Russian Military News

[lloyd007]

Wouldn't be as bad as auto loading tanks since the ammo is stored differently

That they don't pop their tops as spectacularly as the autoloaders do when hit by a top attack ATGM doesn't mean much considering the thing was built to be armored against 1950's-1960's technology and as seen in Syria most any ATGM the rebels got their hands on would turn the entire crew of any Syrian Army T-55 into BBQ no matter if the ammo cooked off spectacularly or not.

The few T-55 SVBIEDs ISIS used were fairly effective and Russians can go further by turning them into multiton thermobaric bombs, with enough forward applique armor to survive the trip to heavily defende positions. However their use as targets at training ranges is much more likely.

ISIL fighting in the desert against other Syrians, Iraqis and etc. =/= AFU fighting in Ukraine. Maybe they'd wipe out 50+ with the first of them if they caught the Ukrainians completely and utterly off guard, but afterward any T-55 would just be blown up from a distance since they aren't fast, they aren't nimble and they certainly aren't easily concealable or inconspicuous.

 

[Zachowon]

They would be destroyed well before getting close to troops unless they just left them sitting there as surprise ones.

 

[The Whispering Monk]

They would be destroyed well before getting close to troops unless they just left them sitting there as surprise ones.

I could see them getting placed inside buildings or terrain to hide them till the inevitable Ukrainian counteroffensive. Then deploy them to cause havoc and get some damage in once the Ukrainians are in the face of the Russian obstacles and urban areas.

 

[Aldarion]

Wouldn't be as bad as auto loading tanks since the ammo is stored differently

Problem with Russian tanks is not actually the autoloader, but rather the ammunition storage:

Private Site

historyandwar.org

Private Site

historyandwar.org

 

[Marduk]

T-55 VBIED's is really scraping the bottom of the barrel considering even beyond mobility and fuel supply issues any explosion will take the path of least resistance out the top, bottom and rear of the tank rather than the much thicker armored front and sides.

They're more likely either going to be used as artillery because of the possible warehouses full of 100mm shells and if the Kremlin is starting to give any fks about its troops or as tanks if they still DNGAF, especially since they'll be losing 4 men as opposed to 3 when they get ammo racked.

That was the same exact story with T-62's, and we all know how those ended up.
If it's artillery, it's gonna be shitty artillery, and eventually someone will notice and just turn them into "recon by force" as with many other things.
They just don't have much more range than a relatively easy to produce and supply modern 120mm heavy mortar, which, mounted on a truck or APC, would do the same job much better. Russia already has that in Nona.
Would getting a relatively small amount of even weaker and less accurate artillery than their usual be worth dealing with the logistical footprint of a tank? At that caliber and shell design not optimized for artillery work (a step below 105mm, considered light howitzers now, 2/3 the HE capacity), its usefulness against fortifications that had to deal with 122mm and 152mm will be... unimpressive.

The few T-55 SVBIEDs ISIS used were fairly effective and Russians can go further by turning them into multiton thermobaric bombs, with enough forward applique armor to survive the trip to heavily defende positions. However their use as targets at training ranges is much more likely.

Those fighting ISIS weren't stacked with tons of top of the line AT weapons that don't give a shit about your applique armor.
Also considering the T-62's, doubt they would be throwing tanks at training ranges right now.

 

[lloyd007]

I could see them getting placed inside buildings or terrain to hide them till the inevitable Ukrainian counteroffensive. Then deploy them to cause havoc and get some damage in once the Ukrainians are in the face of the Russian obstacles and urban areas.

Outside of manning them with kamikaze pilots, and rotsa ruck finding volunteers for 100% guaranteed death if successful missions like that, the ability to use these things as VBIED's is incredibly limited. To hide them in buildings you'd need buildings big enough to house them and yet also sturdy enough to withstand the punishment the UAF will send at them once they're clued into what's going on... which'll be REAL quick if history is any guide.

 

[Zachowon]

Problem with Russian tanks is not actually the autoloader, but rather the ammunition storage:

Private Site

historyandwar.org

Private Site

historyandwar.org

I mean yes I know, it is how it is stored in general.
I was just meaning it won't be AS bad.

 

[lloyd007]

I mean yes I know, it is how it is stored in general.
I was just meaning it won't be AS bad.

Aside from maybe being less deadly to anyone in the general vicinity of the tank when it went off. Yes. It. Would. The ammo is stored right next to the crew so if any of it went off they'd all become BBQ... and since there's little compartmentalization since the design is immediately post WW2 and the Soviets REALLY DNGAF about safety when overwhelming numbers were the key at the time... well... even if a hit doesn't set off ammo somehow, all that molten vaporized metal and shrapnel spall in the crew compartment turns them into ground meat. This is proven from Syria where the anti Assad forces largely don't even have top attack ATGMs and such.

 

[Aldarion]

I mean yes I know, it is how it is stored in general.
I was just meaning it won't be AS bad.

It may well be:

It has the same basic issue as T-72. Worse, in fact, because T-72 with only autoloader ammo is actually relatively safe - not as safe as Western designs with only bustle ammo, but still difficult to destroy. This thing however simply doesn't have even that option to begin with.

 

[Zachowon]

It may well be:

It has the same basic issue as T-72. Worse, in fact, because T-72 with only autoloader ammo is actually relatively safe - not as safe as Western designs with only bustle ammo, but still difficult to destroy. This thing however simply doesn't have even that option to begin with.

The citedal on the autoloader make the explosion go up

 

[Scottty]

Pardon my asking a basic question, but shouldn't a tank shell only fire when something specific is done to the non-pointy end? What I'm picking up here is that just being near an explosion will make all the shells go up together.

 

[Marduk]

Pardon my asking a basic question, but shouldn't a tank shell only fire when something specific is done to the non-pointy end? What I'm picking up here is that just being near an explosion will make all the shells go up together.

With modern less sensitive HE, you could be mostly right...
But consider the fact that tank ammo, in addition to HE, if it's not just a metal penetrator, also need a propellant charge. And those things can't be made that insensitive, as you cannot use many of the tricks used to make high explosives less sensitive, as that would massively screw with their burn rate, and so they would not work very well for launching the shell. So usually the ammo detonation would be one of the propellant charges getting ignited, and in turn setting everything on fire, causing a chain reaction.
There is research done on creating such propellants, but due to the chemistry involved, and multiple different chemical properties being needed in certain amounts, doesn't seem like anything particularly good got made yet.

 

[Aldarion]

The citedal on the autoloader make the explosion go up

That is true for any protected ammunition storage system. Any ammunition storage system, in fact. But for the tank crew, difference between "explosion going up" and "explosion going everywhere" is quite academic - and in fact, I am not certain even just a penetration by modern AT weapons (especially APFSDS penetrator) is survivable for the crew, in which case this whole discussion becomes academic.

But as you can see, ammunition in T-55 is stored all over the tank. And same is true in T-72:

T-64 and T-80 however are far worse than T-72, because not only is the ammunition outside autoloader stored all over the tank, but propellant charges within the autoloader are stored vertically:

They still have steel collar protecting the ammunition from being ignited by fragments (see below), but are far more likely to suffer direct hits. Nevertheless, in e.g. Gulf War, 90% of hits were to the turret.

Pardon my asking a basic question, but shouldn't a tank shell only fire when something specific is done to the non-pointy end? What I'm picking up here is that just being near an explosion will make all the shells go up together.

In theory. In practice, "safe" propellant charge only makes it less likely that an accidental explosion will occur. So e.g. you won't have the ammunition cooking off because somebody dropped a shell or engine caught fire. But penetration and shells exploding in enclosed space is still beyond the safety limit. The only way to prevent that is, to my knowledge, get rid of the explosive content altogether. But railgun tanks are still way beyond technological capability...

 

[Yinko]

I had a prof who once told me that the early versions of the Soviet tank auto-loaders had an issue with ripping people's arms off. Not sure if it's true, but it seems plausible. Supposedly this was why they were late to adopt the technology.

 

[Marduk]

I had a prof who once told me that the early versions of the Soviet tank auto-loaders had an issue with ripping people's arms off. Not sure if it's true, but it seems plausible. Supposedly this was why they were late to adopt the technology.

BMP-1 is most infamous for that.

That is true for any protected ammunition storage system. Any ammunition storage system, in fact. But for the tank crew, difference between "explosion going up" and "explosion going everywhere" is quite academic -

There are also solutions like wet ammo storage containers meant to prevent ammo fires or at least slow them down enough for extinguishers to kick in or crew to escape, individual armored containers to keep fragments out, and of course, the gold standard - Abrams style isolated ammo compartment with blow out panels.

and in fact, I am not certain even just a penetration by modern AT weapons (especially APFSDS penetrator) is survivable for the crew, in which case this whole discussion becomes academic.

Kinda sorta. Whoever, if anyone, is unlucky enough to be within the line of the plasma jet or fragments is kinda screwed and will probably die or lose limbs, but depending on how exactly the hit happened, some of the crew may well survive. Plenty of tank crew members in WW2 survived penetrating hits despite the common use of APHE shells with bursting charges back then, effectively turning them into big grenades.

They still have steel collar protecting the ammunition from being ignited by fragments (see below), but are far more likely to suffer direct hits. Nevertheless, in e.g. Gulf War, 90% of hits were to the turret.

Isn't that something that differs between various T-72 models?

 

[Aldarion]

Isn't that something that differs between various T-72 models?

Autoloader in the photo isn't T-72 at all, but rather T-80.

T-72, as I noted, stores both the charge and the projectile horizontally. This is true for all T-72 models, including the Yugoslav/Croatian M-84 and the M-91 modification. I believe M-95 Degman prototype also has horizontal stowage carousel, and only moved the ammunition outside the carousel to an ammunition bustle at the rear of the turret.

 

[Zachowon]

That is true for any protected ammunition storage system. Any ammunition storage system, in fact. But for the tank crew, difference between "explosion going up" and "explosion going everywhere" is quite academic - and in fact, I am not certain even just a penetration by modern AT weapons (especially APFSDS penetrator) is survivable for the crew, in which case this whole discussion becomes academic.

But as you can see, ammunition in T-55 is stored all over the tank. And same is true in T-72:

T-64 and T-80 however are far worse than T-72, because not only is the ammunition outside autoloader stored all over the tank, but propellant charges within the autoloader are stored vertically:

They still have steel collar protecting the ammunition from being ignited by fragments (see below), but are far more likely to suffer direct hits. Nevertheless, in e.g. Gulf War, 90% of hits were to the turret.

In theory. In practice, "safe" propellant charge only makes it less likely that an accidental explosion will occur. So e.g. you won't have the ammunition cooking off because somebody dropped a shell or engine caught fire. But penetration and shells exploding in enclosed space is still beyond the safety limit. The only way to prevent that is, to my knowledge, get rid of the explosive content altogether. But railgun tanks are still way beyond technological capability...

Any hit will kill majority if not all the crew

 

[Husky_Khan]

Just because the T-34's are being modernized doesn't mean that they'll be sent to the Ukraine, so calm down Nazi Cheerleaders.

 

[Husky_Khan]

Poor Covert Cabal, always counting tanks, paying for satellite imagery... and counting even more tanks... then trying to identify them by type, all just to get low confidence estimates for a YouTube Video. What a nerd hero...



- Some Highlights, one base has 150+ T-80U Tanks in Apparently Good Condition Just Remaining Parked in Place since 2011.
- One base he actually doubled the count of tanks as in good condition (from 250-300 to 600) when he got access to more recent and higher quality satellite imagery.
- Lots of T-54/55's, T-62's and even T-64's in storage still, as well as various T-80 variants.

He estimates Russia has pulled about 1500 tanks that were in good condition from storage since the War started, with half of them coming in since September 2022. He estimates just over 3900 tanks in "good" condition remain in storage including 270 T-54/55's, 560 T-62's, 248 T-64's, 1841 T-72's, 942 T-80's, and 50 T-90's.

 

[ATP]

Poor Covert Cabal, always counting tanks, paying for satellite imagery... and counting even more tanks... then trying to identify them by type, all just to get low confidence estimates for a YouTube Video. What a nerd hero...



- Some Highlights, one base has 150+ T-80U Tanks in Apparently Good Condition Just Remaining Parked in Place since 2011.
- One base he actually doubled the count of tanks as in good condition (from 250-300 to 600) when he got access to more recent and higher quality satellite imagery.
- Lots of T-54/55's, T-62's and even T-64's in storage still, as well as various T-80 variants.

He estimates Russia has pulled about 1500 tanks that were in good condition from storage since the War started, with half of them coming in since September 2022. He estimates just over 3900 tanks in "good" condition remain in storage including 270 T-54/55's, 560 T-62's, 248 T-64's, 1841 T-72's, 942 T-80's, and 50 T-90's.

So,they still have enough to invade Poland.We have some 400 tanks now.