I think its not needed in the context of the fact that it carries a low ( 10 ) number of ammo , had it carried 20 or above ammo constituting half or more then half of the total capacity an automated rack would have been necessary or for that one even a simple sliding door approach with integrated welded bustle.
I think they have become focussed on making the turret bustle ammo safe from enemy fire and to that end it needed to be small... which has resulted in it not really being as useful as it could have been.
You talk about weak spots in the turret rear... but the whole turret rear IS a weak spot and putting a large turret bustle actually improves rear turret protection.
If the enemy want to waste ammo trying to shoot at your turret bustle then that is a good thing because even if they hit it all it will do is explode upwards and not injure the crew in any way... the result will be a minor reduction in ready to use ammo.
When you are in a face to face gun fight you don't waste time trying to shoot the spare ammo out of his hand, you shoot to kill and a shot in the hand wont kill.
They have made decisions based on the situation and requirements they were given from their primary customer.
Their decisions solve the fundamental problems of loose ammo in the crew compartment. I would have preferred a more elegant solution, but this one works too.
They don't like turret bustles and never have and I don't think Armata will have a turret bustle either.
In WWII the tanks with turret bustles had HE packs placed under them in combat which often blew the turret off its turret race and rendered the tank fairly useless.
In modern tanks the bustle is often used to offset the increased weight of the gun and turret frontal armour, which is often good for the gun stabilisation gear, and of course to keep ready to use ammo separate from the crew compartment.
MOD wanted more ammo as more is always better and I think 22 is low even if were to be 100 % hit probability.
Any tank destroying 20 targets on a battlefield could certainly do with a short rest...
The T-95 program was paid for by MOD and T-95 had it flaws.
The problem with the T-95 was that it was a cold war design... its main failing was that it was custom designed to meet their exact needs. Now that their needs have changed it no longer meets those needs. You can hardly blame the T-95 or UVZ or the MOD really. It would be very stupid to put into production something that was designed for a conflict that is not likely going to happen.
I think extra thick hatches would be some redesign of turret which is not needed , its a well thought out decision not to have a hatch which would have been simple to do , the sliding door in abrams for ammo has a tendency to jam too.
It is not rocket science. Cut a square hole 30cm by 30cm in the rear turret in line with the gun. Design a hatch that is 40cm by 40cm that is 10cm thick and then wield on a piece of hardened steel that is 30cm by 30cm that is the same depth as the turret at that point. The result is a hatch that is 10cm thicker than the normal turret armour around it and for 10cm around the hole it is also 10cm thicker... with the addition of the automated ammo rack and all the ammo and the structure and fittings and slat armour and tool boxes all protecting the rear turret armour you take what you call a weak spot and make it better protected than the rest of the rear turret armour. The mechanism can be designed to pull out the door the distance equal to its thickness and then slide it sideways while the straight line rammer pushes a round with its support ledge in to the turret to ram a projectile and propellent stub directly into the open chamber of the main gun. The whole assembly retracts and the armoured door slides closed... all automatically and all at the push of a button. That cell on the ammo rack is now empty so the whole mechanism moves around one position so the next round is in line to be rammed... it just takes one push of a button to select the ammo type being carried in the turret bustle to load the next round.
The bustle as designed is far too small to allow a projectile and propellent stub to be stored in line in the bustle so it clearly was not an option anyway.
I was talking in context of rear turret bustle approach of having a bolted and modular design for ammo storage
They could have made the turret bustle totally modular with the outer part bolted on for easy replacement, but with the autoloader part in the middle they could have made it completely removable, so in combat they could have withdrawn to an area where a crane lifts off the old empty bustle and positions a new fully loaded turret bustle autoloader in a minute or two like the Black Eagle was designed to do. The Black Eagle has only a turret bustle autoloader with 31 rounds so it really is not that much different in terms of ready to use rounds.
It can be very useful to useless would depend on the situation , at worst they would have to retreat if the situation does not permit loading of ammo and if not loading 25 % of reserve ammo is leading to a serious situation for them then they are already in deep shit in case of a war.
Probably the tank commander better retreat to fight for another day
The thing is that if you retreat to a safe place to reload... you are only reloading 10 rounds... you can't go back into battle with only 10 rounds!
So the plan is to retreat to a safe place and reload 10 rounds and then retreat further to your support area to reload the rest of the ammo and then drive back into combat...
The AM wont be radically different from MS , from what i get from gur khan blog it will have better protection level and new 2A82 gun , rest remains the same.
Just seems to be half finished to me.
I seriously think that continue to turn over and over around this question of the 10 rounds stored in the rear turret separate compartment is totally pointless and ,overall a detail much less interesting than others; something say to me that, if a T-90AM/MS will ever see the employment in a real conflict, 90% of times this compartment will remain completely empty (maybe also attracting some wasted enemy fire upon it in urban warfare or close range ambush situations) and the remaining times it will mostly contain HE-FRAG rounds because the operative tasks requiring the employment of extra rounds of this type will almost certainly allow also a safe recharging operation outside the MBT by part of the tank's crew.
I agree, and please don't take my childish whining to mean I don't like this new vehicle... I just think it could have been much more with a little extra effort... perhaps what is needed is an export customer to make demands like with the Pantsir-S1, but as it is I think it fixes all the obvious flaws of the T-72/90 design and results in a competitive modern tank.
Think you made a valid point , in all the 50 good thing we humans have the tendency to search for one bad thing and I was now searching for Blow Up Panel for the turret Embarassed may be I need some rest
It doesn't need a blow out panel in the turret roof. The underfloor ammo will have the weak spots underneath so it will have blow down panels and the ammo in the turret bustle is not even part of the turret so it doesn't matter which direction it explodes the crew should be safe... though as a precaution I would insist on the HEAT shells being placed facing backwards in the turret bustle.
The roof hatches are likely the only opening in the turret bustle meaning any internal explosion will go in that direction first. so custom designed blow out panels are unnecessary.
What do you mean by off road terrain limits sir ?
Bouncing across rough country will reduce gun accuracy no matter how good your stabilisers are.
Of course targets travelling across rough ground will also be moving in 3 dimensions which makes for a more difficult target.