Mike E wrote:
OminousSpudd wrote:M1 is the most survivable based on what?
A lot of different things.
- It has completely isolated ammunition, separated to the crew with a blast door, along with having blow out panels.
Every advantage has its own disadvantage small or big.
The disadvantage is the all the ammunition is one place that means that very ammunition bustle gets very big, meaning a big target, high volume and lot of armor needed to cover it. (Disadvantage size, form and weight)
The other disadvantage is that it can not survive or protect crew from HE-Frag shells detonating in that ammunition bustle. The US lacks them in service at least did so for very long time through the use of it and the low content and low hazardous HEAT shells M830 they have allways face backwards away from crew compartment the amount of explosive is low and directed outwards. As soon as it loads real HE-Frag rounds it won't have great survivability in case of cook off.
Mike E wrote:
- The turret sides have 350-400 mm of armour, which can be invaluable in certain scenarios (this includes the bustle).
The turret side may have such a LOS the armor itself is far lower and it only advantage comes from angle when attacks come from angles and are useless for anything that is newer than PG-7 and it will most probably penetrate when coming in from 90° angle.
Mike E wrote:
- Large and compartmentalized crew compartment. The driver is mostly isolated from the turret crew and vice-versa, and the turret is large enough to where a penetration may not kill all the crewmen inside of it.
That is something that should never be seen as an advantage because the disadvantages outweight anything possitive from a big internal volume. It is true that internal volume minimizes injuries or lethal injuries to the crew but a bigger, more heavy, less optimal shaped turret opens alot of problems (weight, very well recognizable even from distance that size also limits its means of camoflauging of the surroundings like using trenches, trees and so on. The T-64/72/80/90 have smaller size they suffer higher casualty rates in case of penetration but are less likely to be hit, to be seen, much easier to camoflauge not to mention their "self-digging" capability.
The tank designs are made on Prevention of penetration
not on minimizing After Armor effects on crew by more internal volume.
Wrong philosphy means a tnak is a failure if it would rely on such philosophy of tank design. It was no concern in any tank design.
Mike E wrote:
As 'non-complex' as this may seem, the M1 is one of very few tanks that has all of the above.
Why only post positives in a very unfair way like for the internal volume as source of minimizing after armor effects on crew and with it casualties? Why not state from start on the advantages and disadvantages not to make it seem unfair comparision.
Mike E wrote:
Leopard 2 stores most of its' rounds in a non-isolated, hull mounted box (exposed to the crew). Same with the Leclerc.
Where are the most rounds that are hitting tanks? Turret, UFP or LFP?
The tank designs are very well thought through. Thinks are here presented as some "archilles heel" when they are not. The ammunition that the Chally, Leopard, T-80/90, Leclerc and all the others store it right after the frontal main armor which is not that easy to penetrate. They are organized in a way to make a very low target from most angles which are always protected from main armor or at angles. The ammunition is also always isolated from spalling or hot fragments, so only a direct hit to the ammunition itself can cause a cook off, excluding T-80.
Mike E wrote:
T-64/72/80/90 all have a small crew compartment, with ammunition scattered almost everywhere in full capacity. Even with excess rounds eliminated, there is still a danger there (note that the MS pretty much corrected this).
Very easy to correct that the T-90 eleminated most of the problem and i am not talking about MS version. The ammunition of paperlike casings are isolated from fragmentation, hot material, fuel fire or spalling so only a direct hit can cause cook off just like on any other tank. The thing is you can refrain from arming your tank of the free rounds in the turret and around the turret which the russians already did in chechnya and it helped significantly. Hell even Chechnya 1 where the tanks faced worst conditions of enemy with training, capable weaponary, even tanks and Anti Aircraft arsenal, with T-80's without ERA used in a disasterous way have seen much less "cook offs" than what the propaganda of the Abrams is telling. This propaganda of how disasterous the cook offs are comes only due the Abrams isolated ammunition without any mention of the actual rate of cook off which is very low even in very bad conditions.
Zivo wrote:Ammo isolation and horizontally emphasized armor just thick enough to shrug off basic RPG's.
Well, that was the conventional thought process regarding protection, shrugging off small RPG-7's in close quarters. However, after Syria and Yemen, I'm thinking that the M1 isn't as survivable as a T-90A, as the T-90 has at least some active defense against ATGM's. Bustles don't seem do shit when old 9k111 ATGM's can just punch holes through the blast doors from side hits on the turret, and kornet's can score through-and-through's on the turret face. No
We could indeed see after Houthis destroyed M1A2S in Yemen with the Konkurs that the design is exactly what quite a few critics have expected and which busted the myth or believes that many fanboys have pushed forward. That the ammunition bustle will always prevent the fire from killing the crew. That Konkurs was a very lucky hit or the Operator was trained to know the weak points of the Abrams tank. The Konkurs ATGM has hit the ammunition access door exactly with an angle to ignite the ammunition and by that causing total destruction of tank and crew except one guy who is probably tank driver who was closest to the bottom bail out hatch.
That of course is highly situational destruction of a tank and not the general rule and case on the battlefield, but it is no worse than the myths of russian autoloader and carousel ammunition always causing a total destruction in case of armor penetration where Chechnyan first campaign has shown T-80's which are adknowledged to be inferior in survivability due their design of autoloader and ammunition storage which fared far better than someone would expect in such an unorganized and blatant way the tanks were used in that war. That and the point that the ERA tiles were not fitted with explosives to enhance their protection despite all that the tanks did not suffer catastrophic "cook offs" in the amount western propaganda wants us to believe. 6 T-72 (Ural/A/BV) were destroyed with cook offs after penetration by AT weapons from 45 total that is 13.33% under worst conditions with bad tactics, no ERA and urban warfare and bad morality of conscripts. The numbers of T-80 are even lower due their use and participation in zones.
T-90A would fare much better as long ammunition in turret are kept out of the arsenal. It has among the best protection overall from better degrees and much less prone to situational destruction as long urban warfare is planned properly and executed in such a way.