Kiev Is Burning

[Stuart Galbraith]

6 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

Stuart's point is that he thinks Western armor is more survivable for the crew than Russian designs.  

No, I really dont. Im saying the Ukrainians are saying it, and I suggest they are in a far better position to know than the dozens of armchair experts here on Tanknet, busily pulling fluff out the navels.

 

[Mighty_Zuk]

8 minutes ago, seahawk said:

Only Stewart thinks this.

Factually wrong because I believe that too. And the reason is that western tanks are more survivable as a fact. This is absolutely indisputable.

[seahawk]

And I think it is wrong, because there is no proof for it. The few time Russian and Western tanks met, without one side enjoying a huge advantage by fielding more modern tanks with more modern ammo, the causality rates were not much different.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Just now, seahawk said:

And I think it is wrong, because there is no proof for it. The few time Russian and Western tanks met, without one side enjoying a huge advantage by fielding more modern tanks with more modern ammo, the causality rates were not much different.

3000 dead tanks is what, pure hearsay?

 

 

[seahawk]

Who says it would be less, if those would be western tanks, especially as artillery, mines and drones are the main killers.

[bojan]

27 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Factually wrong because I believe that too. And the reason is that western tanks are more survivable as a fact. This is absolutely indisputable.

Wartime statistics from Arab-Israeli war, Yugoslav wars, Chechen wars etc (posted it previously) show that number of people killed per tank KOd is ~ same for all tanks with non-isolated ammo storage. And since only M1 has fully isolated ammo storage... Well, draw your own conclusions about survivability of Leo 2 or C2 post penetration that hits ammo stored in hull. Oh wait, we have vids showing those also having ammo fires and explosions in that case.

[old_goat]

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Show me a picture of a leopard 2 blowing up like a T90M and taking its entire crew with it.

Lets see... Maybe this? Disintegrated to nothing is good enough for you? 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YafzmkvVRiI

BTW, one of your CR2s met the same fate in ukraine...

Also you should check the battle of Al-Bab, where multiple Leopards were lost. You can clearly see where the hull was ripped apart by the explosion. In the background, another with turret launched to the stratosphere... Below, a Merkava, rear hull is clearly missing, indicating an ammo explosion. Draw your own conclusions...

So, like it or not, with the exception of the Abrams, with its fully isolated ammo storage, western tanks arent much better than a T-90M in this regard. 

[Mighty_Zuk]

54 minutes ago, bojan said:

Wartime statistics from Arab-Israeli war, Yugoslav wars, Chechen wars etc (posted it previously) show that number of people killed per tank KOd is ~ same for all tanks with non-isolated ammo storage. And since only M1 has fully isolated ammo storage... Well, draw your own conclusions about survivability of Leo 2 or C2 post penetration that hits ammo stored in hull. Oh wait, we have vids showing those also having ammo fires and explosions in that case.

Casualties per tank KO'd is not a good metric because it does take into account the circumstances of said KO.

For example if a tank was KO'd and a full crew was killed after 1 penetration, it'd be equal under that metric to a tank that was KO'd after 4 penetrations.

A tank that was KO'd with no casualties, from a landmine under its tracks, would be equal to one KO'd with no casualties from an ATGM.

The only objective analysis, sans shooting the exact same things at multiple AFVs, is analysis of its design.

[MiGG0]

It is reasonable metric as it clearly shows Abrams being best with its isolated ammo storage (pretty much only big difference between various designs). Tough Abrams has not faced that much of same tier weapons used against it.

Edited October 8 by MiGG0

[Mighty_Zuk]

15 minutes ago, MiGG0 said:

It is reasonable metric as it clearly shows Abrams being best with its isolated ammo storage (pretty much only big difference between various designs). Tough Abrams has not faced that much of same tier weapons used against it.

Fully isolated ammo storage is much less of a factor when compared to other things like reduced fire hazards from fuel and hydraulics.

Modern armor, mine and roof armor kits, APS. Spall liners.

Partially isolated ammo also goes a long way and that exists on pretty much every western tank sans Challenger 2.

I'd say the ability to egress from a rear hatch close to ground level is a major survivability boost, as seen on the Merkava.

Just straight up superior ergonomics, comms, BMS, and other force multipliers allow a tank to be more lethal and deal with threats better - which indirectly greatly contributes to its survivability.

[MiGG0]

9 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Fully isolated ammo storage is much less of a factor when compared to other things like reduced fire hazards from fuel and hydraulics.

Modern armor, mine and roof armor kits, APS. Spall liners.

Partially isolated ammo also goes a long way and that exists on pretty much every western tank sans Challenger 2.

I'd say the ability to egress from a rear hatch close to ground level is a major survivability boost, as seen on the Merkava.

Just straight up superior ergonomics, comms, BMS, and other force multipliers allow a tank to be more lethal and deal with threats better - which indirectly greatly contributes to its survivability.

All newer designs has or has ability have most of those so when comparing them they are pretty much equal in those terms (some might have better in some area, but statisctically it makes no difference). As it shows only Abrams has any noticeable difference (fully isolated ammo) to crew loss ratio.

EDIT: As a crew point of view I would like to have tank that has best change to survive after penetration. From "generals" point of view, I would like to have tank that is most cost effective (how many crew dies is minor consern)

Edited October 8 by MiGG0

[bojan]

55 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

...The only objective analysis, sans shooting the exact same things at multiple AFVs, is analysis of its design.

Which gets you perfect spherical elephant in vacuum, that has no real connection to reality on ground, applicable maybe to WT or some other game, but no real world, because you are thinking at "tank vs tank" level, not as "tank force vs it's opponents, whatever that might be".

Because reality is that tank force will lose ~same % of crew per tank KOd, no matter the tank if it has no isolated ammo storage. M1, with isolated ammo storage had noticeably lower numbers (by about 40%), and even through it was not facing same level and length of high intensity combat as other designs did it is still noticeable change that can not be attributed to anything other than fully isolated ammo storage.

26 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Fully isolated ammo storage is much less of a factor when compared to other things like reduced fire hazards from fuel and hydraulics.

No, because ammo fires are only ones that can not be successfully dealt with. As for hydraulics, since US moved away from more flammable fluid those are ~same for everyone. Well, not exactly, last decades seen switch to more flammable but less carcinogenic hydraulic fluids in the most of the west...

Yes, hydraulics can influence %of burned out tanks in case all tanks had non-isolated ammo storage (like M48/60 vs Cent vs T-54/55/62, where ~only ~39% of M48/60s were recoverable compared to ~55% for T-54/55/62 and ~60% for Cent). But it is not as important as isolated ammo storage, as more tanks were lost to ammo fires than to hydraulics fires, and while hydraulic fire could be extinguished in some cases - ammo fire could not.

*They used that one not because they were stupid, but because it had better performances as hydraulic fluid, it's primary purpose. It took a major war to find out it has problems with flamability....

Quote

Modern armor, mine and roof armor kits, APS. Spall liners.

Armor prevents penetration, it does relatively little to actually prevent casualties if penetration is achieved. Also, it tends to be concentrated only on front ~90deg of the vehicle, rest of tanks are at level, sometimes even worse then WW2 tanks. Leo's 30-40mm, M1s 38-51mm, C2s 38mm and Merks 51mm are "modern armor" in what universe? Even those with "heavy" sideskirts (which is  standardly fitted to some Merks and nothing else) are at best protected vs older generations of RPGs, not anything remotely modern.

APS, other than limited Israel and Soviet experience, who have used it in major war? Who even has APS fitted to their tanks ATM so it is relevant to discussion?

As for spall liners you should check which tanks have them first, you might be surprised...  

 

[glenn239]

3 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

No, I really dont. Im saying the Ukrainians are saying it, and I suggest they are in a far better position to know than the dozens of armchair experts here on Tanknet, busily pulling fluff out the navels.

 

I think it's partly a function of how compact the tank is.  The more everyone is jam packed inside, the less survivable it will be in these battlefield conditions.  The T-90 might be a bit of an exception due to the fact it is the most modern Russian tank with a better protection scheme, but I'm aware of no evidence that even the T-90 is particularily more survivable than the Western tanks like the Challenger or Abrams.  And the older types - T-72 and T-80 - surely must be less survivable.

Edited October 8 by glenn239

[Markus Becker]

WAG: The Comrades from behind the Iron Curtain were the first to use spall liners to defeat perfidious British HESH! 

WRT ammo storage, Leo 2 still has the ready ammo in the lower(?) hull? 

[Stuart Galbraith]

1 hour ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Fully isolated ammo storage is much less of a factor when compared to other things like reduced fire hazards from fuel and hydraulics.

Modern armor, mine and roof armor kits, APS. Spall liners.

Partially isolated ammo also goes a long way and that exists on pretty much every western tank sans Challenger 2.

I'd say the ability to egress from a rear hatch close to ground level is a major survivability boost, as seen on the Merkava.

Just straight up superior ergonomics, comms, BMS, and other force multipliers allow a tank to be more lethal and deal with threats better - which indirectly greatly contributes to its survivability.

Tbh, you could fully isolate ammunition on Challenger 2. Just offload the HESH and Willy Pete, which is bugger all use in wet weather anyway.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Cry Havoc, and let slip the baguette of consequences.

 

[bojan]

41 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

I think it's partly a function of how compact the tank is.  The more everyone is jam packed inside, the less survivable it will be in these battlefield conditions. ...

To have significant difference in post-penetration survivability you would have to have even more significant difference in internal volume. T-54/55 55% vs Cent's 60% recovery ratio and similar % of crew casualties says it ain't so in the real world..

 

23 minutes ago, Markus Becker said:

WAG: The Comrades from behind the Iron Curtain were the first to use spall liners to defeat perfidious British HESH! 

Vs neutron radiation, but it also worked well as spall liner

Quote

WRT ammo storage, Leo 2 still has the ready ammo in the lower(?) hull? 

Yes, newest ones have storage reduced by 7 rounds to improve mine-resistance (lowest rounds in the ammo rack) but it is still there. It is impossible to rid off w/o major redesign of the tank.

  

2 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Tbh, you could fully isolate ammunition on Challenger 2. Just offload the HESH and Willy Pete, which is bugger all use in wet weather anyway.

That is not fully isolated ammo storage, it is just partially protected ammo storage since there are no blow-off panels to went off products of combustion of propellant charges.

[Markus Becker]

12 minutes ago, bojan said:

Yes, newest ones have storage reduced by 7 rounds to improve mine-resistance (lowest rounds in the ammo rack) but it is still there. It is impossible to rid off w/o major redesign of the tank.

I seem to vaguely remember that the space needed for decent protection is taken up by a 90s fire control computer but more importantly 

K2, Poland's Finest doesn't have isolated ammo storage? 

[MiGG0]

13 minutes ago, Markus Becker said:

I seem to vaguely remember that the space needed for decent protection is taken up by a 90s fire control computer but more importantly 

K2, Poland's Finest doesn't have isolated ammo storage? 

It does, but IIRC only 16 from 40 are there(back of turret). Rest are stored in hull.

Edited October 8 by MiGG0

[seahawk]

Then it is as isolated as the failed Leopard 2.

[MiGG0]

18 minutes ago, seahawk said:

Then it is as isolated as the failed Leopard 2.

I would not say it is failed. M1 just is better in that regard than anything else. From strategic point of view (just example, not actual numbers) if you lose on avarege 2 KIA (other tanks) vs 1 KIA (M1), it wont make that big difference even in major conflight. More important is how fast you can make more of those tanks and how effective they are in overall. From crew perspective you ofcourse would want that M1.

Edited October 8 by MiGG0

[bojan]

Difference was IIRC 40% reduction in crew casualties (that includes wounded also), but that was comparing ODS to... IDR what exactly, but M60 was reference point so it had to be Arab-Israeli wars. So caveats about intensity of war, number of tanks KOd etc have to be counted in. But full ammo isolation does not cost that much compared to everything else in tank (even mass wise it is not horrible), and in long run will save you money, so now, post-factum we know it is proven to be a good thing and should be probably unavoidable part of tank design. That was not that clear in '70s when Leo 2 was designed. Later it was just not possible to change it w/o major redesign and there was no money nor will for that.

Why K2 has unprotected and non-isolated ammo storage while being designed in 21st century is... puzzling, but IMO K2 is heavily overhyped and has more serious compromises than almost any competitor*. But it is being produced in decent numbers and it is fundamentally acceptable tank in time when most competitors are produced in few dozens per year, so yeah, it is getting contracts from people who can not afford to wait for US or Europe to decide will they or will they not actually increase tank production.

*Junk like Arjun, heavily specialized stuff like Type 10 and vanity project like C3 excluded.  

2 hours ago, Markus Becker said:

I seem to vaguely remember that the space needed for decent protection is taken up by a 90s fire control computer ...

It is not just question of armoring hull ammo rack, hull would have to be heavily redesign to include blow-out panels for hull ammo storage. At which point you practically have new hull, so it is no-go.

[bfng3569]

3 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Cry Havoc, and let slip the baguette of consequences.

 

pointless.

what ever pilots and ground crews/maintenance personal they have, keep them all trained on one platform.

[Yama]

6 hours ago, glenn239 said:

I think it's partly a function of how compact the tank is.  The more everyone is jam packed inside, the less survivable it will be in these battlefield conditions.  

Supposedly in late 1960s this was the result of experiments done with combat loaded tanks tested as targets - US tanks performed better in survivability tests than theoretical models predicted, and Soviet tanks did worse. However source for this was Pierre Sprey, so...

[Josh]

Ugh, can we get a new thread for the tank with the biggest dick discussion? I know this is TANKnet but I feel we are not covering any new ground.