Why don't they install the Blow-off Panel at the back of the turret like the M1 tank?

Why don't they install the Blow-off Panel at the back of the turret like the M1 tank?

Wouldn't it be better to have a manual load?

Is there an automatic fire extinguisher?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because money because frick you wagie tankie

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    the abrahams is a piece of shit rear echelon tank that is instatly taken out by a drone to ammo rack
    mission diss-abled, better, more modern tanks don't expose they're ammo and can take multiple loads

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Holy ESL Batman, at least try to write a proper sentence you absolute fungusbrain.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Yes, Russian crews take multiple loads almost daily.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >can take multiple loads

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        He meant of semen.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Now that's a toss, god damn.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous
    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >rear echelon tank
      wake up, babe. new type of tank just dropped

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >the abrahams is a piece of shit rear echelon tank that is instatly taken out by a drone to ammo rack
      As opposed to mighty puccian tanks that go into lower earth orbit from a hit to literally anywhere?

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >blow out panels=$2700
    >3 conscripts= a dozen bags of sheets
    Just not worth the investment

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >sending a turret to the moon, priceless.
      >For everything else, theres Master-slav

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The carousel is dogma in russia, you can't remove it. Probably related to their turbohomosexual culture and the turbohomoness of the navy.
    >the soviet carousel is highly influenced by naval autoloaders.

    Pic rel is the closets thing

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >this one piece of tech puts us fourty years ahead of westoids
      >Black manual loader bad at everything trust me
      actually insane how much they love their autoloaders.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        40 years? more like 40 meters.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      So why didn’t Ukraine install bustle loaders on their tanks if they don't have turbohomosexual culture like Russia?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        moron-kun, you are literally staring at an image of the Ukrainians doing just that

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          They only made a single prototype and didn't bother to establish mass production of such turrets. The same thing happened to Russia with object 640, except that Russia doesn’t boast about this tank, and it was almost forgotten.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Because that mod was intended for export with a NATO gun. It would need more changes to make it compatible with 125 mm (single piece rounds) and a tank upgrade program that Ukrainian didn't have ($$$). That's why they don't have many T-84s too. Money.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Ukraine's MIC was too broke to produce it in quantity.

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The frick is a blowout panel in the back going to do when the crew is literally sitting on top of the ammo?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Blow crew safely out from the panels

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Burlak turret is an interesting thing but there's context to it anon. It was supposed to be an universal modernization turret for Russia that fit on both T-72 (=T-90) and T-80 hulls. The bustle autoloader was supposed to store stuff like Svinets 2 and Svinets 1 (not Svinets "OG" as in 3BM46) along with future "super long" long rod penetrators that were Western style monolithic ammo instead of two piece. The hull autoloader was then kept to store regular HEAT and HE Frag rounds and also handle legacy ammo.

    There was some stuff on how in a "real hot war" scenario (like right now) where shit's real as frick the crews would only load the bustle and keep the cassette empty were these turrets fielded.

    >Burlak was infinitely more realistic of a tank fleet option than the Armata and thus shelved.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Do you know why they angled the ERA like that? It doesn't make sense given if you're fighting from a position where your tank is angled downwards now you're exposing way more armor than the other way around. Was it just to maintain clearance for the driver's hatch?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Looks sexy is my guess.

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    That Turk company that made a modernized M60 also made a new bustle loaded t72 turret.

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because T-72 is frick tiny in comparison. This chassis won't accept that big redesign.
    Armata is frick huge, and has autoloader in the bustle.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Why don't they install the Blow-off Panel at the back of the turret like the M1 tank?
      Because carousel autoloader and carousel autoloader is because they decided it's cheaper to continue using an existing system.
      >Wouldn't it be better to have a manual load?
      No you frickhead, the T-72 is a 46 ton tank with a 125 mm gun and decent armor, the way this is achieved is by making everything compact, including the crew compartment, there is no space for a human loader.
      This weight saving results in drastic superiority in maneuverability, both strategic, and tactic, and reduced costs.

      It's tiny

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        "No you frickhead!"
        "Bloody benchod!"
        "Gigahomosexual!"
        LISTEN TO MEEEEE
        T-Series superior flexibility and maneuveravbility tactical, operational, strategic, hypothetical, and galactic 🙂

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          have a nice day you moronic Black person if you can't see what usefulness having a 46 ton tank vs 70 ton tank might entail.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Mmmm that iraqi desert camo looks pretty sweet on that T-72, I also kinda likee how tiny the T-72 is.

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    its not connected to the inside of the tank so it doesn't matter

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Do you think they're going to add blow-outs to the Leopard 2 after the humiliation in Syria, or just adopt a new design entirely?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      they don't have money for either so I'd expect they will do nothing except further reduction in quantity

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >look mommy, i posted the picture of the abandoned and airstriked Leo2 again
      >of course without the context but with certain implications

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        It was a MILAN and very much not abandoned, but, sure.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/ubFm57b.jpeg

      It was a MILAN and very much not abandoned, but, sure.

      rounds stored in the front without the fire resistant rounds or whatever they were called

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    because its easy to hit it with a drone for a mission kill
    and uparmoring blowout pannels would require uparmoiring crew compartment doors to match...

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Yeah, top-facing blowouts is a dumb idea.
      You want them on the underside of the turret above the engine bay instead.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        You want to add a mobility kill to ammo stowage conflagration?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          As opposed to having a "HIT ME HERE" video game weakspot on the very top of the tank?
          Yeah.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Not sure I understand. You just wanted to move the direction of the blowout panels. Not move the stowage. It would be the same "weakspot".
            There's not enough armor there to prevent a penetration with a modestly-sized HEAT warhead, no matter the direction of the hit.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Behold.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                How the frick strong? It's like ~60mm. It won't do shit against RPG-7 drone. Or a dropped small M203 warhead.
                Also I'm pretty sure the blow out panels themselves are just as thick, they're just designed to, you know, blow off.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            That's not how blowout panels work

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        because its easy to hit it with a drone for a mission kill
        and uparmoring blowout pannels would require uparmoiring crew compartment doors to match...

        You can just have them pointing horizontally rearwards.
        Adds an acceleration boost for retreating to cover.

  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Why don't they install the Blow-off Panel at the back of the turret like the M1 tank?
    If the ammo is stored in the turret basket putting blow off panels on the bustle will do frick all to help the crew.

    >Wouldn't it be better to have a manual load?
    Autoloaders are reliable, reduce the number of crew, don't get tired, and are much less expensive in the long-run. The problem is not the autoloader, it's the placement of the ammo.

    >Is there an automatic fire extinguisher?
    Maybe? It may not do much good considering how fast a cook-off can happen. Even wet storage doesn't really stop cooking off because the propellant is nitrated so it has all the oxygen it needs in its nitro groups. You can't really stop the burn once it has started.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >reduce the number of crew

      Reducing the number of troops available for utility tasks is not a win. Autoloaders don't stand watch, help repair track and replace road wheels etc.

      People excited about tanks forget that they do more than shoot and scoot.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Reducing the number of troops available for utility tasks is not a win.
        Extra men can be brought in with an IFV or truck when needed and kept in the rear away from danger when not.

        >Autoloaders don't stand watch, help repair track and replace road wheels etc.
        Neither do tanks.

        >People excited about tanks forget that they do more than shoot and scoot.
        That is literally all a tank does. Men =/= the equipment they operate. Fully autonomous tanks will take over nearly all infantry combat roles by the middle of this century and the only role for sub-120 IQ enlisted trogs will be fetching coffee and monster energy drinks for their engineering officer overlords.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >kept in the rear away from danger when not.
          >he doesn't know
          The story of 21st century combat is the log train getting exposed to precision strike, boomer. Your nerdy fantasies about clean warfare are dead for another century.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Here, read a book by someone with a real 120IQ. Infantry aren't going anywhere. Rather, all other jobs are going to collapse into them.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Autoloaders don't stand watch, help repair track and replace road wheels etc.
        I love how the only people who ever say this are the ones who haven't even so much as seen a tank in person. Ask anyone in armored cavalry, you don't use more than two people for maintenance. The extra guy will just join the commander in watching the other two people change a track. Literally nobody who's actually served in armored cavalry cares for the 4th crewman. Even Nicholas Moran (The Chieftain) is a proponent for autoloaders

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        This is a moronic argument. Why the frick would you want to put the maintenance personnel with critical valuable skills inside the tinpot that's gonna explode when the next FPV comes around instead of putting him a few km in the rear where he wont fricking die and can continue to learn more about maintenance and pass down those skills.

        And more importantly, you get a smaller lighter tank with a faster rate of fire by using an autoloader.

  13. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why not just have the fighting compartment be entirely full of water and the crew operate in scuba gear?

  14. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Why don't they install the Blow-off Panel at the back of the turret like the M1 tank?
    They did, on the T-90M. Unfortunately that is merely an "extra" ammo reserve and cannot directly feed the gun

  15. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >blow out panels and loader's cost money
    >Mobiks cost nothing

  16. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    You extinguish the automatic fire by not pulling the trigger numbnuts

  17. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I'll blow off your panel in the back of an M1 tank
    Dont talk about my wife's boyfriend's son ever again you bastard!

  18. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >fire extinguisher
    unknown technology blyat

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *