Why is everyone still doing it except the Americans? And maybe the T-14, if it ever enters service.
You'd think after 10 years of watching turrets being launched into space everyone would drop that idea once and for all. Meanwhile most of the new designs and concepts that feature manned turrets still stubbornly stick to keeping the ammunition inside the hull with the crew as if it wasn't a big deal.
It's not like ammo explosion is just the fault of Russian carousel loaders since Leclerc and Leopard also scored high in the great middle eastern turret throwing competition, so what the frick? Is it the old cold war idea that the best protected tank is the one that shoots first? But with all those guided missiles and drones everywhere a tank can't really hope for getting to be the first to shoot anymore.
I just don't get it.
When did a Leclerc throw it’s turret? Genuinely asking here, I’ve seen a couple of them disabled but never catastrophically.
Not exactly a turret throw but there were photos of them exploded to bits in Yemen.
Post proofs?
IIRC UAE have lost two Leclercs to mines and one to ATGM which killed the driver, and injured the commanders legs
Same thing with the Leo. I never heard of a turret toss. And the only pictures we have are of the Turkish abadoooners that got bombed by the air force.
the abrams has hull ammo stowage
also it’s for ammo obviously
Yeah like 3 shells in a ready rack in early versions, it was deleted later.
it’s 6
i’m pretty sure it still exists but just not used
There is a hull ammo storage, but it has blowout panel/blast door protection(it's the triangular hole behind the turret ring) just like the turret bustle.
Bro, that triangular hole is the driver's hatch. You can see the hull ammo storage just over the ladder in that picture though.
many countries with hull ammo storage don't actually use it. Better to have and not need i guess
Because the hull is one of two choices you have in where you store ammo, and storing 30+ rounds of ammo in the relatively compact space that is the turret is difficult unless you adopt a design that essentially doubles it's size.
>I just don't get it.
That's because you're running the typical armchair approach of "this design feature isn't completely ideal from this one standpoint so therefore it's completely fricking useless and must never be used under any circumstances whatsoever" whereas reality is one big pile of compromises.
Leopard has the turret drive hydraulics in the bustle. The hydraulic fluid itself used to be flammable in earlier versions. There was an expectation that a good deal of fighting against the Soviets would be done in hull down positions in a defense in depth battlefield. The tradeoff being the bustle ammo stowage (and thus blowout protected stowage) would be sufficient as the hull ammo would not be exposed.
The Abrams hull storage is limited and also has blowout panels, making it a case of a fully blowout protected ammo configuration.
>The Abrams hull storage is limited and also has blowout panels, making it a case of a fully blowout protected ammo configuration.
Speaking of, anybody got any good pictures showing how these work?
The hull ones? They're nothing special and there's not really much imagery of them in action because out of paranoia and practice crews just stopped carrying ammo there and use it as a place to shove their gear and MREs into. No need for every single maingun round that needed to be consumed in a big Soviet push given the use case of the Abrams turned into the shitfest that was Iraq twice where Bradleys got more kills than Abrams the first time.
Externally you'll just see the spots on the hull where they're clearly panels that are separate from the hull structure.
So is the idea when your bustle stowage kaboomed off in the middle of a battle loader reaches down for these 6 rounds and you fights your way out? Is there a training contingency to do this? Seems kind of hardcore
It was more the idea that you need to carry as much ammo as possible in a tank and the designers just figured out how to shoehorn a few more rounds into that particular spot.
It's not much of a mystery. You're storing ammunition outside the hull, essentially unprotected by anything bigger than small arms, and have to hope 100% of incoming fire is from the frontal arc. It's a much higher chance of a mission kill in exchange for reduced crew casualties.
Modern ammo doesn't really explode anymore.
The entire hull storage drama is just astroturfed by one (1) obsessed moron on /k/ and newBlack folk fell for.
>Modern ammo doesn't really explode anymore.
Modern, Western, insensitive munitions don't really explode anymore. Russian ammo happily explodes, sometimes at random.
Reminds me how people were shotting on new german prototypes because they only had turret dtorsge and thus rather low ammo count. Who cares anymore let's just launch the nukes. morons.
That was just people confusing the 20 round ready rack with the entire ammo capacity for some reason.
A couple probably spread that maliciously. Total ammo capacity is gonna differ a lot based on which subsystems are in the version that is chosen since it's very modular but most countries probably won't take all.
In the case of the challenger 2 its because it uses 3 piece ammo for autism reasons so the sabots in the racks are only dangerous via cancer and the bag charges in the bin are really the only explody thing. A challenger 1 got penned in the turret by a HESH round and it only killed 1 guy.
Jesus Christ
whom ever drew this need to be castrated
That just makes it more hot
probably drawn by a woman anon
This is the power of twitter and tiktok right here.
Turret throwing videos are embarrassing, so some people start to think that's what matters in warfare. And now we have people arguing tank design should focus on how the tank looks after it's been destroyed, to make sure it doesn't produce embarrassing videos.
Tanks are designed not to be penetrated. That is the focus of the designers, not to let the tank be pennd and then to design how it blows up.
The armor on soviet shit cans doesn't save them from getting penetrated either. And I see you haven't noticed, but tanks designed by and for humans have a number of provisions (blow away panels, insensitive munitions/propellants, spall liners) to improve crew survival in the event of a penetration.
The reason the state of cooked off soviet tanks is so embarassing is because there is way for the crew to walk away from it, and we know how to do it right.
The T-72 is a 50 year old tank, the embarrassing thing is that they're and even earlier models are even being used, because Russia is a third world country with no money, not because they don't have features that didn't even exist at the time they were being developed.
Remind me how old the Abrams and Leopard 2 are again?
Given how massive penetrators and the energy they're carrying needs to be in order to penetrate a modern MBT, if the fighting compartment is breached then realistically the crew is already dead. You may as well stow your ready rounds in the hull to lower the tank's profile a bit so it's harder to spot and engage.
I’m right in the middle of your shit so what the frick
Most the tanks throwing their turrets are due to the ammo being stored around the turret ring.
That diagram is incorrect. The gunner and commander of a T-72 both sit directly on top of the carousel autoloader, meaning that any penetrating hit to the hull side or turret nearly always results in a catastrophic kill.