Chinese 96-A


broadsword

Colonel
Most NATO tanks (Leopard 2A 4 used by Turkey store ammo in the hull) after 1980s are generally made so crew has better change of survival when tank get's hit. When Type-99A gets hit from side (no armor at all) it's likely that PLA tank crew become taikonauts... ZBD-04 has same problem as BMP-3 what have been exploding in Ukraine when their 50 100mm HE shells are hit.

Russian tank crews in Ukraine have begun going into battle with only 10 shells on carousel because it decreases changes of whole tank blowing up, and we can surely pretend that carousel autoloader in a fine design, but i'd rather ride on Abrams than T-72/90 or Type-96/99.

Would the crew survive if a shell penetrates the crew compartment and the tank has only 10 shells on the carousel?
 

broadsword

Colonel
What I heard was they simply don't keep ammo lying around inside the turret and just store it in the carousel.
The ammo around the turret is way more dangerous and likely to explode than the one in the carousel.

Would the resultant blast from the hole created by the shell, the shrapnel, fire, molten liquid, etc from the penetrating shells, be they HEAT, APSD, etc, not from the tank's own shells, be enough to kill the crew?
 

gelgoog

Colonel
Registered Member
Spalling damage is typically enough to kill crew. Little metal fragments from the penetration. Of course it you get ammo detonating inside the tank it is even more dangerous.
 

Maikeru

Senior Member
Registered Member
Spalling damage is typically enough to kill crew. Little metal fragments from the penetration. Of course it you get ammo detonating inside the tank it is even more dangerous.
Aren't modern tanks fitted with anti-spall liner inside?
 

by78

Lieutenant General
Boresighting the main gun.

52180361794_364f29a52c_k.jpg
52180112111_735cdb02e4_k.jpg
52180112151_62e361db1a_k.jpg

52180361974_18d816bb5d_k.jpg

52180601105_e496cc6ec7_k.jpg
 

Top