Why Russian Tanks Are Fragile

[Picard]

I have noticed this when looking at the Homeland War, and again in war in Ukraine, but Russian Cold War design tanks have a tendency to explode when hit. And I figured it is not just autoloader, so I took a look:

Private Site

Russian tanks used in modern conflicts have had very bad tendency of suffering catastrophic explosions. When penetrated into the magazine (“ammoracked” for gamers), Russian designs (particularly T-72 and its derivatives) tend to be violently relieved of their turret, which can fly off even some dozens of meters away.

The reason for this tendency towards turret throwing championship is their design decision – but not the one that is typically blamed for it.

Usual answer for why Russian tanks tend to explode is their use of the autoloader. Decision for using the autoloader is a logical one for the Soviet tank doctrine. It makes the tank much smaller, especially the turret – T-72 is almost a foot shorter than the M1 Abrams, allowing it to take cover more easily. Smaller profile also helps make the tank more mobile, as the same amount of armor can be had at the lower weight, thus allowing the tanks to more readily cross the bridges and navigate difficult terrain. But could usage of autoloader lead to catastrophic consequences?

(Read rest of the article on the blog, but for those interested, answer is: partly. It is not the autoloader, but rather the fact that the entire Soviet armored doctrine was designed for a time before the proliferation of the top-attack ATGMs and mines. And this means that there is a lot of ammunition all around the crew compartment - which when hit explodes, and that can then spread to the autoloader and pop off the turret. But if you remove the ammunition sitting around and leave only the 22 rounds in the autoloder... tank is actually reasonably safe).

 

[blackjack]

What majority of T-72 models are used in the war? I mean no shit a lot of T-72s are being destroyed because they are mostly used in the conflict.

 

[Love Charger]

What majority of T-72 models are used in the war? I mean no shit a lot of T-72s are being destroyed because they are mostly used in the conflict.

T72 B3 .
Mostly

 

[Picard]

What majority of T-72 models are used in the war? I mean no shit a lot of T-72s are being destroyed because they are mostly used in the conflict.

It is less about numbers destroyed and more about modes of failure. It is something you could notice with older Soviet designs during the Homeland war. Serb tanks at Vukovar, for example:

 

[Blackmamba]

can we convert t series tank to bustle mounted autoloader

 

[Picard]

can we convert t series tank to bustle mounted autoloader

It should be possible - you just need to swap the turret. If information is correct, the (abandoned) Croatian project of upgrading the M-84/T-72, called M-95 Degman, had a turret with bustle autoloader:

MBT M-95 Degman

www.globalsecurity.org

M-95 Degman - The Tank Has The Most Complicated "Background" In The World - Military-wiki

M-95 Degman possesses many good characteristics of Russian and Western tanks: high survivability on the battlefield, thanks to its compact dimension.

military-wiki.com

But we didn't have the funds for that, and so instead the technology developed / adapted for Degman was used to upgrade old M-84As to the "M-84D" standard.

 

[blackjack]

It is less about numbers destroyed and more about modes of failure. It is something you could notice with older Soviet designs during the Homeland war. Serb tanks at Vukovar, for example:

I am still waiting for the west to send Abrams and leopards, So I can make a thread on why leopards and abrams suck as well. Can you atleast get more creativie comparing T-90s or T-14s to western MBTs? I can give you an idea on my Russia land force article at the knowledge repository if you like? Edit: your thread needs help anyways. Russia Future Land Force Future Capabilities | Indian Defence Forum (defenceforumindia.com)

For the T-72 production numbers I just want someone to just shoot me in the head since I am hearing one source state, 50,000 have been produced another source saying 30,000, another source saying 18,000, other saying 20,000, one saying above 8000, some say they have 8000(T-72Bs) in reserves and 2000 in active duty. And from many different sources almost saying the same thing of 2,000-2,500 are in active service while many are in storage. And yes I will get into to the bullshit details of Oryx claiming that ukrainians with their T-72s somehow have one of their tanks defeating every 10 Russian tanks of the same T-72 brand like Rambos along with a conflict in the middle-east after I cover all of Russia's equipment here 1st. So there are alot of T-72s so to cover each one in the best way possible depending on variation protection levels against APFSDS rounds ranges from 335mm to 1,200mm, vs HEAT its 450mm to 1900mm, and it can penetrate adversary armour from 245mm to 650 mm, 400 T-72s have been upgraded to T-72B3M which means it was upgraded to the T-90 standards with same relikt armor. These tanks have a 500km range and are usually seen being transported on train tracks to Ukraine.

For some amusement here India has more T-90s than Russia, but the amount Russia has is 417 in active duty and 200 in the storage. Depending on the T-90 variation protection aganst a APFSDS round is from 800mm to 1200mm, against HEAT 1150mm to 1900mm, it uses Svinets for its Sabot rounds so 650mm to 740mm penetration depending on using either tungsten or depleted uranium. Uses Shtora-1 to dazzle infrared seeking missiles where in some cases it worked on youtube videos and sometimes hasnt like some arguing it go de-activated when the person inside of it opened the hull. Can use laser beam riding ATGM Refleks with a 5km range and a 900mm penetration of RHA steel armor.

To my surprise I expected to T-14 to be like the F-35 to not be in actual combat but they have showcased in the testing grounds in Crimea training recruits. As of now there are 132 T-14 armatas with a contract that states more than 40 will be delivered after 2023. The current Malachit armor protection is unknown but it offers additional 900mm RHA steel protection of a capsule protecting crew, the tank uses an aerial drone called pterodactyl that can be attached to a cable for tanks to see further away and claims of a 100km AESA radar afghanit but unsure of actual ranges, 7km-8km laser range finder to identify tanks has a hardkill APS that has 1.7km/s stopping speeds with claims of stopping sabot rounds. There were talks about in the future for modifications to replace the main cannon to 152mm, raise the hardkill APS with stopping speeds of 3km/s and switching to 30mm anti-aircraft guns instead of the secondary 14.7mm cannons it has. It has an ATGM called Sprinter which has a 12km range with a millimeter wave SACLOS to hit targets even helicopters with a 950mm RHA penetration and there is a new active homing ATGM called the 3UBK25 but that is under developement. The tank has an unmanned turret.

Other MBTs like 191 T-62s were in active service and 1,929 in storage since 2000 and 600 left the storage to participate in the Ukraine war, Also 480 T-80s in active service with 3000 in the storage, really never a shortage of tanks for Russia.

Just for the fun of it they are developing another next gen tank called the Tachanka-B which will be unmanned. And according to the 13th and 14th references some breakthroughs are made in making an energy plasma projectile shield for protection and a rail gun to work with a tank. Now moving to other tanks

The BMPT terminators 1-3, it states that there were 300 ordered, they usually hold 4 Ataka missiles which penetrates 950mm RHA of steel with a range of up to 8kms, 30mm cannons, 7.62 mm machine guns and 30mm grenades. Also uses smoke grenades for protection if targeted through infrared detection.

 

[Picard]

I am still waiting for the west to send Abrams and leopards, So I can make a thread on why leopards and abrams suck as well. Can you atleast get more creativie comparing T-90s or T-14s to western MBTs? I can give you an idea on my Russia land force article at the knowledge repository if you like? Edit: your thread needs help anyways. Russia Future Land Force Future Capabilities | Indian Defence Forum (defenceforumindia.com)

Leopard has its own issues, as I have noted in the article which you have obviously not bothered to read before acting all butthurt:

Private Site

That autoloader is not the actual cause of vulnerability of Russian tanks can also be seen from the fact that similar catastrophic damage was also suffered by other tanks that have hull amunition storage, irrespective of whether they have the autoloader or not.

Turkish Leopard 2 tank destroyed by hit to hull ammunition storage
Leopard 2 was designed to fight Soviet tanks in the plains of Germany and the Fulda Gap, and thus focus was on frontal protection. Side, rear and top armor is comparatively thin, especially when compared to e.g. Challenger 2. This was fixed to an extent in A5 and later models, but the earlier models such as Turkish A4 seen destroyed are still extremely vulnerable. Leclerc also has similarly unsafe hull ammunition storage. In fact, location of the autoloader in Russian tanks makes ammunition there comparatively safer than the hull storage of Leopard 2 and Leclerc.

However, it is also a fact that Leopard 2's ammunition is not directly underneath the turret, which means that it is less likely to get cooked off by a top-attack ATGM or something similar. OTOH, it is also more likely to get detonated by things such as recoilless rifles and enemy tanks.

Abrams however is a comparatively safe design - again due to ammunition storage. It may in fact be the safest tank in the world right now. Armata may be as safe as Abrams once it enters service, but... when it enters service. It is not in service right now.

 

[blackjack]

However, it is also a fact that Leopard 2's ammunition is not directly underneath the turret, which means that it is less likely to get cooked off by a top-attack ATGM or something similar. OTOH, it is also more likely to get detonated by things such as recoilless rifles and enemy tanks.

Abrams however is a comparatively safe design - again due to ammunition storage. It may in fact be the safest tank in the world right now. Armata may be as safe as Abrams once it enters service, but... when it enters service. It is not in service right now.

ahh I just realized your Croatian so that makes allot more sense now so your opinion is as good as listening to some polak in the Russo Ukraine war thread. leopards and m1a2s ammunitions could be blamed as well if they are constantly destroyed in the Ukraine and say its ammunition, but US insists on morroco to send 100 T-72s instead. Perhaps they don't want their tanks to look bad if they got involved in this war against another major power.

 

[Picard]

ahh I just realized your Croatian so that makes allot more sense now so your opinion is as good as listening to some polak in the Russo Ukraine war thread. leopards and m1a2s ammunitions could be blamed as well if they are constantly destroyed in the Ukraine and say its ammunition, but US insists on morroco to send 100 T-72s instead. Perhaps they don't want their tanks to look bad if they got involved in this war against another major power.

Keep your head in the sand, if you will, but at least try to comprehend what I have written. I did blame Leopard's ammunition storage for their losses in Turkey. M1 however shouldn't have such issues, as nearly all the ammunition is in the turret, and those six bins in the hull are usually kept empty anyway.

Reason why they insist on T-72s is because that is what Ukrainians want. Ukrainian tank and maintenance crews are trained on T-72s, that is what they are familiar with, and retraining and refitting your entire tank force in the middle of the war is not exactly the easiest - or safest - of options. So even though M1 would be better on paper (if they got rid of that stupid turbine engine anyway), it is not actually a better option right now.

 

[SilentlAssassin265]

It's not just russian tanks but the tanks t themself are pretty vulnerable in contest airspace and atgm.
Logistics are another issue 100s of their tank were abandoned after they ran out of fuel .
Any other country's tank would have face same fate.

Hardkill system like trophy are not battle tested so can't comment on that

 

[blackjack]

M1abrams is definitely not best pound for pound tank lmao, that's t90M at 47 tons facing Javelin, Stugna, NLAW, At4, Matador, and basically the entire western atgm arsenal. Houthis and PMU showed that m1 abrams was not that good when they destroyed M1 abrams by the hundreds and US vs Iraq is a terrible example, such an army was hollowed out after a decade of war with Iran and showed that in Kuwait 2003 war was just finishing off what Iran had already bled T90M decimated a NATO armed Soviet army, armed with most expensive ATGM weapons. That is what you can call best pound for pound tank. Russian's immediately send T-14s and Su-57s to be used in Ukraine I bet all the new fancy shit the west receives would not even go see a war.

 

[Picard]

It's not just russian tanks but the tanks t themself are pretty vulnerable in contest airspace and atgm.
Logistics are another issue 100s of their tank were abandoned after they ran out of fuel .
Any other country's tank would have face same fate.

Hardkill system like trophy are not battle tested so can't comment on that

Tanks have always been vulnerable in contested airspace. That was true since the First World War.

But yeah, I overall do agree.

M1abrams is definitely not best pound for pound tank lmao, that's t90M at 47 tons facing Javelin, Stugna, NLAW, At4, Matador, and basically the entire western atgm arsenal. Houthis and PMU showed that m1 abrams was not that good when they destroyed M1 abrams by the hundreds and US vs Iraq is a terrible example, such an army was hollowed out after a decade of war with Iran and showed that in Kuwait 2003 war was just finishing off what Iran had already bled T90M decimated a NATO armed Soviet army, armed with most expensive ATGM weapons. That is what you can call best pound for pound tank. Russian's immediately send T-14s and Su-57s to be used in Ukraine I bet all the new fancy shit the west receives would not even go see a war.

That is just what happens when you give your equipment to the Arabs. You may not remember, but I actually argued against the people who were trying to use the US invasion of Iraq as a measuring stick for Russian equipment - because it was being used by the Iraqis. Had Iraqis had American equipment, and Americans the Iraqi equipment, war would have had the exact same outcome.

What matters here - and what I am talking about - is how the tanks were destroyed, their modes of failure, and what it means for the crew. When Russian T-mark designs are destroyed, they tend to launch the turret into the stratosphere, with quite bad consequences for tank's crew. That is not something you will usually see with destroyed M1s (destroyed Leopard 2s, on the other hand...). If you look at the photos of the M1s that had been destroyed by the Houthis... first, it seems many of them had been abandoned by their crews (your run-of-the-mill Arab competence right there). Second, unlike Russian designs, so far I have found no M1s that had decided to donate their turrets to the space program:

No tank is invulnerable, and no armor can stop every attack. That is why measures taken to improve survivability once tank had been hit and penetrated matter so much.

T-14 and Su-57, we don't even know if it works. US F-35 had been in development for how long, and it is still not combat-capable.

 

[blackjack]

oh, great we are blaming the users now.

 

[KurtisBrian]

What matters here - and what I am talking about - is how the tanks were destroyed, their modes of failure, and what it means for the crew. When Russian T-mark designs are destroyed, they tend to launch the turret into the stratosphere, with quite bad consequences for tank's crew. That is not something you will usually see with destroyed M1s (destroyed Leopard 2s, on the other hand...). If you look at the photos of the M1s that had been destroyed by the Houthis... first, it seems many of them had been abandoned by their crews (your run-of-the-mill Arab competence right there). Second, unlike Russian designs, so far I have found no M1s that had decided to donate their turrets to the space program:

what were those tanks being hit with?
anti-tank missiles that strike the top of the turret like Javelins do?
or were M1s and Leos being shot in the rear by older atgms in order to destroy the engine and thus disable the tank?
Does the crew in a "Western" tank SURVIVE when hit javelin style? Leos and M1s are much heavier than t-72s. How much of that weight is top armor?

 

[Picard]

oh, great we are blaming the users now.

Usually, user is the problem. M1 will blow up much like T-72 if used improperly. Meanwhile, when used properly, even old T-34s can be effective in war.

Why Arabs Lose Wars preview / why-arabs-lose-wars.pdf / PDF4PRO

Preview why-arabs-lose-wars.pdf - Why Arabs Lose Wars by Norvell B. De Atkine Middle East Quarterly December 1999 • Hungarian version of this item Norvell De Atkine, a U.S. Army retired …

pdf4pro.com

This does not mean that some designs are not more lethal / more survivable / whatever than the others, but people do tend to focus too much on technology. Yes, Battle of Vukovar had shown that Russian design tanks tend to suffer catastrophic damage when destroyed (which is what I meant by "fragile"), which is what we are seeing in Ukraine as well.

It had also shown that M-84 was very difficult to destroy in the first place when properly deployed. Many were also destroyed after being mission-killed and abandoned by the crews, which is something we may be seeing in the Ukraine.

what were those tanks being hit with?
anti-tank missiles that strike the top of the turret like Javelins do?
or were M1s and Leos being shot in the rear by older atgms in order to destroy the engine and thus disable the tank?
Does the crew in a "Western" tank SURVIVE when hit javelin style? Leos and M1s are much heavier than t-72s. How much of that weight is top armor?

By definition, if armor is penetrated, then armor is penetrated. If anything, it were Soviet designs which focused on not getting penetrated in the first place, whereas Western designs took steps to mitigate damage in case penetration did occur (and Abrams has more such measures than most Western designs).

Basically, Soviet philosophy was don't be seen, don't be hit, don't be penetrated. Hence why Soviet designs are so small and have decent armor, but little in the way of survivability measures once you get past the armor.

Western tanks were designed more around the idea that you will be getting hit no matter what, and that armor will be penetrated at some point. Thus, heavy armor, but also major measures to prevent catastrophic damage once armor did get penetrated.

Now, as far as top-attack ATGMs go, I don't have hard data on how Western design tanks fare against them. However, design of the munitions storage means that a penetration against the top of the turret will do one of two things. First, it will hit the bustle magazine. This will set off the ammunition, but tank can survive this easily - that is what blowout panels are for. Second, it will hit the crew compartment. This will likely kill somebody and mission-kill (disable, likely destroy) the tank, but it will not cause a total loss of the vehicle as there is no ammunition in the path of the projectile.

I don't think any MBT has enough top armor to stop a top-attack ATGM. Which again is why I consider secondary survivability characteristics so important.