Russia's tanks in Ukraine have a 'jack-in-the-box' design flaw. And the West has known about it since the Gulf war

CNN ^ | 28-APR-2022 | Brad Lendon

[SpeedyInTexas]

Russian tanks with their tops blown off are just the latest sign that Russia's invasion of Ukraine isn't going to plan.

Hundreds of Russian tanks are thought to have been destroyed since Moscow launched its offensive, with British Defense Secretary Ben Wallace on Monday estimating it had lost as many as 580.

But Moscow's problems go beyond the sheer number of tanks it has lost. Experts say battlefield images show Russian tanks are suffering from a defect that Western militaries have known about for decades and refer to as the "jack-in-the-box effect." Moscow, they say, should have seen the problem coming.

[PIF]

I’ll give the Russians a bit of credit for designing the T-14
—

Maybe, if you send them your credits, they could actually produce one. It would be the first Russian production tank built in the last 10 years.

[Paal Gulli]

"...The problem relates to how the tanks' ammunition is stored. Unlike modern Western tanks, Russian ones carry multiple shells within their turrets. This makes them highly vulnerable as even an indirect hit can start a chain reaction that explodes their entire ammunition store of up to 40 shells...."

The writer is an ABSOLUTE IDIOT. If M1 Abrams tanks don't carry "multiple shells within their turrets," how in the hell is the loader supposed to feed the main gun while the commander is traversing the turret??????????

As this (reasonably accurate) illustration shows, there is a provision for as many as 34 main gun rounds in the 'bustle' of the M1's turret (labeled as #5).

The M1 also has a blast shield separating the ready rack from the rest of the turret, and blow-out panels (shown as open) on top of the turret to give pressure any easier way to get out than through the crew compartment if one should explode.

[Paal Gulli]

Not that it matters because none of the occupants will survive if there’s even a significant fraction of the overpressure needed to blow off 10 tons of turret and main gun. The tank might even be easier to repair because it’s transforming some of the blast energy into motion rather than having to absorb it all.

Not to forget that the turrets on battleships are only held on by gravity. If the ship capsizes, the turrets fall of.

[dirtymac]

You sound just like a CNN or MSNBC Broadcaster. Only communist think and talk like that :)

[jroehl]

Mikhail Ilyich Koshkin. He died from pneumonia he contracted during T-34 winter tests on September 26, 1940.

[DMZFrank]

Your memory is pretty much spot on. I believe that economic considerations were a primary motivation for Ustinov and his successors to eventually acquiesce in the eventual domination of the T-72B series with it’s INNUMERABLE variants.

I too remember freezing nights in the turret of an M-60A1 tank near the Fulda Gap as we were expecting to be overwhelmed by that Vietnam era version of the 1979 “Seven Days to the Rhine” that would be spearheaded by the Soviet 8th Guards Tank Army. We spent nearly as much time in the field training for that as I did on combat operations in Vietnam. It was a night and day difference in tactical concepts, as our principle main gun ammo there was canister, beehive, Heat and HE (for bunkers) in our close range engagements against infantry. In Germany we were training for first and second round hits against enemy AFV’s with sabot at 2000-4000 meters.

I think that we anticipated a life expectancy of 72 hours, but they essentially told us to attrite as many of them as we could while successively retreating to different phase lines before we were annihilated and or reinforced.

That might be a partial explanation for all of the dope usage back then....

[ckilmer]

These tank kill stories are fun.

But when I look at youtube channels that show the daily battle results—it does look the russians are daily nibbling off a little real estate in the east and in the south just take some ground west of Khershon.

They winning ugly.

[Jewbacca]

well, just shoot slower and stow the ammo low.

PIA, but it overcomes this defect.

[Regulator]

“You see, the west care enough about the crews”

Hah. I think you’re the first guy I ever heard who said that about the army. Not what my buddy said when they sent him into the Parrot’s Beak in ‘71 with only 30 rounds because “we don’t want you to get into it with the NVA”!

It’s clearly a design trade, but one made without considering the weapons they face now - these are 80’s or even ‘70’s designs. And in Russia, the attitude is “what, you aren’t man enough to take the risk?”.

It’s all quantity with them, not quality. They just think they can swarm the enemy with a bunch of mass produced “good enough, Ivan” machinery.

[Regulator]

“I guess they figured the trade off was worth it”

I think so too. They just have a different philosophy, kinda similar to how the Turks think of infantry...

[wally_bert]

Just ride in them man.

[Bruce Campbells Chin]

The problem is that they’re stuck with the built-in autoloader.

[Jewbacca]

They should have bought Mercavas.

Now that’s a modern tank, repeatedly testing (and improved) against infantry rockets.

I’m no tanker being a flyboy pansy, but I don’t even think humans sit anywhere near the gun (or even in the turret).

And each round is individually insulated. It’s all electronic with no hydraulics.

[Bull Snipe]

The Soviets used a modified Christy spring suspension in the T-34. The sloped hull design and diesel engine was their engineer’s doings.

[Bull Snipe]

“Crew survivability is not an expectation, much less a feature of Russian equipment.”

As demonstrated by the sinking of the Moskva

[MinorityRepublican]

Mother Russia lost a lot of sons in WW2.

[ealgeone]

Actually, Christie had the idea for slopped armor. No doubt the Soviets copied that concept as well. The engine was theirs though.

[ealgeone]

"Sloped" armor.

There was a whole lot more of the tank design that was Russian and very little borrowed from Christie.

No where have I said Christie designed the exact dimensions and characteristics of the T-34 or any of the Soviet tanks that emulated his designs. They "borrowed", like the Soviets did with a lot of things right up through the Cold War in other systems, his concept for the suspension and sloped armor. Did they improve upon the armor? Yep. No argument there.

Also, remember...the Soviets would be very reluctant to admit their T-34 owed much to Christie...an American.

And however flawed you may think the transmission was - it was the soul of reliability compared to the Tiger or Panther tank's transmissions.

Attaboy...move the goal posts. Compared to the Tiger and Panther yes...its transmission was good. But that's not your original assertion. But it was not when compared to a Sherman.

[ealgeone]

Nope. Not old enough - but I spent some time inside a couple of T-34s (and T54/55s and one T-62) to know their engineering and their characteristics.

I've crawled around a T-54/55. Not overly impressed.

One of the fun parts of this forum is seeing all these “experts” spout off about things they know very little about.

Yep...it sure is there, Mr. Expert.

[tlozo]

A Russian tank lies destroyed, its turret blown off, after a battle near Kharkiv, Ukraine.