Replies

Here’s what I’ve learned regarding Russian designed tanks. Since WWII Russia has designed with cheapness and ease of manufacture as primary concerns. I worked for General Dynamics on the M1 series and other tanks. (Although I was not involved directly with the design, I was on numerous sub sections in various capacities and saw what the priorities were.) Number 1, crew safety. That prefaced every discussion. Some of the Russian designs have an autoloader and the ammo is stored in the turret. If the turret gets hit the ammo can cook off incinerating the crew. In present US designs the ammo is kept in an armored compartment and has a lower probability of going off if the tank takes a hit. I no longer know the exact numbers off the top of my head but something like 25 Abrams were lost in Iraq and no crew were killed as a result. (Lots of things can cause a loss, including driving off bridges.)

It appears that much of the money allocated to Russian modernization instead went into yachts. If I had used any of my budget for even coffee and donuts for the designers, I’d go to prison.

Some guy last week did analysis of a blown-up Russian tank, and the armor platting which was around the wreckage. There were supposed to be compartment areas where I guess extra ‘sheeting’ (armor) would have been to protect the occupants...but none of these were obvious on the ground. His thoughts were that either at the factory or later in the unit...they were taken to sell (either by the commander or members of the unit).

Same story assumed on the radar being off on the first ship that was sunk...some belief that it might have been sold on the parts market. (Anyone’s guess on this idea)

I will say this...if you were making a dismal pay situation, even as a officer, selling off fuel or parts would probably be a regular monthly experience.

There is a tanker Chieftain video who tells the story of 20 Merkavas going up against the latest Orc ATM in huge ambush. Only one tank was lost, and one tank was hit 11 times.

He also makes the point that not one Merkava thought to pop smoke.

This was also a design choice. The Soviets put in an auto-loader which takes up a lot of space in a smaller vehicle, but thought it acceptable for rate of fire considerations in an extended engagement (no human loader to get exhausted). They also stowed the ammo in the crew compartment below the turret ring. At the time of the design most all engagements would be against the front or side of the tank. The action of a round would be directed mostly in a horizontal direction. It was less likely to hit ammunition stowage. And if the tank is in defilade the ammunition is very difficult to hit.

But in the last 30 years or so accurate top attack weapons have changed the game significantly. If a tandem warhead penetrates the top, it is generally going to send the jet nearly vertically into the crew compartment and will very likely hit the propellant charges stowed on the floor. And, of course, the results can be catastrophic as the propellant burns.

I remember reading a story about an incident during Desert Storm involving an M1 Abrams tank taking on three Iraqi T-72s.

The M1 hit a mine that disabled the track. The crew was told to wait for a tank recovery vehicle. While the rest of the column moved on the crew waited. Soon after three Iraqi T-72s showed up and one opened fire. The round bounced off the Abrams, the Abrams swung it's gun around and took out the T-72. Another Iraqi tank fired and that round bounced off. The Abrams took that one out too. The third Iraqi tank fired and missed and then ducked behind a sand berm. The Abrams thermal sight picked up the heat signature from behind the berm and fired a round that went through the sand berm and took out the third Iraqi tank. Pretty damn good shooting if you ask me.