MBT Survivability Comparison Thread

methos

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2011
Messages
799
Likes
304
Country flag
Unprotected ammunition compartment will allways be less safe than isolated ammunition compartment.
The ammunition per se is less protected, but the armour around it is what you ignore. Yes, when you can penetrate the frontal hull armour, then the ammunition can be incinerated and this is more dangerous to the crew than in tanks where all ammunition is stored in separated compartments. But still all countries design MBTs don't put all ammunition in separated compartments. Why? Because the "if" in the first sentence is a very big "if". Likewise an isolated ammunition storage will not work, if the enemy can penetrate the frontal armour and the doors of the ammunition compartment (and these are much less than 50 mm thick). Again an "if" about which nobody really cares.
Regardless of this, if the armour can be penetrated, then the ammunition stored in the tank is not the primary thing you need to worry about.


Not every KE hit will end up with killing whole crew.
Yes, and not everyone automatically gets killed once the ammunition cooks off. The Merkava's ammunition containter and the wet storage of Chieftain and Challenger 1 are designed to slow down the ammunition fire and let (at least the unharmed part of) the crew escape the vehicle. In recent Syrian war there were even cases where members of the tank crew escaped from their tanks just moments before the turret blew off.
A KE round will not automatically kill everyone of the crew, but it's very probable that it will kill or at least wound everyone. Even if it didn't, it still would be enough to knock out the tank in most cases, so that the surviving crew members are stuck on the battlefield in the direct view of a tank that is capable of penetrating their armour. That doesn't sound like "we are saved because the ammo didn't detonate". Blow-out panels are primarily designed following a high amount of tank losses to missiles and RPGs, KE rounds are much more lethal by themselves.

And no, not every hit in fuel tanks will end up incinerating that fuel.
And how much penetrations by tank ammunition don't end up incinerating that fuel? 1 out of 100? In Afghanistan an Marder IFV was hit by a RPG-7 and the frontal armour was penetrated - the only time this was reported. Directly after the penetration the diesel fuel in the engine was incinerated and the crew had to abbandon the vehicle. The current JP-8 of the US Army is even more enflammable (it has a lower flashpoint) and there is a lot more than in a Marder IFV.


Also fuel tanks were mainly placed there for additional protection. Not because it was only place to place them, in fact M1 could have fuel tanks in overtrack sponsons.
You could put the fuel tanks in the sponsons, but that would make the tank only worse. First of all then would not fit. The rear sponson section contains important parts which have to be located close to the engine, like the batteries, parts of the cooling system, parts of the pulse jet air cleaner and parts of the fuel system. So overall only parts of the sponsons could be used as fuel tanks, which are too small to contain all the fuel of the frontal fuel tanks.
But if the sponsons were large enough, it would lead to a decreased protection (i.e. the fuel would be very easy too incinerate, because it covered much more of the tank's profile in the frontal arc) and would require more weight (the sponson tanks would be long, but not very tall and wide -> more surface has to be covered by the fuel tanks.


By your logic all important systems should be exposed then. However in reality the most important systems should be as well protected as possible.
Your deduction is wrong, that's not how logic works. My logic says to things:
1.) If something is exposed, then you need to have a less exposed back-up system.
2.) If there is a competent back-up system, loosing the original system is not that bad.

For example the turret ammunition storage in the Leopard 2 is not a very big loss, because there are still 1.8 times as many rounds stored in the hull. The Abrams with only 6 rounds stored in (a relatively unprotected part of) the hull cannot afford loosing the turret ammunition storage, because 6 rounds are not enough for any combat mission.


I would choose the second, not to mention that actually smaller mantled can have comparable armor protection through higher density.
The smaller mantlet could have more armour protection because of the smaller size, just like the Leopard 2A5 mantlet vs Leopard 2A4 mantlet. But then again the Abrams mantlet is very thin, not comparable to the mantlet armour blocks of other tanks.


You don't know the protection level of gun mantled.
You and me, we don't know the exact protection level of any tank. Still we can see that because of armour thickness and armour technology, the tank's armour should have an estimated protection level. The thin mantlet armour cannot be very well protected.


This gun mantled as per avaiable sources also use composite armor (Hunnicutt mentions that originally mantled was made from pure steel, later during FSED development phase it was changed to composite design).
No. Hunnicutt says "special armor", a term which includes spaced armour, composite armour and even steel laminates. It could be a simple cast armour element with one or two rolled steel plates welded on top of it. There is no space for any reactive armour elements.


Maybe Germany did not had reserve stocks, but major players had like US or USSR. Damn even my country back then had reserve stocks that were relatively big, although in the 1980's mostly composed from obsolete equipment.
You are using a different definition of "reserve stocks". I cannot see how a bunch of Patton tanks can be counted as a "reserve stock" for M1A1 tanks. In the same sense I cannot count a bunch of T-54 tanks as a "reserve stock" for T-72 and T-80 tanks. By your definition all countries had reserve stocks during the Cold War.
 

Damian

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,202
The ammunition per se is less protected, but the armour around it is what you ignore. Yes, when you can penetrate the frontal hull armour, then the ammunition can be incinerated and this is more dangerous to the crew than in tanks where all ammunition is stored in separated compartments. But still all countries design MBTs don't put all ammunition in separated compartments. Why? Because the "if" in the first sentence is a very big "if". Likewise an isolated ammunition storage will not work, if the enemy can penetrate the frontal armour and the doors of the ammunition compartment (and these are much less than 50 mm thick). Again an "if" about which nobody really cares.
Regardless of this, if the armour can be penetrated, then the ammunition stored in the tank is not the primary thing you need to worry about.
Well if you are perfectly ok sitting next to non isolated ammunition then I am completely ok with this.

It is not my problem.

I will support good ideas not something that can, was and is killing crews of tanks around the world in all conflicts.

Fragments of penetrator or shaped charge jet are much smaller problem.

Yes, and not everyone automatically gets killed once the ammunition cooks off. The Merkava's ammunition containter and the wet storage of Chieftain and Challenger 1 are designed to slow down the ammunition fire and let (at least the unharmed part of) the crew escape the vehicle. In recent Syrian war there were even cases where members of the tank crew escaped from their tanks just moments before the turret blew off.
A KE round will not automatically kill everyone of the crew, but it's very probable that it will kill or at least wound everyone. Even if it didn't, it still would be enough to knock out the tank in most cases, so that the surviving crew members are stuck on the battlefield in the direct view of a tank that is capable of penetrating their armour. That doesn't sound like "we are saved because the ammo didn't detonate". Blow-out panels are primarily designed following a high amount of tank losses to missiles and RPGs, KE rounds are much more lethal by themselves.
Solutions in Merkava, Chieftain, Challenger 1 & 2 are obsolete.

The only right solution is to completely isolate ammunition from crew.

But as I said, if you support crews roasted like chicken for dinner, then this is not my problem.

And how much penetrations by tank ammunition don't end up incinerating that fuel? 1 out of 100? In Afghanistan an Marder IFV was hit by a RPG-7 and the frontal armour was penetrated - the only time this was reported. Directly after the penetration the diesel fuel in the engine was incinerated and the crew had to abbandon the vehicle. The current JP-8 of the US Army is even more enflammable (it has a lower flashpoint) and there is a lot more than in a Marder IFV.
I do not have a data to speculate, do you have? And don't be silly providing single incident that doesn't say anything about statistics.

You could put the fuel tanks in the sponsons, but that would make the tank only worse. First of all then would not fit. The rear sponson section contains important parts which have to be located close to the engine, like the batteries, parts of the cooling system, parts of the pulse jet air cleaner and parts of the fuel system. So overall only parts of the sponsons could be used as fuel tanks, which are too small to contain all the fuel of the frontal fuel tanks.
But if the sponsons were large enough, it would lead to a decreased protection (i.e. the fuel would be very easy too incinerate, because it covered much more of the tank's profile in the frontal arc) and would require more weight (the sponson tanks would be long, but not very tall and wide -> more surface has to be covered by the fuel tanks.
Leopard 2, Challenger 1 & 2 have large fuel tanks in overtrack sponsons, T-xx tanks also, and this is not considered as a problem, but when I say that M1 could have fuel tanks in sponsons (which BTW it have allready, only that I say about additional fuel tanks in front sections of sponsons) it is all the sudden a problem for you!

This starts to be hilarious how biased you are.

Your deduction is wrong, that's not how logic works. My logic says to things:
1.) If something is exposed, then you need to have a less exposed back-up system.
2.) If there is a competent back-up system, loosing the original system is not that bad.

For example the turret ammunition storage in the Leopard 2 is not a very big loss, because there are still 1.8 times as many rounds stored in the hull. The Abrams with only 6 rounds stored in (a relatively unprotected part of) the hull cannot afford loosing the turret ammunition storage, because 6 rounds are not enough for any combat mission.
This is insane logic.

The smaller mantlet could have more armour protection because of the smaller size, just like the Leopard 2A5 mantlet vs Leopard 2A4 mantlet. But then again the Abrams mantlet is very thin, not comparable to the mantlet armour blocks of other tanks.
How do You know it is "very" thin?

Oh wait, I know, it is your biased view.

In fact M1's mantled is thinner, but it is not very thin... do not manipulate.

You and me, we don't know the exact protection level of any tank. Still we can see that because of armour thickness and armour technology, the tank's armour should have an estimated protection level. The thin mantlet armour cannot be very well protected.
No mantled can be very well protected.

Although I understand that people from German speaking nations, just have a nececity to promote weapon system from their cultural circle as better... which is funny. :)

No. Hunnicutt says "special armor", a term which includes spaced armour, composite armour and even steel laminates. It could be a simple cast armour element with one or two rolled steel plates welded on top of it. There is no space for any reactive armour elements.
How do You know there is no space for reactive element or ceramics or anything else? It is ~360mm thick mantled, which means it is only 60mm thinner than ~420mm thick Leopard 2 gun mantled. If so maybe Leopard 2 gun mantled is also a simple spaced steel armor eh?

Oh no wait, Germans are known to be ubermenshe, and by increasing thickness by only tiny 60mm they are capable to fit inside such box some super armor, which other, lesser nations are not capable.


I have a question to you, can you stop being silly and start being serious in this thread?

You are using a different definition of "reserve stocks". I cannot see how a bunch of Patton tanks can be counted as a "reserve stock" for M1A1 tanks. In the same sense I cannot count a bunch of T-54 tanks as a "reserve stock" for T-72 and T-80 tanks. By your definition all countries had reserve stocks during the Cold War.
I start to think that you, German speaking people do not operate any reasonable system of logical thinking, seriously.

Reserve stock is a reserve stock, it is meant to provide reserve equipment for armed forces, it does not matters if reserve equipment is ultra modern or ultra old, it is reserve equipment. Simple as that.
 

collegeboy16

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2013
Messages
47
Likes
6
the most survivable would be Armata MBT and other proper 4th gens...
anything less would be perforated from front to back...
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top