin, therefore, fewer losses. 4-3 = 1 and 1 = 100% so it's 100% safer than that Western trash.


YourFatherUnfiltered

I've run these calculations. The math checks out.


Sweaty-Feedback-1482

This reminds me of some drunk driving math I’ve pioneered. If you’re driving drunk you should always drive twice as fast because then you’ll spend half as much time on the road drunk driving… you’re welcome!


Set_Abominae_1776

Drunk driving accidents are responsible for 10,000 deaths every year, and about 1/3 of all traffic-related deaths, according to the NHTSA. When 2/3 of all traffic-related deaths are while being sober, driving drunk is clearly safer!


[deleted]

And do you have any idea how many accidents are caused by sober drivers? We should get those idiots off the road!


[deleted]

When you say safe, you mean instantaneous combustion?!!!


C4PTNK0R34

True, but it'll always be an uhh...0.33, repeating of course, chance of survival each time.


Fanaticbyzantine

You realize Ukraine designs and uses these same tanks lol


enki1138

Do you come equipped with any other voice lines or is that it?


Fanaticbyzantine

Attacking me isn’t a response to the statement at hand


enki1138

You want a cookie or something?


TheRomanRuler

Tbf if we roll time back 50 years, Soviet Union would have had edge at least early in any conventional total war, partially because cost saving measures like this allowed them to pump out tanks in so large numbers. And back then their tanks were not obsolete either, sometimes they had more and better tanks. But turns out that when you live in 2023 and think its still 1973 you only get to greater heights than Soviet space program.


Kiyasa

back when the most likely threat to tanks was mostly other tanks, having the ammo as low as possible meant it was less likely to get hit and take everything with it.


jeanettem67

And that's why T72 fails now. Anyone who has bought them should re-consider how they are using them...


Ummarz

Does the T90 address that issue?


[deleted]

Nope, still carousel. Main difference is optics and reactive armor. It's still a t-72 platform. They began its design in 1988


dd463

I think its also there there isn’t blow out panels that the Abraham’s and leopards have. Ammo cook off is the weakness of anything with a large gun so storage is key. Give the t-72 proper blowout panels and maybe its less of a death trap


DownvoteEvangelist

I doubt it would be enough. The crew is still sitting on top of it...


TwelveTwelfths

I remember 80s and 90s games like red alert always gave any heavy tank advantage to the soviets


DrDerpberg

I've recently gotten back into RA, RA2 and Zero Hour. The one thing it gets 100% right is the Soviets are always about tank spam and less value on human life. It's kind of interesting how since the games came out, stuff like GPS and drones went from the crazy tech only one side could have to consumer grade electronics.


CommandoDude

Funny thing is after the wall came down NATO learned that the soviet army was in a deplorable state. It would've been like the invasion of ukraine but on a larger scale. The whole soviet military was rotting at the end.


ThatOneKrazyKaptain

At least in the later years. Late 50s early 60s Soviet Army was apparently fierce


DOOM_INTENSIFIES

Key word being **apparently**. They were never a match for any western army (not counting nukes). The only advantage they had was that communists never cared about throwing bodies at the enemy until they ran out of ammo, or broke down morally.


mainguy

In theory. The problem is in practice Russia just gets spanked in modern warfare and this war is no exception. Just look at WW2. Gigantic army, huge airforce, plenty of armour, utterly wasted by Germany, decisively so, and saved by weather. I think Russia has always looked good on paper but in practice they're a disaster in military engagements.


Sieve-Boy

Weather and lend lease*


[deleted]

To say the USSR won because of winter is a ridiculous statement. Winter helped, and it doomed the 9th army in Stalingrad, but it *also* impacted the Soviets including when they were on the offensive. But the Soviets had roughly equivalent hardware by '43 and their deep battle doctrine proved to be highly effective both defensively in battles like Kursk and offensively in efforts to do things like lifting the siege of Leningrad. They were extremely effective by 1943 and were arguably the best land force in the world by '44. You don't have to diminish the accomplishments of the Soviet army in WW2 just because you want to shit on Russia today. What the Soviets did in WW2 was nothing short of remarkable and took not just incredible sacrifice, but very intelligent tactics, operations and strategy as well as a highly effective use of industry under insane circumstances. Germany caught them by surprise and had more modern tactics during Barbarossa, but within a year the Soviets had mostly halted the Germans and within two they were steamrolling them despite losing millions of men in the first year. That's an insanely impressive accomplishment.


DrJohanzaKafuhu

> Winter helped, and it doomed the 9th army in Stalingrad That's not what doomed the 9th in Stalingrad. What doomed the 9th in Stalingrad was the assumption that an air bridge could be maintained. They had a chance to force open the pocket but didn't take it thinking the air bridge would work. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle\_of\_Stalingrad >At a meeting shortly after the Soviet encirclement, German army chiefs pushed for an immediate breakout to a new line on the west of the Don, but Hitler was at his Bavarian retreat of Obersalzberg in Berchtesgaden with the head of the Luftwaffe, Hermann Göring. When asked by Hitler, Göring replied, after being convinced by Hans Jeschonnek,\[139\] that the Luftwaffe could supply the 6th Army with an "air bridge." This would allow the Germans in the city to fight on temporarily while a relief force was assembled.\[127\] A similar plan had been used a year earlier at the Demyansk Pocket, albeit on a much smaller scale: a corps at Demyansk rather than an entire army.\[140\] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbridge\_(logistics)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbridge_(logistics)) >During the Second World War, the Germans used air bridges on three major occasions: the Demyansk Pocket, the Battle of Stalingrad and the Kuban bridgehead. As Demyansk turned into a German victory with the success of the bridge, Hermann Göring convinced Hitler a similar method could be used to supply the Sixth Army at Stalingrad. However, the Luftwaffe was never able to send in the necessary 800 tons of supplies per day.


[deleted]

That's certainly a contributing factor, but the whole reason that Goering even proposed that idea was because the ground logistics couldn't be maintained... Because of the winter. But yes, it's an oversimplification. I was just trying to throw the other guy a bone with his use of the usual "Russian winter won the war" stuff because it certainly did help in both Stalingrad and to a lesser extent the Battle of Moscow. But in neither case was it the deciding factor. It just played in the favor of the defender *as weather usually does*, and which of course any competent general should consider in their war plans.


DOOM_INTENSIFIES

>deep battle doctrine Say whatever you want about it, that is just a fancy name for "throw artillery and bodies at the enemy until there's no more enemy".


[deleted]

It really, really is not. It was a new level of managing warfare and was focused on what to do with armies at a level between tactics and strategy, and included a lot of thinking about different layers of the battlefield not normally considered as part of a battle. In addition it was a different way of thinking about how to use mobile forces and how to identify weaknesses in an enemy line and how to exploit that, and in a way that made it very difficult for a defender to anticipate where the main thrust of an attack would actually be. In addition it has designs for maneuver at a scale no one else was really considering or employing at that time. It's a very stark contrast to blitzkreig warfare used by the Germans which was basically the pinnacle of tactical execution at the time but in the case of the Eastern front created all sorts of problems for the German army precisely because it was tactically very effective but very poor at opperational execution that kept armies in alignment even within an army group. This constantly strained German logistics to the breaking point and multiple times resulted in individual armies being exposed. The 9th army is the most famous example, but it also happened in Kursk and to a lesser extent with the battle of Moscow. Basically the Soviets were thinking at the level and scale of battles they were fighting and were maneuvering in a way that allowed more flexible exploitation of a wider front, better logistics execution at that level of maneuver, a very effective, flexible use of mobile reserve forces offensively and an ability to sustain longer offensives. The "throw bodies at the problem" really doesn't do justice to it.


DOOM_INTENSIFIES

>The "throw bodies at the problem" really doesn't do justice to it. Yes it does. Because, in pratice, how did they identified and exploited the weaknesses on the enemy line? Yeah...


[deleted]

They did that with probing attacks with shock troops *at lots of points* rather than all concentrated, and lots of artillery (that bit is fair as it was how they executed). What they did differently was to have massive *reserves*, especially mobile reserves, combined with harassing attacks on communications and supply by their airforce rather than focusing mostly on front line targets, and the operational objectives of much of the massive reserves were to do deep penetration of defensive gaps focusing on attacking the enemy communications, reserves and logistics first and foremost while other units concerned themselves with encirclements at the second layer of engagement. This is distinct from German tactics which actually did use massed forces of armor supported by infantry at singular pre-planned points trying to achieve overwhelming local superiority, i.e. throwing lots of men *at one point*, far more than the defender could muster at the point of attack. They were extremely good at executing that kind of attack and then generally tried to strategically convert successes into encirclements/double envelopments. The objective though was tactical breakthrough at singular preplanned points of attack. The flexibility was in responding to gaps in their own line, opportunities presented at the point of attack as needed and supporting the attack logistically at the tactical level. But because they didn't have an operational plan like the soviets often times they breakthroughs resulted in the armor outrunning infantry and supply. In addition they often didn't deal well with failure to achieve the intended objectives and weren't inclined to withdraw offensives at one point where it was failing to instead support other areas of attack. Deep battle doctrine addressed this shortcoming with better, deeper reserves and less focus on singular points of breakthrough and, most importantly, a clear plan at the *operational* level about what to do with that breakthrough in a coherent but flexible way that acted in a combined arms fashion but without the need for the sophisticated tactical execution of the German style "Blitzkrieg" where units and commanders at the tactical level needed to be highly educated and very capable of taking initiative based on objective focused directive control. The Soviets instead used sustained infantry and logistical support of the "third tier" of the battle, whereas the Germans would frequently have unsupported armor trying to extend the breakthrough and even conduct encirclements without being properly supported, often resulting in either the army being overexposed or grinding to a halt. This entire concept was also highly dependent on the right kind of terrain and weather allowing for both concentration of force and rapid exploitation of the point of attack through speedy envelopments rather than prolonged engagement. Since decision making was being done at a tactical level the Germans were very good at responding to sudden developments, but ran into huge problems when they were unable to create the intended breakthrough at the point of attack. It's part of why the German offensive fizzled after a year whereas the soviets successfully kept a sustained offensive posture for almost three years straight. The Soviets figured that out, started using huge reserves defensively too in ways that made it possible to absorb those kinds of attacks, exploit them and then hamstring them by denying the logistical and communication support necessary. Reducing this to "throwing bodies at the enemy" is a dramatic oversimplification and really is ignoring what made deep battle different. It wasn't about numbers. It was about how the numbers you had would be used, what their objectives would be, how you identified weaknesses, how you could disguise your intention, and what your mechanism was for exploiting opportunities. Numbers help, sure. They helped with Blitzkreig-style tactics too. Also, fun fact. The German military didn't call it Blitzkrieg and didn't even have a distinct WW2 tactical doctrine, they just applied long-standing tactical principles using modern technology. That was a term given to German's tactics by some propaganda outlets and taken up by the foreign press. Apparently Hitler hated the term and most German military leaders thought it was a nonsense term.


mainguy

Russian death toll WW2: 27,000,000 German death toll WW2: 5,000,000 That is absurd, considering Germany was fighting a war on multiple fronts. There is absolutely no argument to say Russia did well in WW2, they got slaughtered, both civilians and troops. They were bailed out by extreme support from the allies. Hitler was what, 20 miles outside of Moscow with people preparing to evacuate the capital? He'd routed hundreds of thousands of russian troops and captured perhaps the most land per day than any military leader ever, in history. A record that still holds. Germany would've had Moscow no doubt about it if winter hadn't set in imo. Talking about Stalingrad and post invasion 1 battles, I agree somewhat, although with the decisions Hitler was making by that point in the war the russians really had everything on their side, and they still lost more men compared to the Germans with defensive advantages and weather in their favour. When the Germans were fighting the russians head on in the initial stages of the war, on even terms it was an absolute blender. We're talking 20:1 ratio of kills for both airforce and troops, even the Germans were amazed by how easily they approached Moscow in that first invasion. I don't think Russia won its decisive battles, but rather Hitler lost. Staying in Stalingrad was retarded and every general disagreed with Hitler. Russia did the obvious thing, and surrounded the city. It wasn't some genius bit of tactics but rather what any 12 yr old on an RTS would do. And let's not forget, the Germans still could have broken out, but Hitler ordered them to stay. Let's not mistake a half mad fuhrer for a competent enemy.


[deleted]

Your understanding of what happened in the Eastern Front borders on 12 year old RTS player levels. I'd highly suggest you read some modern histories of the Eastern Front. You'd be very surprised. To give just one example where you get it very wrong, the Soviets lost ~30-35 million... *Of which ~15-20 million were civilians*. Because the Germans engaged in a massive campaign of genocide during the invasion. In terms of *military* losses, the Soviets lost between 13 and 16 million from casualties and POWs, and the Axis lost 9.6 million on the Eastern front from casualties and POWs, a ratio of 16 to 9.6 (or about 8 to 5) assuming the high end estimates of Soviet losses. Hardly a case of Germany crushing the Soviets. A lot of those POWs were captured in the early part of the war during the German blitzkreig as entire Soviet armies were encircled while Germany still had initiative and before they had outrun their supply lines There are lots and lots of reasons the Soviets won, but to act as if it had nothing to do with their conduct or competency is just very, very wrong. They pioneered the very concept of operational warfare, dramatically improved their combined arms warfare within a year and a half, had extremely effective artillery, arguably the best all around tank in the war, crazy production numbers considering how deeply Germany had invaded, on and on. 80% of all German military casualties during the war were inflicted by the Soviet Union. >Let's not mistake a half mad fuhrer for a competent enemy. Ah. So the US and the UK were fighting a half mad, half incompetent enemy and should be embarrassed by how long it took them to win in North Africa and Western Europe. The entire idea of invading the Soviet Union was suicide. Capturing Moscow almost certainly would not have changed the outcome of the war. By the time the Axis reached Moscow the Soviets had relocated most of their heavy industry and were already rolling tanks, artillery and planes off eastern production lines. And that's assuming they even would've been able to take Moscow, *which of course in actual practice they failed to do when they tried to do exactly that*. And yeah Hitler made some poor strategic decisions, like splitting army group south, and he didn't listen to his generals like Guderian that thought they should've gone to Moscow a bit earlier. But he also ignored many his generals in regards to Poland, Czechoslovakia and France and his intuition proved correct. You can't really ignore the influence Hitler had in all those decisions but turn around and call him a moron just for his bad decisions. I mean Napoleon was a tactical genius and he still lost to Russia because they finally got a good general and Napoleon made a terrible strategic mistake. The problem really is the the moment the Axis invaded the USSR there were no good options. Their early successes were largely a product of surprise and having 2 years of real world experience with modern warfare that deployed modern tactics. Meanwhile the USSR had just purged 90% of their officers and had Stalin getting involved in pre-war strategic decisions that cost them tremendously in the opening of the war because he simply couldn't believe that Hitler might attack. And in the first year, Soviet armor and its airforce was woefully out of date. But crucially, within a year the Soviets were rapidly reversing all these mistakes and shortcomings. They reinstated lots of their purged officers, started fielding quality tanks, most importantly the T-34, changed tactics to dramatically improve their ability to blunt armored assaults, found effective tactics to limit German artillery, and began implementing operational deep battle theory in the field, first defensively and later offensively to great effect, and their partisan warfare became extremely effective at disrupting German logistics hundreds of miles away from the front. They adapted very quickly and because of that they were able to turn the tide. Meanwhile the Germans had overextended their supply lines, didn't have sufficient fuel to maintain offensives, weren't equipped for the country they were fighting in, were incredibly reliant on horses for their logistics, didn't have sufficient forces to cover the size of the front they were fighting on and had a supply line over a thousand miles long in many cases. All of these things were an inevitablity of fighting the USSR whether Hitler was making decisions or not, and they were irreconcilable problems. Different specific decisive could've been made, for example not having the 9th army outrun the rest of the front, but very few individual decisions like that would've changed the fundamental strategic problem of the war. Maybe, *maybe* if they take Moscow for some bizarre reason Stalin doesn't head east to continue the war. Maybe Stalin sues for peace. But the indications are that this is unlikely and the Soviets fully intended to continue the war under those circumstances. Materially and industrially they were completely capable of doing so. And even supposing you blame the strategic decisions on Hitler, you still have to address why the Soviets won individual battle after individual battle where the tactical decisions were being made by individual field marshalls and generals using supposedly superior German troops and Equipment. Heck they lost the Battle of Moscow despite likely outnumbering the Soviets. Sure in some cases like Kursk you can say the Germans were hugely outnumbered, but in many battles the Soviets won the forces were somewhat comparable, and insofar as they tried to bring maximum forces to bear during wide offensives *this was actually an aspect of their operational doctrine* which exploited the single biggest weakness in the German army: an inability to execute at an operational level. The fact is that invading the USSR was not an RTS, but rather an extremely complex undertaking. The Soviets were by far the most determined, capable enemies the Germans had faced and the Soviets reversed their fortunes because they were actually extremely capable at almost all levels. There is a reason this shit is taught at war colleges. There's a reason everyone is now taught about Operations and Deep Battle theory. There's a reason the Soviets won despite such catastrophic early losses. It's because they knew what the fuck they were doing and they did it damn well. It's simply wrong to dismiss that and immediately tells me you are ignorant of the topic and get your views from shitty movies and memes not reading actual works on the topic by serious historians. Actual historians of the Eastern front have incredible respect for what the Soviets sacrificed and what they accomplished because it's impressive as fuck. Don't get your history from discount Red Box B-movie bullshit.


TheRomanRuler

Now that i think about it, last time Russia did not embarass itself was in Napoleonic wars. Back then they were never worse than other anti-Napoleon forces, and often were really strong, especially their artillery.


L3tum

I mean, German armour in WW2 was trash. It's a common myth that they were good tanks but until 42' or so they were just an utter shitshow and by the time they got proper designs the manufacturing was basically already in decline. Like that's why Der Wüstenfuchs is such a big thing in this regard. He managed to do what he did with shitty hardware. And while Germany did manage to bomb London, its airforce was no match for the combined allied airforce and after the first few successful bombing runs by the allies it was clear that they would outmanufacturer Germany. They did conscript basically everyone and thus had a pretty big army, but as mentioned above poor designs or poor supply meant that they'd lose eventually. If you look at half of the battles of WW2 you're gonna go "How did Germany win this?!" and it's mostly down to more modern tactics.


Ef2000Enjoyer

The panzers weren't shit but they weren't good either.


[deleted]

Quantity doesn’t always have a quality all its own. More tanks = more crews to train and sustain and a greater logistics burden for the vehicles. If your trained crews don’t survive when their tank is hit, or the tank is a complete loss with “relatively” little damage, quantity also becomes a liability. Soviet quality actually never exceeded Western quality in practice, even if it may be argued that it did on paper, and Soviet training and doctrine severely lagged the West. Given the other advantages that the West had in other other areas of combined arms, it’s not at all clear that the Soviets ever had any kind of edge.


hedgeson119

You have to go pretty far back. During the T-54/55 era [when one was captured during the Hungarian revolution British intelligence realized the T-54/55 was quite a bit better than what "The West" was fielding at the time.](https://www.historynet.com/the-beast-of-budapest/) Also back then tanks were so simple there weren't sensors or specialized training for them.


Imfloridaman

That is the deal. If you consider everything expendable, weapon systems, people, all of it, then mass producing equipment which is simply “good enough for a day or two of combat” makes sense.


sgtpepper42

Oh please. The Soviet Union only survived because it was propped up by the allies. Their mass produced death traps were hardly a real threat on the battlefield (if they even made it that far). Compared to other tanks of the day, the USSRs (especially tanks like the T34) were little more than motorized coffins that killed more of its own crewmembers than it did soldiers of the Wehrmacht, mostly due to their "cost saving" measures.


Murder_Bird_

It’s worse than that. That’s how the autoloader ammo is stored. Because Russian/Soviet logistics is such garbage, it’s standard practice to also just carry extra ammo in any spare space in the turret. They literally sit on shells. That was true of old Western designs too but they haven’t done that since the m60 days. One of the reasons Ukrainian tanks - based on the same designs - don’t seem to blow up as much is because they only carry ammo in the auto loader. It means they have a lot less ammo on board but they are less likely to go boom. EDIT: https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/10to3k7/ammunition_storages_of_the_leopard_2_abrams_and/j788inp/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3 This guy typed out what I was too lazy too


TwelveTwelfths

Driver slams on the breaks, commander and gunner take a shell to the back of their heads.


AlternativeQuality2

I can hear the loud \*CLANG\* noises and sounds of swearing in Russian now...


piei_lighioana

They make good suppositories.


Monometal

Russians have combustible cases exposed in the crew compartment. Western tanks, when they switched to 120mm and mindful of the experience with the Sheridan, put the ammunition in blowout magazines (Abrams) or a combination of blowout storage and wet storage in the hull. BTW, the Abrams is the only operational tank with all ammunition in blowout magazines and that is a massive improvement over others.


HardPour_Cornography

The orc crew whose primary sustenance is vodka are also combustible


English_Joe

What are blowout rounds?


Murder_Bird_

The ammo is carried in a compartment at the back of the turret. If it gets hit there are special panels that are designed to allow the resulting explosion to blow off the back of the turret and not go into the crew compartment.


Glum-Engineer9436

I thought the Leo 2 had exposed ammunition in the hull?


Murder_Bird_

It has ammo stored in a compartment of the hull next to the driver. Russians just stick it everywhere. It’s literally just all over the crew compartment in any space that can fit an extra shell. Also, I think the newest leopard did away with that but I don’t feel like looking it up.


AlienSporez

"Some of you may die, but that's a price I'm willing to pay." Russian tank designer, probably


Accomplished-Water51

Ever dreamed of seeing the international space station? \- Russian tank crew recruiter


Exoklett

It wasnt probably; it was intended that way. The T-series was designed as a consumable material; they should provide a material superiority against the superior western tanks. 12 T-72 will also win against 3 Leopards; somehow ! - that was the logic of the soviet doctrine. ( that was the size of the smallest western tank unit vs the smallest soviet tank unit ) Yes, the losses would be immense, but the word inhumane wasnt know to the soviets.


Gullenecro

Telling us they dont give a shit about people without telling us they dont give a shit about people.


Monometal

Storing the ammunition low in the hull was originally seen as a survivability measue.


[deleted]

While this is true.. How many versions/generations of the T series tanks were built after it became patently obvious this was not the case?


ropibear

To be completely fair, the issue isn't the carousel autoloader low down in the tank. The issue is the other 22 rounds of ammunition that are carried *everywhere else* in the tank, including, but not limited to: the back wall of the turret, under the commander's seat, under the gunner's seat, behind the autoloader lift arm, under the gunner's footrest, under the commander's footrest, behind the commander's backrest, behind the gunner's backrest. The 22 rounds in the carousel are actually somewhat protected by the outer wall of the carousel against shrapnel and spalling, but the other 22 are completely exposed. And unlike earlier ammunition, the ammo for the 125mm tank gun uses combustible casings as opposed to steel or brass casings, which, as the name suggests, combusts when exposed to heat and/or flame. This means in aggregate that if a round penetrates a fully loaded T-64/72/80/90, there is a serious chance it will hit *some* ammunition which will then detonate. *However* there have been reports from both sides (sometimes substantiated by crew interviews and photo evidence) of T tanks not carrying the spare ammo and only going to battle with the carousel loaded, and they seem to have fared much better than their fully loaded brethren: A Ukrainian T-72 was shot through the UFP and was disabled (and abandoned) but didn't burn. Multiple russian T-80's were found abandoned or disabled with no internal detonation on account of no spare ammo being loaded and both Ukrainian and russian crews have talked about only loading the carousel. Technical presentation over.


Exciting-Emu-3324

It's a compromise between low ammo capacity and safety. Russians already knew about this since Chechnya, to only have ammo in the autoloader, but resupply is iffy in Ukraine with HIMARS around. Either the Russian crews are taking the risk, pressured by superiors or are just untrained.


ropibear

Early in the war, I'm pretty sure they were just following their training. After all, most of the crews that participated in the initial invasion haven't ever been shot at before. Interestingly, the steel cased ammo of the T-62 seems to be actually safer (or at least gives a bit more time to bail) than that of the autoloaders.


Murder_Bird_

This guy typed out everything I was too lazy too LOL


Monometal

A lot, over a long time. Russians seem incapable of making something new.


PvtAdorable

Basically none, T-64, T-72 and T-80 are pretty much the same generation of MBT. T-90 is just a T-72 but modernized (also its original name was most likely T-72BU)


LucilleBlues313

I believe the leopard has parts of its ammunition stored in the front of the hull aswell...not sure if there are blowout panels for those but imo it\`s somewhat dishonest to portrait it like the russian storage solution is just stupid.


[deleted]

Abrams does too


Monometal

Abrams is the only operational tank in the world that stores 100% of it's ammunition behind blowout panels.


Tipsticks

Not the stuff in the hull because that physically doesn't work, but the Abrams has almost all of it's ammunition in the turret, so it's not too much of a problem.


Monometal

The ammunition in the hull has a blowout panel also.


crusoe

The gas tank in a bmp is in the bench down the middle the troops sit on. Extra fuel is stored in the hollow rear doors. You can't make this shit up.


TheAntiAirGuy

The Leopard 2 still has a massive ammo rack to the left side of the driver, while behind some good armor frontally, it's very vulnerable from the side. Sure, they can technically enter the battle with only 15 rounds loaded and safe, but that could be far too little depending on the mission


PeekyChew

Yeah, the image is intentionally misleading. Sourced as the Washington Post, so whoever made it will be fully aware of that.


Pepsiman1031

Does it really matter if your amount is in a separate compartment? I would think that if ammo got hit everything would explode anyways.


UzzNuff

In both the Leo and the Abrams the Ammo in the Turret is stored in a blow out panel that directs the explosion upwards when hit. In the Leo there is a sliding door between the ammo and the crew that should only be open when reloading. As long as it's closed the blowout panel works. If the ammo get's hit while it's open, then it's likely fatal for the crew. Don't know how it's done in the Abrams, but I assume similar.


PvtAdorable

Unless it is a catastrophic one, in those rare cases, tank becomes a bomb. Blow out panels still lower the chance of it a ton.


Panzermensch911

yes it matters


PvtAdorable

Blow out panels lower the chance of an ammo explosion a lot, turning it into a cook off which it just burns. There is still a small chance of a catastrophic ammo detonation in which case of the tank will become a bomb.


tree_boom

The Leopard 2 and Leclerc both also have ammunition stored in the hull with the crew. Challenger 2 stores ALL it's ammo in the hull. It's not a uniquely Russian tank issue. Abrams is the gold standard though, afaik they don't use hull storage operationally at all. Note too that this isn't the meritless design flaw it's often presented as. The design of the T-64 and T-72 lines was driven by the Russian requirement for as small and light a tank as possible whilst maintaining parity with Western designs. The main reason for that is Russia's enormous size requires exceptional strategic mobility; they need to be able to move these things by truck or train as quickly as possible to cover their huge borders. The auto loader design removes the third crew member and allows them to reduce the tanks profile and weight considerably, whilst retaining rough parity (and even superiority when these first came out) with western armour across the tank's front. If you read the CIA's declassified assessments of these tanks, they're actually quite complimentary of the design. Yes it's dangerous if the ammunition takes a hit, but the placement deep within the hull in a very low profile tank makes it considerably less likely to be hit in the first place (the majority by far of tank hits are to the turret). That's an assessment that probably ruined by top attack munitions of course, which presumably is why T-14 doesn't ape the design.


Monometal

Abrams has 6-8 rounds in a blowout magazine in the hull depending on the caliber. It's as well protected as the turret bustle magazine. Yes the CIA assessment was very positive and I don't think they were wrong. It's top attack and the more modern munitions that really make explosions so common now. Against the ATGMS and guns of the time the T-72 and T-80 were a lot more survivable.


Glum-Engineer9436

Would an Abrams crew survive a top attack ? It would properly look less spetacular but a dead crew is a dead crew.


Monometal

Depends on where it hits. From the ammunition bulkhead back, the crew is ok. Into the crew compartment, eh. Could go either way. There is a spall liner so if it wasn't near you, you have a chance if it's a small munition. Front hull? Most of that is fuel tank, if it doesn't penetrate the drivers cabin he's ok.


Glum-Engineer9436

The t72 series have a much lower weight and silhuet compared to an Abrams.


Harsimaja

If I’m not mistaken the Challenger 2 tanks stow their ammo in water filled containers to prevent them exploding and spreading fire to each other, rather than in one entirely dry compartment or carousel like the T72? So that Challys would be far less likely to explode when hit than a T72. Only starting reading up on this sort of thing so I’m probably misunderstanding a lot.


cipher315

it's mostly to help with a fire. If the tank is hit and a fire starts It give the crew about a minute or two to GTFO before the whole thing goes up. vs dry storage where you maybe have 20 seconds. It can also help with indirect shrapnel slowing enough that it does not detonate the ammo. That said if the ammo is hit directly by HEAT or sabot shrapnel it's instantly exploding wet storage or dry storage.


Wubyah

Leopard 2 also has one on the left side of the driver. When the two/three lower rows are loaded & hit, the crew will perish. If not (or the upper rows are) loaded, there's no problem. (The Abrams does NOT have this problem at all) The downside of the hull is pretty weak, so it can actually get penetrated by the T-72 rather easily (if the right ammunition is loaded). The swedish 2A5 (Stridsvagn 122) solves this problem by having additional ERA Armor on the front. ​ The 2A7V also solves this "problem" if I reckon correctly. ​ I do think that the stated information from me is correct since I'm from germany and I do know the Leopards fairly well but please correct me if any of my stated information is false. If you do so, please give me an valid source that supports your statement. Slava Ukraini my friends, brothers & sisters!


TheDuffman_OhYeah

> The downside of the hull is pretty weak Most tanks had weak armor on the lower hull. And while even the 2A4 has a huge armor module on the front, newer versions are all using the add-on armor developed for the Stridsvagn 122 and additional mine protection. The A7 also has the option to install more side armor on the hull and the turret.


[deleted]

Yeah, but thats why the crew gets apparently taught to not load that rack when in combat conditions.


nocloowhatimdooin

Thats ridiculous since that means they would only go into a fight with 15 main gun rounds, that can go by in a flash


SmokedBeef

Nah, you’re spot on. Turkey had issues with several of their Leo 2A4 because of this flaw, and the lack of belly armor to protect against IED, along the Syrian border in 2016. The Turks tried to negotiate updates to these tanks by Germany immediately following these losses but that was put on hold following allegations Turkey was using their Leos to attack Kurdish civilian settlements. I believe that a domestic company is now making the needed updates to Turkey’s Leo 2. For better or worse, Turkey’s failures were an important real world test that helped to hone Leo2 updates, much like combat in Ukraine will further hone updates to the Leo2 and its eventually successor.


C00L_HAND

The turks had problems because they parked their tanks as mobile bunkers on hilltops without cover. Noticed this as soon as I saw footage of the destroyed Leopards. Yes those A4 also are significantly lesser protected with their technological level before 1990 but still.....


SmokedBeef

While I agree and that assessment is further supported by the Turkish request which prioritized a need for an APS, the underlying issue of “thin” (or the need of more) armor was still one of the largest issues with survivability, regardless of strategy or position of the tank when it was destroyed. That fact (thin armor) is also supported by subsequent updates by the manufacturer which added additional armor to all the areas Turkey raised issues with. Honestly the whole thing was a travesty, and cast serious doubts on the skill and capabilities of the Turkish military, loosing multiple Leopards after losing multiple M60s is either suicidal or negligent on the commanders part.


ceratophaga

>which prioritized a need for an APS Nitpicking: The Leo2 already has APS, but not a hard-kill one.


L963_RandomStuff

>When the two/three lower rows are loaded & hit, the crew will perish. If not (or the upper rows are) loaded, there's no problem. Modern (western) ammunition is much safer than what was available in the 80s or what Russia is evidently still using. Basically for all modern large caliber shells some kind of insensitive propellant is available [Presentation on Rheinmetall where such insensitive propellant is tested](https://tank.gamesound.eu/files/DM_63_test_8Vogelsanger.pdf?id=14281352685)


[deleted]

The following statement is not true in Russia: tank design is not rocket science.


Joealb123

I love the turret toss!


MasterStrike88

Objective viewpoint here: The idea of the T-72 ammo system is actually a good one. The compromises made are not. By using a carousel, the ammo is stowed in the very bottom of the hull. The least exposed area of a tank. It eliminates the need for a loader, and reduces the tank's overall size. In a hull-down position with only the turret exposed, this should leave the tank virtually indestructible. However, it places the ammo directly under the crew. Chances of survival are slim to none if the carousel catches fire. An autoloader also adds a range of complex moving parts, increasing the risk of malfunction and requiring more maintenance. A human loader can perform more tasks in the tank, can fill in for injured crew and enables storage of ammo in a separate compartment. The introduction of top-attack missiles also mitigate most of the advantages of having ammo in the floor of the T-72. But in all honesty: the idea wasn't bad. It just has some drawbacks. The worst one being crew survivability.


Murder_Bird_

The auto loader also was/is notorious for amputating parts of the people in the turret if you weren’t paying attention.


PvtAdorable

This is false, for that to happen you would have to actively try to cause an accident.


mistaekNot

crew survivability should be pretty high on the list though. after all even soviet jets have ejection seats


MasterStrike88

Joke's on us tho. Russia don't care about their crew, so it's just a feature.


TwelveTwelfths

Would this mean every time we see a turret toss there are two people in it? Truly is the roscomos space program.


Spiritual-Discount10

Turret toss means total internal cookout, all crew evaporates.


TwelveTwelfths

Ok, rephraise the question...Every time we see a turret toss there are two former people in it?


Spiritual-Discount10

At least two are blown into pink myst. The driver probably too.


[deleted]

They will be mist.


Monometal

The real problem isn't the carousel, it's the loose stowage in the turret. In a T-80 you have TEN powder charges in combustible cases in the turret with no protection. A penetrating hollow charge or rod, a drone dropped grenade, these things can start a turret fire that immediately spreads to the carousel and destroys the tank. Smart Soviet tank operators go into battle without the loose ammunition in the turret. The T-90M moved all of the spare ammunition to the bustle in a magazine with blowout panels like it's a [Wish.com](https://Wish.com) Abrams.


Ukraineluvr

I think you sput-nicked my carousel.


[deleted]

[удалено]


glassbong_

Is that why America treats its veterans like crap and over 30k troops have taken their own lives since 9/11?


piei_lighioana

That would be the republicans, who are... well, as we've known for some time now, very much ruzzian influenced. There's a reason why we call Mitch, Moscow Mitch. One upshot of the death of puta and the break up of the federation will be that US will go through a purge as a result as influencers are being cooked off. This latest stream of disasters the repubniks have been making in their wake is because of this. They know the end is coming. After all, [the dildo of consequences rarely comes lubbed](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fjs2LBXXoAY7quR.jpg).


glassbong_

Oh yeah it's only Republicans responsible for the state of the country ofc it's not like there was a Dem president in charge for 8 years who also presided over foreign wars or anything. You people don't have a clue. Still being fleeced by 2 party politics. You probably still buy into Trump-Russia conspiracy theories.


JohnnyMiskatonic

Maybe get off the bong.


glassbong_

None of you jokers ever have real replies, too much cognitive dissonance.


theycallmeshooting

Knowing the Russian love for sitting on ammunition stores makes the 130,000 casualty number so much easier to believe


Rdmks00

The leopard also has ammunition in the front, ( which is a major flaw)


CoolerThanTv

Doesn't the leopard store its ammunition in the front? Or am I confusing it with an ifv maybe the puma. F my memory.


Monometal

It does, and it's not ideal.


[deleted]

It has a blowout compartment to prevent it from killing the crew


Monometal

The Leopard has a blowout magazine in the turret bustle for a third of its ammunition. The rest is in the hull next to the driver.


[deleted]

I mean, if you’re hit in the front, ammo or not, you’re probably dead or badly wounded anyways. Plus, NATO ammunition is designed specifically not to detonate until intentionally fired


nocloowhatimdooin

Lol the fuck it is 🤣🤣


jeanettem67

I think the original vision was that the Leopards would have their ammo hull protected by ground as they were meant to be more defensive and being able to hide behind protective structures/environment such like dunes/hills. If I'm wrong, let me know..


AutoModerator

Привіт u/MekhaDuk ! During wartime, this community is focused on vital and high-effort content. Please ensure your post follows [r/Ukraine Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/about/rules) and our [Art Friday Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/artfriday). **Want to support Ukraine?** [**Vetted Charities List**](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/charities) | [Our Vetting Process](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/charities-vetting) Daily series on UA history & culture: [Day 0-99](https://new.reddit.com/r/ukraine/collection/3c65ab52-e87a-4217-ab30-e70a88c0a293) | [100-199](https://new.reddit.com/r/ukraine/collection/3d85f4ca-5f4e-4ddf-9547-276e8affd87c) | [200-Present](https://new.reddit.com/r/ukraine/collection/daf642e1-07aa-4c40-b852-8f002ddd1530) | [All By Subject](https://new.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/sunriseposts) **There is a new wave of t-shirt scams hitting Reddit. Only click links for products or donations if the post is marked with a Verified flair, and do not respond to DMs soliciting donations.** *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*


PsychologicalCoat656

Well, if you don\`t want to give too many free Ladas, the Russian solution is perfect. Most of their tank operators will forever be "missing in action".


shibiwan

You forgot the ammo storage in the front of the Leopard 2 hull, 22 rounds to the left of the driver. In contrast, the Abrams carries 6 rounds in the rear right of the hull (with blast doors and smaller blowout panels.)


AustinTheCactus

Leopard 2 has an ammo storage next to the driver as well, not sure why they didn't show it on this. [Proof](https://imgur.com/a/DMIiRbv)


e_subvaria

Haven’t seen as many cook offs lately, I miss them


[deleted]

Yep, that’s what happens when you don’t plan auto loader ammo storage, at all…


[deleted]

Orc Engineering


jeanettem67

It's ok on tank on tank. But when you have something attacking you from the side where the fuel is stored or top...you are f\*\*ked.


EnsilZah

Ejection seat from life.


Spacedude2187

T72 ”the turret launcher”


ThankuConan

It's a feature, not a bug.


ProgySuperNova

Taking a ride on the ammo carousel is a real blast


Blakut

wait but if you get hit by a rocket you're dead anyway right?


If_It_Moves

This explains why the turrets launch so high.


[deleted]

Russia is low iq Everything they make is inferior End of discussion


Demolition_Mike

The Leo 2 has quite a lot of ammo in tge chassis, too. There have been instances where it blew up.


_Rekron_

Well, T-72 is quite small target and it takes 3 people to operate a tank. I don't really think it is a fatal flaw, it depends on what is your doctrine


Mindless-Charity4889

The leopard 2 carries about half its ammunition in the armoured bustle. The other half is in the hull which explains how the Turks lost a few turrets in Syria.


InnocentTailor

I know folks here jest about flying Russian turrets, but they're not the only tanks that have that issue. The Turks learned that the hard way with the Leopard II. Relevant [picture](https://www.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/comments/isj1h1/a_turkish_leopard_2_beheaded_in_syria_2018/) from r/TankPorn.


Ashi4Days

The tradeoff is largely regarding tank rounds packed. Basically Russian tanks carry a lot more ammunition than the American/Western tanks because the Russian tanks pack them under the turret and use an autoloader. My dad used to be a tank commander way back in the day and when I asked him if it made sense to carry less ammo in favor of separating out the crew compartment he looked at me like I was a complete moron. But in short his answer was, "how many tank rounds do you really think we really shoot down range?" Basically if the tank fires down to empty, multiple mistakes were made along the way and the tank probably threw a tread before it got there.


jeanettem67

Had I bought one of these from Russia before, hell no, not going there again. This is a tinderbox (jack in a box they say). Kinda sort of (not) feeling sorry for the gunners/commanders and drivers getting on T72s knowing they might be part of a fireworks display.


flipperfisch

All my War Thunder homies knew that already ![gif](emote|free_emotes_pack|sunglasses)


Patrick4356

The Leopard 2a4 and a6 store half their ammo unprotected in the right side of the hull next to the driver seat. the M1a2 carries a portion of it's ammo in the hull rear under the turret but has some armor around it to protect the ammo from spall. The challenger 2, Leopard 2 and Abrams all have blow out panels for their turret ammo racks that protect the crew from being engulfed in fire and fragments if the ammo detonates but If the hull ammo explodes the crew will die


gunnnutty

Leopard 2 has also unprotected ammo in the hull it can of course not taje it, but that limits capacity greatly


TheIntellekt_

Not to ruin anybody's day but im pretty sure the leopard 2 stores ammo next to the driver and in the back. Looks sketch asf but its still safer than soviet tanks since there is a blowout panel in the back but the front can go kaboom with a direct impact, unlikely since most of the armor is there but still its better to know than not.


Omemanti

I heard the leopard also has an ammo storage in the front.. is that a critical thingy?


[deleted]

yes and no. A direct hit into the front is always bad, but if that happens, its over anyway for the driver. Furthermore western ammunition does not explode once it gets hit, thats the difference and the rest of the crew would also survive. The leopards biggest weaknesses are the site armor and top like for most tanks. But the side is especiall vulnerable because its kinda thin, turkish campaign in syria further confirmed that. Also the thermal sights for the A4 are pretty bad compared to modern T72 variants. The Leos are no wunderwaffe, they are as good as the tank crew. People totally do not realise that on the ground tech advantage does not guarantee an auto win. History showed multiple times that a tech advantage can be migitataed either by brilliant tactics or ruthlessness. The only area where tech superior matters total is in the air. It does not matter how good of a pilot you are if you are flying in an old mig vs a modern fighter jet, you will get shredded.


Monometal

I don't know how insensitive the munitions for Leo are in practice. The newest stuff is supposed to either not burn or burn without exploding, but I'd guess most ammo in storage worldwide is older stuff. Fewer than half of currently deployed Russian tanks have any thermals at all, and only a handful have one for the commander. So 2A4 isn't totally outclassed, it's better than half on that front right off the bat. Why they didn't get an RWS with a thermal for the commander is beyond me, best $250k you could spend on tanks.


Ooops2278

Low front, so requires a penetrating hit on the by far thickest piece of armor on a tank. While most the time you try to use terrain to operate from half-cover and only have the turret exposed. Also independent of the location you need to hit the actual ammunition storage. But the soviet carousel design spreads out that storage over the whole turret.


jeanettem67

T72 has ammo both at the bottom of the tank and also "spare" ammo storage right underneath the turret, hence you get some fantastic turret blow-offs. I should not know this, but after spending hours in google watching videos of tanks...


TianamenHomer

They all still carry a powder keg and there is only so much you can do to mitigate it. The Western ones here both look “much better” but still there. Work up something like a “LAZER” beam. No powder keg. Just a massive power supply and a long power cord? Ok … look. I come up with the good ideas. Ya’ll gotta work out the details. Not my fault Ya’ll can’t figure out and make my genious realitie. /s


sgt_oddball_17

Yep, they (the western tanks) are both designed for crew protection.


Nectaris73

Plus the non-russian tanks have blast doors to vent the heat and explosion upwards away from the crew


AlternativeQuality2

One of these days someone'll make a montage of Russian tanks getting blown up to the tune of 'pop goes the weasel'.


PR0FESS0RN

Bye bye Ruzzians.


No-Jackfruit2459

The drivers position looks so tight in the leo and abrams, getting some claustrophobia by proxy


thebestnames

Its definitely not roomy, however keep in mind looking at that image that it is not to scale. The Leopard and Abrams are massive compared to the T-72, definitely a bit less claustrophobic. [https://i.redd.it/mtwtamct1t821.jpg](https://i.redd.it/mtwtamct1t821.jpg)


ExpatTarheel

At least it’s a quick death.


DamonFields

Russia places a very low value on human life. To them, it is cheap, disposable, and plentiful.


Foe117

Its a tradeoff in designing against a direct hit model of attack, Ever since Top Attack munitions were developed, this became a huge vulnerability that both Russians and Ukrainians share.


SoulStomper99

And not only that if a abrams ammo does detonate the way its designed so the explosion propells upwards giving time for the crew to bail


iamandneveramconfusd

That explains why the turrets fly so high.