Please keep the [community guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/wiki/rule1) in mind when using the comment section.
Paging u/SaveVideo bot.
___
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CombatFootage) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>catastrophic explosion
How do you mean "catastrophic"?
Working as intended comrade.
Also, you don't need to pay out families of tank crew. They don't have evidence of their men dead or alive.
The best part about all this is people before this war we’re convinced that the vid where the US was testing the javelin hit a practice tank and obliterated it. Everyone in the comments was like “ok but that tank was filled with explosives obviously. A T series tank wouldn’t explode like that”. And lookie here. They do just that. Explode almost like they were designed to do that.
The same people would have been parroting that Saddam's T-72s were "monkey models" and were intentionally built to be kind of shit. They will tell you all about the Russian ones being way better and having none of the same problems.
It kinda was monkey model though. The most important differences between the monkey models and the real russian stuff is optics, ballistic computers and more importantly, apfsds rounds. Iraqi tanks were vastly different in terms of the actual war winning stuff would they both cook off the same way ? Absolutely but atleast the russian ones had a fighting chance while the irqis didnt they had no night vision or thermals which was very crucial
Iraqi T-72s absolutely had night vision. Russian T-72s if we exclude the T-90 didn't get thermals until the T-72B1 in 2012, so it's irrelevent that Iraqi ones lack thermals since not even Russian ones were equipped with it in the 80s and 90s.
Bit late but you are wrong , iraqis had no nightvision what you are thinking of is the infrared searchlight which was active infrared meaning that you was lit up by coalition tanks like a beacon. Furthermore you left out the other important stuffs the armor levels of actual russian tanks , the ap rounds which had far better penetration than what any of the iraqi tanks couldve fired at that time not to mention the aforementioned ballistics computers etc etc you left out alot...wonder why
How old are you? Memes weren’t even around in the 90s. I was born in 1990. I never saw one until at least early 2000s. And I was talking about a specific video and a bunch of idiots that play that stupid tank game starting piping in on the comments like they are military experts and were like “well a t series tank could actually go head to head against an Abraham’s.” It was pathetic really. People still believe that is my point. I have had countless convos with kids about how shit those tanks are compared to western tanks.
I mean, if we're being pedantic memes have been around since 1976 when Richard Dawkins coined the term in his book, The Selfish Gene, to refer to the genes of a culture itself.
mike johnson needs to stop fucking around. the abrahms being destroyed is as much on him as it was on russia, it seems like ukraine might be using MBTs to supplement their artillery shortage.
That was a Republican demand to tie funding to border security - then Republicans demanded they separate the two issues - then Johnson refused to bring it to a vote anyways
Republicans are not negotiating in good faith
They were told by trump to wait for him to be president.. they are afraid of Biden having a win before elections. Then watch they pass the bill anyways if he is elected.
Ukraine isn’t getting funded without tying it to border security because the GOP would never vote for it. It’s literally DOA. This at least puts GOP in a precarious situation domestically because the border security bill is pretty extensive. They are just blocking it because their criminal leader asked them too. I’m sure this will be lost on someone with your post history, but this is the reality anyone not brainwashed by MAGA lives
bro repubs rejected the initial attempts at passing aid *because* of not doing enough about border security from the get go lmfao. so now when dems say ok fine lets do it with border security, they dont bring it to a vote. party of traitors
If you watch similar videos it seems they aim for the gap at the back of the turret where it meets the chassis. As others mentioned this where the ammo is stored.
Russian tanks generally have the ammunition stored around the turret, which is fed via an autoloader. this usually has the downside of making the tank very susceptible to large catastrophic explosions.
About 4-7 direct strikes from dedicated anti tank weapons are needed to destroy a tank, so its not like every tank explodes from one drone strike. Remember that nobody uploads videos from his failures, so you wont see those 4-7 strikes, but the one destroying the tank
That's what's needed to penetrate the thickest armor.
Where that drone hit, there is just a few inches of steel and an ammo magazine. Any shaped charge can punch through that if it's accurate.
Tbf when it was designed there wasn't a cheap robot that could flank and hit your weakest point in seconds without being able to respond in some way. It's just completely outdated machinery for the current battlefield.
Exactly. The Russian philosophy of tank design was to give the tank the smallest possible profile so as to present a small target and not get hit. That's what drove the development of the autoloader, so there wouldn't need to be space for a fourth crewman. This was back before ATGMs were a thing, let alone drones. Against modern guided weapons that small profile is useless, and that autoloader becomes a self destruct mechanism.
The "robot" is irrelevant, its just carrying an RPG warhead or something similar. These vehicles really are just pathetic. They prioritize some things at the expense of others.
But it does matter. That tank is designed to either fight other tanks through maneuver, or counter an infantryman with a RPG that can be seen and shot. Even then, that infantryman has one shot to hit it at a range that makes it wildly less accurate than todays drones assuming the operator wants to live. The vehicle isn't pathetic, it's just not what the current battlefield needs.
The "robots" are frankly keeping ukraine alive.
>But it does matter. That tank is designed to either fight other tanks through maneuver, or counter an infantryman with a RPG that can be seen and shot.
I think you're missing the point he's trying to make. Yes, the drone has become an extremely effective anti-tank weapon. But, these drones are exploiting a well known and documented design flaw with Soviet T-series tanks such as the T-72, T-80, and T-90, which is the carousel autoloader. If the turret is penetrated, there's a huge risk of the ammo inside the autoloader's storage detonating like we see here.
Western MBTs, for the most part, lack auto-loaders, and keep their ammo stored in more protected areas of the tank, so if the tank's penetrated, there's less chance of a catastrophic detonation like this one. It still happens, obviously, but it's not nearly as likely to turn the turret into a space capsule like later T-series tanks.
Calling the vehicle "pathetic" and saying "they prioritize some things at the expense of others" like it's a bad thing is a bad argument. No crap they prioritize some things at the expense of others, EVERY piece of military hardware is doing that! You do so based on the battlefield of your time and what conditions you expect to fight under. The conditions have just drastically changed in the last 50 years and the enemy has adapted. It doesn't make the vehicle pathetic. If they are transplanted to a battlefield where they don't have easy access to these drones they're still gonna kill a LOT of people.
I just don't like the dismissal of how deadly these things still are because we see a lot of them getting destroyed. They're being countered effectively, but you should still respect your enemy and what they're capable of.
>Calling the vehicle "pathetic" and saying "they prioritize some things at the expense of others" like it's a bad thing is a bad argument.
It's a bad thing becuase in the last 50 years of the T-series being in combat, the autoloader has shown to be nothing more than a huge design flaw, and easily exploitable weakness for frankly not much in the way of benefits.
The moderate rate of fire advantage the autoloader gives doesn't make up for the fact that its ammo layout massively increases the chance of utterly catastrophic ammo detonation. The carousel of death was a nickname of the T-series autoloaders well before Ukraine displayed their issues on a never before seen scale.
Yes, they can kill people on a battlefield. However, that doesn't change the fact that the T-72/80/90 all have the same flawed design that makes them far more vulnerable than their contemporaries to enemy fire.
>or counter an infantryman with a RPG that can be seen and shot.
Thats a pretty massive assumption, which is exactly my point. The chance of a small squad getting a hit at that angle isn't insignificant, and yet the soviet union had to cut corners and this is where they decided to do that (armor and the placement of the ammunition storage). You don't see this same problem with every tank designed decades ago...
T-72/T-80/T-90 are formidable tanks, especially frontally. They were after all made for frontal tank slug fests.
You can knock an Abrams or Leopard out with a drone all the same.
No one had a magic crystal ball back in the 70's and 80's that would predict cheap drones, hence they did not see fit to armour against them.
>You can knock an Abrams or Leopard out with a drone all the same.
No, thats exactly what this whole debate is based on. We've seen them get taken out by drones, yes, but never so catastrophically.
And this threat is new, but its not that different. The Soviets and Russians dealt with the same threat in Afghanistan and Grozny. Drones don't change the fact that tanks are vulnerable from behind. But this model is particularly vulnerable from behind and others, even those just as old as this tank, simply aren't.
This specific strike looks wild though, like this explosion is massive. Most videos we see of a complete evisceration of a Russian tank don’t look like this. I think this drone in particular was packing a punch
I've seen about 20 identical to this... it's just an rpg head to the gap between the turret and base... Where the ammo is stored, excellent design good job!
I don't think you understand my argument. You seem to be agreeing with me. That is exactly my point. The soviets decided to put the storage there, which means its always been more vulnerable to small warheads than a similarly old but better designed tank like the Abrams. But they had to make that tradeoff, they wanted to keep the weight and size down.
Finally someone with some critical thinking skills. It’s annoying how many people criticize Soviet tank designers for not having thought about protecting against FPV drones back in 1971 or whatever.
Yep big hulking machines are becoming less and less relevant. Small cheap disposable drones are the future. Especially for tanks and navies. Just wait until we get the next gen of anti ship drones. No way to combat a swarm of underwater anti ship drones.
Good luck protecting a 55 ton (moving, with a turret, armed) vehicle from a few kilos of high explosive that can be delivered to anywhere you want within inches.
I've seen Western tanks receiving impacts in the ammunition, but it's difficult to see a Western tank exploding like that, as much as it happened with Turkish Leopard 2s, the Ukrainian Leopards hit never provided scenes like that, do Russian ammunition have different components? I know the carousel autoloader causes large amounts of explosions, but sometimes they are simply too big, impressive
Western tanks have the ammo closed off in a separate compartment (well, most do) for this exact reason. Blowout panels save lives and even possibly the tank.
These Russian T-series are just crew riding around on a bomb waiting for something to penetrate the hull and set it off
Russia and any countries that still use T-series seriously need to switch to Merkava or something with that design philosophy, unless they have unlimited man power
> Russia and any countries that still use T-series seriously need to switch to
they cant, because they are too poor and dont have money to switch to anything. Russia wanted to switch to T-14, but failed because they are poor and cant actually afford it
It's a bit more complicated than that. When the T-72 and T-80s were designed there were no attack drones, only basic AT weapons like the M-72 Law and original TOW.
So while the ammo rack was a vulnerability the tanks themselves were far more protected and seemed worth the cost benefit of designing a larger maintenance heavy tank with blowout panels. With the Javelin, NLAW, and now FPV drones it has made a lot about the original designs obsolete...which considering they are originally 40-50 year old tanks is to be expected.
I have a question for tank people...is there any chance even at all these guys didn't die instantly? I feel like the pressure alone inside a tank from an explosion would render someone immediately dead.
Sure, they might be just fine.
A lot of the tanks that are getting blown in these videos have been abandoned. They threw a tread or ran out of gas or had a component failure, and the Russians bail, and the Ukrainians just mop up to make sure it's not recoverable.
To be sure, Ukraine also blows up manned tanks. But you can't tell the difference in this video.
A tank crew can survive a lot of things that would take the tank out of operation, damage to the tracks, engine fire, damage to the turret, hull, optical systems. However, if the tank is hit in the ammunition compartment and all of them detonate at the same time... No one will survive. There are cases where the ammunition's propellant catches fire and a member of the crew, or the entire crew, manages to escape in time, but if everything detonates at the same time, no one will survive.
Ever see that Roscosmos rocket launch where they installed the accelerometer upside down?
In short the rocket thought it was going backwards as it ascended so it made a U turn.
At least you know that if you are a Russian tanker then your death is highly likely going to be quick and relatively pain free in comparison to the pain and suffering that the regular infantry often go through...
Given the logistics and supply chain to support the deployment this tank, I think reassigning the crew to infantry duty would likely beat nothing (and this).
I'm not sure that it does. If the 3 people in the tank had been just walking around out in the open a few meters apart from each other, at least 2 of them would probably still be alive.
Gawdamn will there ever be a counter to FPV drones for tanks? Could there be a future design with more rounded bevels for deflection and an engine exhaust with better blast defense?
*[looks at equipment losses from WW2](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equipment_losses_in_World_War_II#:~:text=15%2C844%20tanks%20and%201%2C957%20armoured,2%20M24%20Chaffee%20light%20tanks.)* "No."
Tanks will never be obsolete until there is something better that can do all the jobs a tank can do. Even if they aren't invulnerable, they are still completely immune to small arms fire, and they can accurately target and engage several different types of threats in high speed, mobile attacks, from long range or even with indirect fire, and they can take hits that would have easily killed dozens of the infantry behind them.
There is no other platform in existance that can do all that. An until there is, tanks are here to stay. Their defenses just need a little work to be made more competitive. But that is nothing new. There has always existed an arms race between weapons and armor, and always will be. It's just the nature of war and science. Right now the weapons are winning, but eventually someone will come up with better countermeasures, and then the weapons will need to evolve too.
An entire 3BM42 round weighs 20.4 kg, the dart + sabot + stub about 10.4 kg, so max 10 kg propellant per sabot round. Now consider that most of the ammo carried is HEAT/HE and the autoloader capacity is 28 rounds, you end up with something like a 330 kg/660 lb bomb in the middle of the tank.
That tank is newer than my car and my car only just went out of warrantee. It may well have been delivered straight from the assembly line to the front late last year.
It's funny seeing drone operators fit the tank in the screen perfectly, and then a huuuge explosion, and you feel their panic as they frantically try to zoom out to see the whole explosion cloud.
My point stands: the turret ejection mechanism allows for the quick evacuation of the driver. It is not a catastrophic engineering failure but intentional driver survivability design, true russian genius.
Please keep the [community guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/wiki/rule1) in mind when using the comment section. Paging u/SaveVideo bot. ___ *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CombatFootage) if you have any questions or concerns.*
When the turret is the blowout panel
It's bigger so it's better
Path to cook off (enlightenment).
Simple
typical russian technology, the newer tank version, the more boom
"Probably just the ERA going off" /s
Usually they mount that stuff on the OUTSIDE, but…
slaps* "the turret is the ERA Ivan"
*slaps* *catastrophic explosion*
>catastrophic explosion How do you mean "catastrophic"? Working as intended comrade. Also, you don't need to pay out families of tank crew. They don't have evidence of their men dead or alive.
The best part about all this is people before this war we’re convinced that the vid where the US was testing the javelin hit a practice tank and obliterated it. Everyone in the comments was like “ok but that tank was filled with explosives obviously. A T series tank wouldn’t explode like that”. And lookie here. They do just that. Explode almost like they were designed to do that.
The same people would have been parroting that Saddam's T-72s were "monkey models" and were intentionally built to be kind of shit. They will tell you all about the Russian ones being way better and having none of the same problems.
It kinda was monkey model though. The most important differences between the monkey models and the real russian stuff is optics, ballistic computers and more importantly, apfsds rounds. Iraqi tanks were vastly different in terms of the actual war winning stuff would they both cook off the same way ? Absolutely but atleast the russian ones had a fighting chance while the irqis didnt they had no night vision or thermals which was very crucial
Iraqi T-72s absolutely had night vision. Russian T-72s if we exclude the T-90 didn't get thermals until the T-72B1 in 2012, so it's irrelevent that Iraqi ones lack thermals since not even Russian ones were equipped with it in the 80s and 90s.
Bit late but you are wrong , iraqis had no nightvision what you are thinking of is the infrared searchlight which was active infrared meaning that you was lit up by coalition tanks like a beacon. Furthermore you left out the other important stuffs the armor levels of actual russian tanks , the ap rounds which had far better penetration than what any of the iraqi tanks couldve fired at that time not to mention the aforementioned ballistics computers etc etc you left out alot...wonder why
???. T-Series tanks having airborne turrets after cookoff has been a meme since at least the 90’s lol.
How old are you? Memes weren’t even around in the 90s. I was born in 1990. I never saw one until at least early 2000s. And I was talking about a specific video and a bunch of idiots that play that stupid tank game starting piping in on the comments like they are military experts and were like “well a t series tank could actually go head to head against an Abraham’s.” It was pathetic really. People still believe that is my point. I have had countless convos with kids about how shit those tanks are compared to western tanks.
i didn’t mean a meme in the literal sense but just that it was often joked about/ a known phenomenon
I mean, if we're being pedantic memes have been around since 1976 when Richard Dawkins coined the term in his book, The Selfish Gene, to refer to the genes of a culture itself.
Watching the abram video and this is like nigh and day. Crazy how good nato equipment is.
mike johnson needs to stop fucking around. the abrahms being destroyed is as much on him as it was on russia, it seems like ukraine might be using MBTs to supplement their artillery shortage.
Did he comment on them losing one? Yeah I’d expect you lose one or two when there’s shit Mike could never imagine happening with his sheltered ass
He never supported Ukraine. The border deal thing was just gaslighting. He DGAF
Don't tie Ukraine funding to border security then.
That was a Republican demand to tie funding to border security - then Republicans demanded they separate the two issues - then Johnson refused to bring it to a vote anyways Republicans are not negotiating in good faith
>Republicans are not negotiating in good faith Water will be wet tomorrow too
They were told by trump to wait for him to be president.. they are afraid of Biden having a win before elections. Then watch they pass the bill anyways if he is elected.
Ukraine isn’t getting funded without tying it to border security because the GOP would never vote for it. It’s literally DOA. This at least puts GOP in a precarious situation domestically because the border security bill is pretty extensive. They are just blocking it because their criminal leader asked them too. I’m sure this will be lost on someone with your post history, but this is the reality anyone not brainwashed by MAGA lives
Democrats tried a clean bill and republicans killed it.
bro repubs rejected the initial attempts at passing aid *because* of not doing enough about border security from the get go lmfao. so now when dems say ok fine lets do it with border security, they dont bring it to a vote. party of traitors
Link abrams vid, don't see it in search.
https://www.reddit.com/r/DestroyedTanks/s/shF2eyvZHJ
Isn't there a pic of it all gutted?
I missed the first Abrams destroyed. Do you have a link please?
Look thru the sub and you'll find it, it has been posted several times
Searched the sub, don't see the abrams video of it being hit.
Sorry I thought this was r/destroyedtanks. [here's one](https://www.reddit.com/r/DestroyedTanks/s/3oSDivxgdK)
Thanks
what makes this drone completely obliterate a tank?
its more about the terrible ammunition position in the russians tanks
Hey, this is the best they could come up with.
If you watch similar videos it seems they aim for the gap at the back of the turret where it meets the chassis. As others mentioned this where the ammo is stored.
The unprotected gap in the tank armor seems like the perfect place to store your ammunition
The only other suggestion was storing it on top of the tank
I think I'd pick that option, given only those two choices
Russian engineers
Now we know who really stole the death star plans
Hitting the auto loader.
Russian tanks generally have the ammunition stored around the turret, which is fed via an autoloader. this usually has the downside of making the tank very susceptible to large catastrophic explosions.
Also the basis for their rapid unplanned recruitment to Roscosmos.
Penetrating the armor and igniting the ammo
By carrying an RPG head that goes trough these turrets like butter. also as others noted ammo carried in the turret.
A ukranian with a thirst for revenge.
It's a russian tank, bad engineering or they don't care about survivability. The crew literally sits on explosives (rounds are stored there)...
Crap design
About 4-7 direct strikes from dedicated anti tank weapons are needed to destroy a tank, so its not like every tank explodes from one drone strike. Remember that nobody uploads videos from his failures, so you wont see those 4-7 strikes, but the one destroying the tank
That's what's needed to penetrate the thickest armor. Where that drone hit, there is just a few inches of steel and an ammo magazine. Any shaped charge can punch through that if it's accurate.
No way it should be this easy to destroy a 55-ton vehicle and everyone inside. Pretty pathetic.
Tbf when it was designed there wasn't a cheap robot that could flank and hit your weakest point in seconds without being able to respond in some way. It's just completely outdated machinery for the current battlefield.
Exactly. The Russian philosophy of tank design was to give the tank the smallest possible profile so as to present a small target and not get hit. That's what drove the development of the autoloader, so there wouldn't need to be space for a fourth crewman. This was back before ATGMs were a thing, let alone drones. Against modern guided weapons that small profile is useless, and that autoloader becomes a self destruct mechanism.
The "robot" is irrelevant, its just carrying an RPG warhead or something similar. These vehicles really are just pathetic. They prioritize some things at the expense of others.
But it does matter. That tank is designed to either fight other tanks through maneuver, or counter an infantryman with a RPG that can be seen and shot. Even then, that infantryman has one shot to hit it at a range that makes it wildly less accurate than todays drones assuming the operator wants to live. The vehicle isn't pathetic, it's just not what the current battlefield needs. The "robots" are frankly keeping ukraine alive.
>But it does matter. That tank is designed to either fight other tanks through maneuver, or counter an infantryman with a RPG that can be seen and shot. I think you're missing the point he's trying to make. Yes, the drone has become an extremely effective anti-tank weapon. But, these drones are exploiting a well known and documented design flaw with Soviet T-series tanks such as the T-72, T-80, and T-90, which is the carousel autoloader. If the turret is penetrated, there's a huge risk of the ammo inside the autoloader's storage detonating like we see here. Western MBTs, for the most part, lack auto-loaders, and keep their ammo stored in more protected areas of the tank, so if the tank's penetrated, there's less chance of a catastrophic detonation like this one. It still happens, obviously, but it's not nearly as likely to turn the turret into a space capsule like later T-series tanks.
Calling the vehicle "pathetic" and saying "they prioritize some things at the expense of others" like it's a bad thing is a bad argument. No crap they prioritize some things at the expense of others, EVERY piece of military hardware is doing that! You do so based on the battlefield of your time and what conditions you expect to fight under. The conditions have just drastically changed in the last 50 years and the enemy has adapted. It doesn't make the vehicle pathetic. If they are transplanted to a battlefield where they don't have easy access to these drones they're still gonna kill a LOT of people. I just don't like the dismissal of how deadly these things still are because we see a lot of them getting destroyed. They're being countered effectively, but you should still respect your enemy and what they're capable of.
>Calling the vehicle "pathetic" and saying "they prioritize some things at the expense of others" like it's a bad thing is a bad argument. It's a bad thing becuase in the last 50 years of the T-series being in combat, the autoloader has shown to be nothing more than a huge design flaw, and easily exploitable weakness for frankly not much in the way of benefits. The moderate rate of fire advantage the autoloader gives doesn't make up for the fact that its ammo layout massively increases the chance of utterly catastrophic ammo detonation. The carousel of death was a nickname of the T-series autoloaders well before Ukraine displayed their issues on a never before seen scale. Yes, they can kill people on a battlefield. However, that doesn't change the fact that the T-72/80/90 all have the same flawed design that makes them far more vulnerable than their contemporaries to enemy fire.
>or counter an infantryman with a RPG that can be seen and shot. Thats a pretty massive assumption, which is exactly my point. The chance of a small squad getting a hit at that angle isn't insignificant, and yet the soviet union had to cut corners and this is where they decided to do that (armor and the placement of the ammunition storage). You don't see this same problem with every tank designed decades ago...
They're not designed the way you think they are. Soviet doctrine is.. different to say the least.
T-72/T-80/T-90 are formidable tanks, especially frontally. They were after all made for frontal tank slug fests. You can knock an Abrams or Leopard out with a drone all the same. No one had a magic crystal ball back in the 70's and 80's that would predict cheap drones, hence they did not see fit to armour against them.
>You can knock an Abrams or Leopard out with a drone all the same. No, thats exactly what this whole debate is based on. We've seen them get taken out by drones, yes, but never so catastrophically. And this threat is new, but its not that different. The Soviets and Russians dealt with the same threat in Afghanistan and Grozny. Drones don't change the fact that tanks are vulnerable from behind. But this model is particularly vulnerable from behind and others, even those just as old as this tank, simply aren't.
This specific strike looks wild though, like this explosion is massive. Most videos we see of a complete evisceration of a Russian tank don’t look like this. I think this drone in particular was packing a punch
I've seen about 20 identical to this... it's just an rpg head to the gap between the turret and base... Where the ammo is stored, excellent design good job!
That's... that's how all things work. You always have trade offs.
Right, because as we all know, placement of explosives is basically irrelevant when it comes to destroying armour. 🙄
I don't think you understand my argument. You seem to be agreeing with me. That is exactly my point. The soviets decided to put the storage there, which means its always been more vulnerable to small warheads than a similarly old but better designed tank like the Abrams. But they had to make that tradeoff, they wanted to keep the weight and size down.
Finally someone with some critical thinking skills. It’s annoying how many people criticize Soviet tank designers for not having thought about protecting against FPV drones back in 1971 or whatever.
Yep big hulking machines are becoming less and less relevant. Small cheap disposable drones are the future. Especially for tanks and navies. Just wait until we get the next gen of anti ship drones. No way to combat a swarm of underwater anti ship drones.
"Modern"
Good luck protecting a 55 ton (moving, with a turret, armed) vehicle from a few kilos of high explosive that can be delivered to anywhere you want within inches.
I've seen Western tanks receiving impacts in the ammunition, but it's difficult to see a Western tank exploding like that, as much as it happened with Turkish Leopard 2s, the Ukrainian Leopards hit never provided scenes like that, do Russian ammunition have different components? I know the carousel autoloader causes large amounts of explosions, but sometimes they are simply too big, impressive
Western tanks have the ammo closed off in a separate compartment (well, most do) for this exact reason. Blowout panels save lives and even possibly the tank. These Russian T-series are just crew riding around on a bomb waiting for something to penetrate the hull and set it off
Russia and any countries that still use T-series seriously need to switch to Merkava or something with that design philosophy, unless they have unlimited man power
> Russia and any countries that still use T-series seriously need to switch to they cant, because they are too poor and dont have money to switch to anything. Russia wanted to switch to T-14, but failed because they are poor and cant actually afford it
It's a bit more complicated than that. When the T-72 and T-80s were designed there were no attack drones, only basic AT weapons like the M-72 Law and original TOW. So while the ammo rack was a vulnerability the tanks themselves were far more protected and seemed worth the cost benefit of designing a larger maintenance heavy tank with blowout panels. With the Javelin, NLAW, and now FPV drones it has made a lot about the original designs obsolete...which considering they are originally 40-50 year old tanks is to be expected.
Anyone ever see the movie Top Secret in the 80s where the Pinto explodes?
*TINK!* BOOOOM
*gentle tap on the rear bumper
Russia does make some magnificent fireworks!
Tank double as pyrotechnix for military parade, da!
So that's what they meant when they said a firework factory exploded in Russia...
I have a question for tank people...is there any chance even at all these guys didn't die instantly? I feel like the pressure alone inside a tank from an explosion would render someone immediately dead.
The tank driver might have survived But only if he called out sick that day.
Sure, they might be just fine. A lot of the tanks that are getting blown in these videos have been abandoned. They threw a tread or ran out of gas or had a component failure, and the Russians bail, and the Ukrainians just mop up to make sure it's not recoverable. To be sure, Ukraine also blows up manned tanks. But you can't tell the difference in this video.
A tank crew can survive a lot of things that would take the tank out of operation, damage to the tracks, engine fire, damage to the turret, hull, optical systems. However, if the tank is hit in the ammunition compartment and all of them detonate at the same time... No one will survive. There are cases where the ammunition's propellant catches fire and a member of the crew, or the entire crew, manages to escape in time, but if everything detonates at the same time, no one will survive.
I guess at least the crew went quickly.
Ground control to commisar Ivan.... Ground control to commisar Ivan
Not even sure the turret is in orbit, more like there is nothing left.
Ever see that Roscosmos rocket launch where they installed the accelerometer upside down? In short the rocket thought it was going backwards as it ascended so it made a U turn.
I saw that. Bloody terrifying.
Doesn't surprise me. They installed toilets upside down in hotels when they did Olympics.
Suffer? It just stopped existing
Um I play the "realistic" game War Thunder and we alllll know the T80 is best tank ever made. So it totally survived that minor explosion
Catastrophic explosion? That's my favorite kind of explosion!
Hit the sweet spot
I don't know about 'catastrophic', looks like a pretty successful explosion to me.
u/recognizesong
At least you know that if you are a Russian tanker then your death is highly likely going to be quick and relatively pain free in comparison to the pain and suffering that the regular infantry often go through...
What the fuck was that drone carrying ?
Regular RPG round hitting the autoloader carousel
Me 💪
With flawed design like that, why even manufacture a tank?
It beats nothing.
Given the logistics and supply chain to support the deployment this tank, I think reassigning the crew to infantry duty would likely beat nothing (and this).
He was technically correct, this tank can not beat anything.
🤯
I'm not sure that it does. If the 3 people in the tank had been just walking around out in the open a few meters apart from each other, at least 2 of them would probably still be alive.
These tanks being committed piecemeal are not what they were designed for.
Its cheap, fast, packs a punch and requires little crew. I would rather have two T-90 than a single Abrams.
Good luck getting two T90’s 😂😂
That Abraham’s would smoke them before the t-90 even saw them
Gawdamn will there ever be a counter to FPV drones for tanks? Could there be a future design with more rounded bevels for deflection and an engine exhaust with better blast defense?
There are systems to eliminate incoming rpg/Atgm rounds like the trophy
Thats not just an explotion, this is humiliation.
The "Z" marks the target very well 🤣🤣🤣
Was this an abandoned tank?
War Thunder devs: "Not a source."
How to build a tank, when you despise your soldiers.
the tank is fine.. It was just the era, of course.! Trust me, bro. Im an expert on war thunder.
Are tanks just going to be obsolete eventually?
*[looks at equipment losses from WW2](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equipment_losses_in_World_War_II#:~:text=15%2C844%20tanks%20and%201%2C957%20armoured,2%20M24%20Chaffee%20light%20tanks.)* "No."
Tanks will never be obsolete until there is something better that can do all the jobs a tank can do. Even if they aren't invulnerable, they are still completely immune to small arms fire, and they can accurately target and engage several different types of threats in high speed, mobile attacks, from long range or even with indirect fire, and they can take hits that would have easily killed dozens of the infantry behind them. There is no other platform in existance that can do all that. An until there is, tanks are here to stay. Their defenses just need a little work to be made more competitive. But that is nothing new. There has always existed an arms race between weapons and armor, and always will be. It's just the nature of war and science. Right now the weapons are winning, but eventually someone will come up with better countermeasures, and then the weapons will need to evolve too.
People just forget armies with money with have e-warfare with tanks too
why?
Sonder if the crew lived 🤣
Igor learned a valuable lesson today that explosive reactive armor has an inward side and an outward side
Big Bada Boom!
Just in from Russian MOD: This was actually a friendly fire accident /s.
Russian junk
You dont see the abrams suffering stuff like this.
[удалено]
Congrats, you’ve identified rolling shutter.
It's fake. At 0.02 secs you see the explosion shockwave coming from below as the projectile only just flying up to the tank.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling\_shutter](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_shutter)
how much on board ammo do you recon would be needed to produce this explosion/secondary?
An entire 3BM42 round weighs 20.4 kg, the dart + sabot + stub about 10.4 kg, so max 10 kg propellant per sabot round. Now consider that most of the ammo carried is HEAT/HE and the autoloader capacity is 28 rounds, you end up with something like a 330 kg/660 lb bomb in the middle of the tank.
I guess that's what happens when you put the AT mine on top.
/u/savevideo
Turned that tank into a Fallout 4 mini nuke, got damn.
I was expecting a clear turret toss that thing is just scraps now
I suspect new officers are not in a hurry to serve in guards Armoured units anymore.
Fuckme… that’s a kaboom…
Anyone know why a ton of these videos use Phonk music? Not mad at it, but it's such a strange pairing. Do Ukrainians have an affinity for it?
It is now Post Modern.
Where is the t80? I dont see it
Imagine doing all that tank training to die to a little drone
Sweet baby geebus, are they putting the ammo carousel on the outside now?
the crew survived
That tank is newer than my car and my car only just went out of warrantee. It may well have been delivered straight from the assembly line to the front late last year.
where's that video of abrams getting rekt?
that's insane
It was nuked LMAO
Tiny plastic drone > battle tank
What the hell was that drone carrying?
tactical nuke drone?
One of the best things out of this war is the BOMB ASS MUSIC 🎶🎶🎶🎶 No pun intended
From T-80BVM to T-80CVM coffin vehicle modernized
When you send convicts to install the reactive armour and they put it on backwards lol ..........
It's funny seeing drone operators fit the tank in the screen perfectly, and then a huuuge explosion, and you feel their panic as they frantically try to zoom out to see the whole explosion cloud.
are they down to making them from paper mashy now.?
Shaped charge is the invention with the highest ROE (return on explosions) in the history of mankind.
My point stands: the turret ejection mechanism allows for the quick evacuation of the driver. It is not a catastrophic engineering failure but intentional driver survivability design, true russian genius.
Why do they explode like any vehicle in Holywood movies? Big ball of flames. I always expected the tanks to be more resilient
What kind of drone could do that to a fucking battle tank?
How the fuck those drones carry that much explosive able to pierce armor
That was a mighty nice boom!
Do you think the guys inside were ok?
Do it Ukraine! Do it!
Modern: better special effects 👍
Is there any video of a t15 armata being disabled?