Ammo in turret bustle
Less likely to be hit in the first place since enemy point of aim is the center of the tank
Less likely to be ignited because its protected by the thickest armor on the front arc
Less likely to kill the crew because it can vent its explosion upwards away from the crew through the blowout panels
It's an overweight, fuel guzzling logistical nightmare that performs very well only when everything is going perfectly. It's the modern equivalent of a WW2 Char B1
>fuel guzzling
yes >logistical nightmare
nope, it's mechanically more reliable than a Leo2, that's the whole point of a turbine on top of being more powerful for the same weight
>It's an overweight, fuel guzzling logistical nightmare that performs very well only when everything is going perfectly.
Peru tested the Abrams against the Leopard 2, T90M, Oplot-M, K2 and MBT 2000 a few years back and the Abrams was more simple to maintain than all but the Oplot-M and MBT2000.
The MBT2000 procurement was cancelled because the Chinese openly were trying to bribe politicians and the army caught them. The K2 was the first choice but thr Oplot-M was deemed the best value.
its so poorly designed that a 60m mortar could blow it up
Whats so difficult about putting blowout panels at the bottom the turret bustle instead of the top?
I see many people online claiming blowout panels (mostly specifically the Abrams') save the crew in pretty much any case of ammo detonation, but logically they look relatively useless in real life scenarios, especially tank on tank combat with KE munitions.
Consider these examples:
Turret is hit on the back from the rear arc: any modern missile or KE would destroy the armor between the turret and the bustle.
Turret is hit on the side (weak KE protection) from the frontal arc: again, high chance of destroying the relatively thin armor.
In other words, the only way I see blowout panels working as intended is if the bustle is hit from basically 90 degrees side on or top down.
Additionally, how would the blast doors stop detonations of HEAT warheads inside the bustle?
blowout pannels, instead of turret toss, only produces loud brap before crew leaves embarrassed to get another tank
Definitely not cooked alive
>Definitely not cooked alive
Pretty much
Abrams too fat. Cannot throw turret. True Amerikan tank.
Ammo in turret bustle
Less likely to be hit in the first place since enemy point of aim is the center of the tank
Less likely to be ignited because its protected by the thickest armor on the front arc
Less likely to kill the crew because it can vent its explosion upwards away from the crew through the blowout panels
XXXL Aybrap crewmen fed on a steady diet of corn syrup, burgers and synthetic bugmeat too heavy to lift turret, so is safe
Americans see their own lives as valuable while russians and thirdies are worthless to their own leaders
It's an overweight, fuel guzzling logistical nightmare that performs very well only when everything is going perfectly. It's the modern equivalent of a WW2 Char B1
>fuel guzzling
yes
>logistical nightmare
nope, it's mechanically more reliable than a Leo2, that's the whole point of a turbine on top of being more powerful for the same weight
>It's an overweight, fuel guzzling logistical nightmare that performs very well only when everything is going perfectly.
Peru tested the Abrams against the Leopard 2, T90M, Oplot-M, K2 and MBT 2000 a few years back and the Abrams was more simple to maintain than all but the Oplot-M and MBT2000.
And the MBT2000 was rejected because chink tanks are that terrible in terms of quality even for thirdies.
China made it but they don't even use it for themselves can already tell something.
The MBT2000 procurement was cancelled because the Chinese openly were trying to bribe politicians and the army caught them. The K2 was the first choice but thr Oplot-M was deemed the best value.
The one lost most recently lost it's turret
we may see it? A continous video of an Abrams in combat being it and blowing up with no cuts?
Yeah, you can see it. Just give me five minutes
It's so fat and heavy it can't make a jump.
Bcause it has that magical reddit compartment and no autoloader.
Best tank name ever.
Too chubby 🙁
its so poorly designed that a 60m mortar could blow it up
Whats so difficult about putting blowout panels at the bottom the turret bustle instead of the top?
>its so poorly designed that a 60m mortar could blow it up
Proofs?
I see many people online claiming blowout panels (mostly specifically the Abrams') save the crew in pretty much any case of ammo detonation, but logically they look relatively useless in real life scenarios, especially tank on tank combat with KE munitions.
Consider these examples:
Turret is hit on the back from the rear arc: any modern missile or KE would destroy the armor between the turret and the bustle.
Turret is hit on the side (weak KE protection) from the frontal arc: again, high chance of destroying the relatively thin armor.
In other words, the only way I see blowout panels working as intended is if the bustle is hit from basically 90 degrees side on or top down.
Additionally, how would the blast doors stop detonations of HEAT warheads inside the bustle?
>how would the blast doors stop detonations of HEAT warheads inside the bustle?
They don't. HEAT rounds are stored with the warheads facing out.
america didn't send too many of them so it's curious that this happened so many times
hori shit
>happend so many times
Yeah, the 5 times it happened.
Also,
>posts Soviet tank.