Actually the ZTZ 96A didn't fare that badly either. At least the Chinese now knew the weakness of their ZTZ 96A as compared to modified T-72 and what modification or any modification was needed.
New Type98/99 MBT thread
- Thread starter Dongfeng
- Start date
Actually the ZTZ 96A didn't fare that badly either. At least the Chinese now knew the weakness of their ZTZ 96A as compared to modified T-72 and what modification or any modification was needed.
Hi, I am here to say hello to everybody, I am new, and my military defence knowledge is limited, I would like to learn more knowledge in this forum, and I would like to have more friend.
In order to express my sincerity, I have a present , I hope everybody happy.
In order to express my sincerity, I have a present , I hope everybody happy.
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
I find this fascinating. This is a Russian T72 MBT's autoloader in action
[video=youtube_share;mTzobtVjqPs]http://youtu.be/mTzobtVjqPs[/video]
Now if you watched the Video on Norinco's Armor day at 7 minutes 30 seconds you see the VT4's auto loader in action it's almost identical in function.
Now compare to the manual loading of the M1A2 Abrams
[video=youtube_share;Ns5NJVa_XKo]http://youtu.be/Ns5NJVa_XKo[/video]
Note the Shells. the american is all one the Russian loads the Shell then the primer charge.
[video=youtube_share;mTzobtVjqPs]http://youtu.be/mTzobtVjqPs[/video]
Now if you watched the Video on Norinco's Armor day at 7 minutes 30 seconds you see the VT4's auto loader in action it's almost identical in function.
Now compare to the manual loading of the M1A2 Abrams
[video=youtube_share;Ns5NJVa_XKo]http://youtu.be/Ns5NJVa_XKo[/video]
Note the Shells. the american is all one the Russian loads the Shell then the primer charge.
The autoloader itself isnt actually the main cause, as it is stored in the hull and actually not that easy to hit.
T-72s are cooking off because there's loose ammo stored in all crannies and nooks around the crew-space, with no automatic fire-suppression system to prevent them from cooking off when the armor gets penetrated. This is why the newest T-90MS has a seperate bustle just to store the loose spare ammo. You can also solve that problem by either only carrying around the rounds in your autoloader (ca. 22 rounds) or invest in an automatic fire suppression system, as installed on most chinese tanks like the ZTZ-96 and 99 series.
by78
General
I'm sorry, but that is the single greatest myth to have come out of the first gulf war.
The Russian autoloaders were fine, it was the poor ammo handling by the Iraqi crew that was the cause of turrets being blown off the turret rings.
Specifically, the Iraqis stupidly stored extra rounds inside the fighting compartment, which is a big no-no.
The carousel itself is armored AND placed very, very low on the floor, which is impossible to hit directly (unless the tank somehow presents its belly to the enemy). It could be argued that the carousel is far more vulnerable to mines than penetration from enemy rounds.
I was told the above by two separate gulf war veterans, one was a tank driver and the other a gunner.
Last edited:
About auto loaders, there are many trade offs
Tank cooking off is not really auto loader related. WW2 tanks often cooked off when the armor is penetrated and I believe standard procedure for all tanks crew is to abandon tank when the armor is penetrated; which in many cases unless it is some prop youtube video cooking off doesn't happen immediately.
Blow out panels are also overrated, what good does blow out panels do when the tank is hit by a top down missile with a bursting charge? The APFSDS rounds have dominated tank combat nowadays and they do do less internal damage, but all you need is a grenade size explosive to kill everyone inside a confined tank and destroy the sensitive equipment inside rendering the tank useless.
The lerlec's auto loader is located in an armored box with a blow out panel, and it comes at a cost, it have 22 ready rounds in the auto loader, and 18 rounds in the hull - which could also cook off and blow the turret off; and this is at 55 tonnes. For comparison, the T90 carries 42 rounds, 22 in the armored autoloader, 20 in the hull armored bin at 47 tonnes.
Both tanks will cook off as ammo is in the hull, both tanks have similar protection level; maybe the T90 would edge out more because of it's proven ERA and APS systems
The issue of the T72 style auto loader is that, the length of the shell is limited (this is a question of how wide the tank can have as it is organized in a carousel). This is an issue for APFSDS as it limits the L/D ratio the penetator can have.
The other debate is always on rate of fire, especially since the autoloader need to return the gun to level for reloading - which is true for the T72 and the Lerlec as well. But it is really moot, ROF is sufficient, and who gets to shoot and hit the target first is more important, and that is not a function of a manual loader or an auto loader.
Tank cooking off is not really auto loader related. WW2 tanks often cooked off when the armor is penetrated and I believe standard procedure for all tanks crew is to abandon tank when the armor is penetrated; which in many cases unless it is some prop youtube video cooking off doesn't happen immediately.
Blow out panels are also overrated, what good does blow out panels do when the tank is hit by a top down missile with a bursting charge? The APFSDS rounds have dominated tank combat nowadays and they do do less internal damage, but all you need is a grenade size explosive to kill everyone inside a confined tank and destroy the sensitive equipment inside rendering the tank useless.
The lerlec's auto loader is located in an armored box with a blow out panel, and it comes at a cost, it have 22 ready rounds in the auto loader, and 18 rounds in the hull - which could also cook off and blow the turret off; and this is at 55 tonnes. For comparison, the T90 carries 42 rounds, 22 in the armored autoloader, 20 in the hull armored bin at 47 tonnes.
Both tanks will cook off as ammo is in the hull, both tanks have similar protection level; maybe the T90 would edge out more because of it's proven ERA and APS systems
The issue of the T72 style auto loader is that, the length of the shell is limited (this is a question of how wide the tank can have as it is organized in a carousel). This is an issue for APFSDS as it limits the L/D ratio the penetator can have.
The other debate is always on rate of fire, especially since the autoloader need to return the gun to level for reloading - which is true for the T72 and the Lerlec as well. But it is really moot, ROF is sufficient, and who gets to shoot and hit the target first is more important, and that is not a function of a manual loader or an auto loader.
Iraqi but also Syrian and Russian T 72 (Lebanon, current civil war, Chechen war) and derived types (Yug M 84 for example) suffered these catastrophic explosions not only as a result of a direct hit in the autoloader which as you correctly pointed out is located low on the floor and thus unlikely to get directly hit but also if not mostly as a result of a fire which resulted from a hit.
If the fire reached the autoloader than there would be a catastrophic explosion with the turret being usually blown off. There are a zylion pics & vids from the Yug wars, Chechen wars etc. proving this. Were all the crews of those blown up tanks incompetently handling ammo? Maybe, but I would rather opt for the explanation I presented.
It is a different story with the T 64 which has its ammo in the autoloader stored vertically. A direct hit by a penetrating round or HEAT – jet usually causes a catastrophic explosion right away as many Ukrainian tanks and their crews experienced.
The Soviets wanted to design for a number of reason a small, compact tank with a limited crew and heavy fire power given by a 125 mm gun and the autoloader was part of the deal though it also imposed a penalty.
The same with armour. Soviet tanks (now days Russian) have good frontal armour that is thick glacis plate and turret front but suffer from weak armour at various other places and even additional armour (ERA and the like) does not make up for it. Combat experience in a number of conflicts showed that a hit to the side of a T 64, T 72 or T 80 even with a relatively light shoulder fired AT weapon will likely penetrate with a substantial possibility of a catastrophic explosion.
Last edited:
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
Okay looks like i got a controversy on my hands.
First, the Iraqi tank issue. Storing extra ammo in the fighting compartment is a really bad idea and history has proven that again and again. The allied tanks of world war 2 found that out most used simple turret racks until late in the war. It was also proven at the battle of Jutland where British cruisers overloaded with ammo and with crews looking to hurry reloads did the same as well as jury rig other cheats that allowed German hits that should have only destroyed turrets to take whole ships.the killer is not the shell. Its the primer charges. The high explosive in the shells is exceptionally stable by design it would take either the detonator sequence to detonate it or a rapid high heat exposure. The propellant charge is a less stable low explosive. Its more susceptible to fire and heat.
Now then on blowout panels. I can't comment on all tanks but the American and British tanks the Abrams and Chalanger 2 have excellent records. They also have thought about that possibility. First both tanks use manual loading meaning that in operation. The loader opens that ammo locker slides out the round closes the locker (he uses a foot pedal) then flips the round around to push it into the breach. The rounds are stored backwards intentionally so that in the event of cook off the shells blow out. And this leads to the next point Abrams tanks blowout panels are not just on top but on the rear as well. So if you get a top attack on a Abrams ammo locker the explosive force is still directed away from the crew.
First, the Iraqi tank issue. Storing extra ammo in the fighting compartment is a really bad idea and history has proven that again and again. The allied tanks of world war 2 found that out most used simple turret racks until late in the war. It was also proven at the battle of Jutland where British cruisers overloaded with ammo and with crews looking to hurry reloads did the same as well as jury rig other cheats that allowed German hits that should have only destroyed turrets to take whole ships.the killer is not the shell. Its the primer charges. The high explosive in the shells is exceptionally stable by design it would take either the detonator sequence to detonate it or a rapid high heat exposure. The propellant charge is a less stable low explosive. Its more susceptible to fire and heat.
Now then on blowout panels. I can't comment on all tanks but the American and British tanks the Abrams and Chalanger 2 have excellent records. They also have thought about that possibility. First both tanks use manual loading meaning that in operation. The loader opens that ammo locker slides out the round closes the locker (he uses a foot pedal) then flips the round around to push it into the breach. The rounds are stored backwards intentionally so that in the event of cook off the shells blow out. And this leads to the next point Abrams tanks blowout panels are not just on top but on the rear as well. So if you get a top attack on a Abrams ammo locker the explosive force is still directed away from the crew.