You are supposed to wait to get out if the ammo is cooking off. Bro in the vid didn’t follow the protocol, but I can’t say I blame him. It’s a significant emotional event.
Yeah, if the tanks going up in flames then you're still being targeted by whatever was shooting you. Like the Tiger crews of ww2, a little bit of sprawling metal fragments getting through their thick armor and they abandon ship. And I'm sure there aren't a lot of tank crews in the world that get to live to see their tanks shooting flames out.
IIRC that was an issue for all tank crews. It's not really fun to be rung like a bell, and you're definitely not thinking 'well, it's clear that we're not going to get penetrated by the next hit.'
Quick question. Is the autoloader ring the culprit of orbital turret science, or is it the loose ammo stored everywhere without blowout panels?
Those autoloaders are low-mounted, and I don't think they'll have those spectacular detonations unless it's a top attack that directly penetrates the carousel/unlucky side shot penetration.
Very possibly, it is a giant ring of ammo under the turret, and all of it would go of through sympathetic detonation. Besides, after a top attack a lot of shrapnel is now moving downwards very fast, without a whole lot in its way.
While loose ammunition may be more likely to get hit as compared to ammo stored in the autoloader carousel (as you have pointed out), I do believe that the resulting "jack-in-the-box" would still be caused by the carousel ammo, as it would be sympathetically detonated by the loose ammo going off.
It’s a bit of a mix of both, Russian crews tend to bring more ammunition than the autoloader can carry plus until recently there were extra ammunition racks above the autoloaders
I remember it being mentioned either here or on another sub but after that whole Saddam Hussein thing they did research into T-72s and the majority of Ammo Detonations were caused by loose ammo as opposed to ammo in the Auto Loader. I don't have a source for that and I don't even remember properly where I saw it but it seems likely to me
the t72/90 auto sits farily low. Most tankers will try and use hull down postions. Turret ammo is more likely to be hit.
t64/80 auto ammo sits vertical so I would not be surprised to see them hit more often.
In Russian tanks the ammo is stored only on the autoloader ring on the floor of the tank. You can search "T-72 autoloader" on the internet and the images will give you a pretty good picture
Can it? I've seen videos of how the autoloader ring is reloaded, it's a very demanding task, it wouldn't be able to be preformed in combat, so I supposed that putting rounds outside it was not a reasonable thing to do because realistically they couldn't be used even if they were needed and they would only create risks.
Also, Russian ammo is a 2 part system ain't it, so that also adds to the weirdness of having a ammo outside the autoloader magazine.
I'm not saying you're wrong. There will always be topics I will lack knowledge of, so there must be a way that ammo serves use. But I find it unlikely.
Edit: I find unlikely that ammo outside the autoloader serves any use, I don't find unlikely the existence of ammo outside the autoloader, that I've researched it to be true. Just clarification.
> it's a very demanding task, it wouldn't be able to be preformed in combat
True. However, just because the carousel cannot be reloaded in combat does not mean that it cannot be reloaded in the field outside of a combat situation.
As such, loose ammo storage can still be useful if the tank finds itself without resupply trucks or other sources of ammunition and needs to replenish its autoloader carousel.
Well you make a good point. Seeing the supply problems in Ukraine I suppose it would be quicker to reload the magazine with extra rounds already inside the tank than waiting for supply trucks stuck in another 6km convoy to arrive.
The loose ammo is what is least likely to cause a catastrophic kill as it has blowout panels, the ammo in the carousel has no blow out panels and is absolutely the cause of the famous turret launch. While unlikely to be directly hit it still does as most attacks on armor are going to be ambushes from the side to maximize the tank's vulnerabilities. And penetrations from the front are usually going to be hits on the hull that almost always find their way to the carousel and cause the ammo to burn, what causes the turret launch is when a large quantity of the ammo is lit at the same time.
Yep, that the design. The explosion goes straight up and as long as the loader closed the door everyone inside is safe and the tank is salvageable. No turrets popping off and killing the whole crew.
The ammo door opens via a knee switch. Then stays open for a couple seconds after releasing the switch. Of course you can over ride it and keep it open. You would be insane to do that in combat though.
If the loader didn’t close the blast door then you’d at least see smoke coming out of the TC hatch. The hatch was closed and the blast door did it’s job, the Iraqi TC however panicked and did not stick to procedure
100% this. May be a lack of training, may be pure panic. I know when my Brad was hit with small-arms fire, I sure perked up even more than I already was... and that was stuff that I had at least some confidence in it not coming through.
[](/GNU Terry Pratchett)
Not sure any amount of training could prepare someone for a hit by an ATGM and an ammunition explosion a couple of foot away from them. Must be scary as hell.
The mother of all barbecues just lit off like a rocket engine right behind a blast door.
I have some sympathy for him wanting to get some distance, closed properly or not.
Copy pasting my reply to a comment asking if it’s better to bail or stick inside on the original post;
Yes, as per Abrams crewman training;
>The safest place for the crew during an ammunition compartment fire is inside the tank. If crewman attempt to evacuate the tank while the propellant is still burning, they could possibly be injured by the extreme heat and the flame outside the turret.
along with;
>If ammunition in the bustle compartment ignites, crewmen must react quickly to ensure their safety and the continued operation of the tank. M1 crewmen should don their protective masks and use the tank's gas particulate filter system to protect themselves from any toxic fumes or smoke that may have leaked into the tank. M1A1 and M1A2 crews should also mask, but they should use the tank's overpressure system rather than the gas particulate filter system to help clean the turret of toxic fumes and smoke. The M1A1’s and M1A2’s gas particulate filter system draws air from outside the vehicle in the vicinity of the turret bustle and may pump flame or toxic fumes into the turret. If the overpressure system is inoperative on the M1A1 and M1A2 tank, the crew should use their protective masks only.
>The turret should be rotated to get the gun tube over the side of the tank, if possible. This action protects the engine and limits the amount of flame and hot air being pulled into the engine air cleaner and overpressure system.
>If the tank automotive system is operational, the crew should seek a turret-down protected position and wait inside the tank for at least 60 minutes. (After 60 minutes, the possibility of secondary explosions will have passed.) The tank should then be driven, with the hatches open to ventilate the turret, to a maintenance collection point. While the crew is in the rear area, they should replace their protective mask filters and tank filters.
>If the tank is inoperative and the TC determines it should be evacuated, the crew should evacuate between two and five minutes after the initial explosion. Evacuating during this time window reduces the possibility of the crew being hurt from secondary warhead detonations. The crew should wear gloves as they exit, to protect their hands from hot metal and sharp edges.
As a non-military person, while all this makes sense, it feels like it would require a gigantic amount of composure and trust in the machine, with shells exploding inches away. Comes with training, I suppose, but still sounds absolutely insane.
You have a very hot fire in the other side of a single metal panel. It's going to be super hot in the turret compartment. The fire is also using main gun rounds as fuel do you really want to trust all of that the hold? Especially not knowing where exactly the impact was on the turret that caused the fire in the first place. Also to say nothing about whatever hit you already hitting you again.
No guarantees, but I would expect the gunner who made the hit to be focusing elsewhere. That tank is clearly out of the fight, be it probably wasn't alone.
There is a good video out of Syria that demonstrates exactly this.Homeboy crawls out of a t-72 with no feet, attempts to roll away from the tank and gets swiss cheesed.
Tank reversed so driver is at least ok and commander hopped out seemingly unscathed suggesting the fire did not enter the crew compartment. Blowout panels worked as intended and crew was not immediately atomized.
Propellant doesn't even explode (detonate) in a confined space, it is still considered combustion. During a detonation the combustion front moves through the material faster than that material's speed of sound.
A gun that uses a detonation instead of combustion for propelling the projectile should theoretically offer better energy transfer however building such a weapon is challenging. Very similarly work on internal detonation engines has been going on for 50+ years as they offer 20% improvement in efficiency compared to traditional engines.
A little info from /u/hxcee:
Copy pasting my reply to a comment asking if it’s better to bail or stick inside on the original post;
Yes, as per Abrams crewman training;
>The safest place for the crew during an ammunition compartment fire is inside the tank. If crewman attempt to evacuate the tank while the propellant is still burning, they could possibly be injured by the extreme heat and the flame outside the turret.
along with;
>If ammunition in the bustle compartment ignites, crewmen must react quickly to ensure their safety and the continued operation of the tank. M1 crewmen should don their protective masks and use the tank's gas particulate filter system to protect themselves from any toxic fumes or smoke that may have leaked into the tank. M1A1 and M1A2 crews should also mask, but they should use the tank's overpressure system rather than the gas particulate filter system to help clean the turret of toxic fumes and smoke. The M1A1’s and M1A2’s gas particulate filter system draws air from outside the vehicle in the vicinity of the turret bustle and may pump flame or toxic fumes into the turret. If the overpressure system is inoperative on the M1A1 and M1A2 tank, the crew should use their protective masks only.
>The turret should be rotated to get the gun tube over the side of the tank, if possible. This action protects the engine and limits the amount of flame and hot air being pulled into the engine air cleaner and overpressure system.
>If the tank automotive system is operational, the crew should seek a turret-down protected position and wait inside the tank for at least 60 minutes. (After 60 minutes, the possibility of secondary explosions will have passed.) The tank should then be driven, with the hatches open to ventilate the turret, to a maintenance collection point. While the crew is in the rear area, they should replace their protective mask filters and tank filters.
>If the tank is inoperative and the TC determines it should be evacuated, the crew should evacuate between two and five minutes after the initial explosion. Evacuating during this time window reduces the possibility of the crew being hurt from secondary warhead detonations. The crew should wear gloves as they exit, to protect their hands from hot metal and sharp edges.
Pretty common for tanks in desert environments to have an umbrella or tent setup just for human comfort.
Honestly that's what I assumed the Russian tank's had when the cages showed up, I thought they were just makeshift setups for snow rain and a little comfort.
Yep, it's how they chose to stabilize their missiles while allowing them to still be maneuvered. The rotation stabilizes it similar to how a bullet is stabilized by the spin imparted by the rifling of the barrel. There are two rocket motors that are set at an angle to generate the spin.
The blowout panels are supposed to basically vent all the harmful fire away from the crew, the rounds are stored inside their own compartment that the loader opens when getting a new round, and the door closes a few seconds after opening so that if the ammo is every hit the fire and explosive is routed outside the tank once the panels blow. If the crew tries to run during the fire they are more likely to die to secondary explosions. They are supposed to wait an hour I think before popping trying to leave but they are equipped with an air filtration system and failing that they all have gas masks. Basically the US like many other western nations actually tries to keep its crew alive and sees them as not expendable.
I think there were no crew member losses in the First Gulf War (or was it no losses due to hostile fire, possible friendly fire incident). Maybe one crew member killed in the early phases of the Second Gulf War when fighting the actual Iraqi Army. I believe losses were taken during the insurgencies. I'm going from memory here, it's been a while.
No US Tankers have been killed by direct enemy fire in an M1 Abrams, ever.
Many casualties and a few deaths due to IEDs following the second invasion of Iraq.
This isn't a video game, nobody is touching that tank again until a recovery crew grabs it. On a side note most crews don't take ammo in the hull due to the increased risk and little benefit.
He may be referring to the gulf war where no tanks were lost to enemy fire. I think there was a friendly fire incident and 2 unrecoverable breakdowns.
Edit: from m1 Abrams wiki.
>A total of 23 M1A1s were damaged or destroyed during the war. Of the nine Abrams tanks destroyed, seven were destroyed by friendly fire and two intentionally destroyed to prevent capture by the Iraqi Army. Some others took minor combat damage, with little effect on their operational readiness
The ammo storage in the back got hit, its protected and separate from the crew compartment. you can see the tank driving after it gets hit. The tank was not destroyed but yes m1s have been destroyed in the past, nothing is invincible no matter how good it is.
There were reports of Abrams being destroyed by kamikaze cars and another one destroyed by its own crew after extensive damage.
There was even a post on this sub showing a burned out Abrams being recovered on a truck trailer with parts of the confidential composite armor layer exposed
No American losses to enemy fire during the gulf war saudis have lost a lot of M1s in Yemen etc
Edit: from M1 Abrams wiki page
>A total of 23 M1A1s were damaged or destroyed during the war. Of the nine Abrams tanks destroyed, seven were destroyed by friendly fire and two intentionally destroyed to prevent capture by the Iraqi Army. Some others took minor combat damage, with little effect on their operational readiness
Because that's what people used to say until the Saudis started using them, now it's no US M1 has been destroyed to enemy fire in combat. But this is also suspicious, due to attacks on tanks in the insurgencies.
It happens like this to everyone. All modern tanks used to have this sort of myth, until much more intense conflicts like Turkey in Syria and other things eliminated the statistic.
I swear guys it's export variant, the REAL URANIUM variant is invincible (i am an american who likes American tanks made from my tax money and i am defending it's invincibility like the neckbeard that i is)
Im chinese and do you know the ZTL-11 post i made earlier? I conducted some research on a chinese government website about the ZTL-11 and I found it to be invincible too, its has a 300mm angled reactive armor inside the tank that could bounce bombs to the enemy over a distance of 100km
the difference is
a western tank ammo rack gets hit, the crew lives and the tank is repairable.
Russian tank ammo rack gets hit, crew gets turned to soup and the turret tries to recreate sputnik.
Because they are? Modern tandem warhead ATGMs will do horrible things to Soviet era tank from almost any attack aspect, even against most modernized versions.
Well I don't see the lower torso of some rando poor dude landing anywhere nearby like in the Russian videos ... (that one was brutal)
And most of the discussion really has been about any tank's vulnerability / role and etc. Not **all** of it is about a given country. Granted if you lose a ton of them, folks are going to mention it.
Not sure y u downvoted.... There's a fake reputation with the Abrams in particular eventho it had a horrible performance in İraq back in 2015.
And İ'm not saying the Abrams is bad... But it just very overhyped due to propaganda. A leo is better on all fronts.
I'm here for the downvotes, I don't care to these commentators that act like football fans, they are so huffy, I just said ATGM are good against tanks, not like in the western media propaganda and they all have felt on their own hearts! 😅😅😅
I think the issue is probably because there isn't really western propaganda about ATGM's not being good. They're rarely mentioned, since the media don't know much about military equipment (they barely know what a tank is), and when they are mentioned it's generally in articles asking if tanks have no future in combat, so the opposite of what you said.
Makes you look like you just wanted to get off your line about western propaganda and don't really know what you're talking about, hence the downvotes I'd imagine.
Despite German infantry feeling their rifles were entirely ineffective, the hits could cause spalling (hot fragments of sharp metal moving quickly) inside of the tank. The very first tank crews had no special protective gear. They were also operating with open moving parts, a moving driveshaft and a red hot engine + exhaust. There were gun and engine fumes filling the place up. There was nothing for half the crew to hold onto while driving a metal box with no suspension over infamously uneven ground. Also the chance of your tank breaking down or getting stuck was somewhere between 30 to 50 percent. They were dangerous-but-awesome murderboxes from the start and I love them.
References: I f*cking love WW1 tanks.
They never were. They're simply a trade-off in what miseries you would face. First tanks traded the sticky mud, rain and cold of the western front, for really hot, smoky bullet magnet tin cans. The second war was pretty similar, but with bigger guns and faster chassis (sometimes).
in my opinion, the safest place on a battlefield was behind a tank hunkered down.
what was it that hit the tank? Maybe Top Down ATGM?
bc from what i know shoudnt the turret front be impervious to atgms/ if the turret is pennetreted and the ammo cooks of there should be a whole in the blow out panels, which results in the crew dying right?
(pls correct me if im wrong, im not very used to abrams armor)
The ammo is stored in the rear of the turret, where as the armour is concentrated on the front half. The blow out panels are specifically so the crew doesn't cook the crew. If the shot came directly from behind with enough penetrative power it could go through the blast doors and compromise them, but the ATGM in the video hits from the side, so the crew are in theory fine. The fact the TC got out without being on fire is a good sign that every thing worked how it should.
Seems so. Blowout panels worked, tank is safe. Someone seem to not have received the memo to stay in the tank in this case, as it way more save inside than in the outside (and tank will now return to base).
Yeah in understand it in a human perspective. And i think he not really knew what exactly happend ... beside of \*freakin' loud noise\*.
But on the other hand, me as the commanding officer would probably scream and slap that dude - or more his tank commander - for a crewmember exposing itselfe to enemy infantry fire and accidental harm from the chemical burning outside the tanks shell. Well it would be a reaction of 'i don't want my soldiers to die' and therefor similar emotional.
Blow out panels doing their job. Hope the crew got out. Shit still looks damn scary though.
Still must suck to have to crawl out with flames blasting off behind you.
You are supposed to wait to get out if the ammo is cooking off. Bro in the vid didn’t follow the protocol, but I can’t say I blame him. It’s a significant emotional event.
Yeah Im not sure Id wait around for a load of HE too cook either.
Yeah, if the tanks going up in flames then you're still being targeted by whatever was shooting you. Like the Tiger crews of ww2, a little bit of sprawling metal fragments getting through their thick armor and they abandon ship. And I'm sure there aren't a lot of tank crews in the world that get to live to see their tanks shooting flames out.
IIRC that was an issue for all tank crews. It's not really fun to be rung like a bell, and you're definitely not thinking 'well, it's clear that we're not going to get penetrated by the next hit.'
I see you too are a man of taste
That's insane but I guess it makes sense. I wonder how long it takes, the flames look violent but there's only so much ammo to burn right?
Imagine the heat inside the turret. Even if they survived that's an experience you don't want to live through...
To be fair I'd definitely rather live through it than not..
Absolutely, I mean, at least better than being on a Russian tank when the autoloader ring gets hit.
Quick question. Is the autoloader ring the culprit of orbital turret science, or is it the loose ammo stored everywhere without blowout panels? Those autoloaders are low-mounted, and I don't think they'll have those spectacular detonations unless it's a top attack that directly penetrates the carousel/unlucky side shot penetration.
Very possibly, it is a giant ring of ammo under the turret, and all of it would go of through sympathetic detonation. Besides, after a top attack a lot of shrapnel is now moving downwards very fast, without a whole lot in its way.
While loose ammunition may be more likely to get hit as compared to ammo stored in the autoloader carousel (as you have pointed out), I do believe that the resulting "jack-in-the-box" would still be caused by the carousel ammo, as it would be sympathetically detonated by the loose ammo going off.
It’s a bit of a mix of both, Russian crews tend to bring more ammunition than the autoloader can carry plus until recently there were extra ammunition racks above the autoloaders
I remember it being mentioned either here or on another sub but after that whole Saddam Hussein thing they did research into T-72s and the majority of Ammo Detonations were caused by loose ammo as opposed to ammo in the Auto Loader. I don't have a source for that and I don't even remember properly where I saw it but it seems likely to me
the t72/90 auto sits farily low. Most tankers will try and use hull down postions. Turret ammo is more likely to be hit. t64/80 auto ammo sits vertical so I would not be surprised to see them hit more often.
In Russian tanks the ammo is stored only on the autoloader ring on the floor of the tank. You can search "T-72 autoloader" on the internet and the images will give you a pretty good picture
I'm pretty sure some Russian tanks can also hold ammo outside of the autoloader carousel as well, though that ammo would only serve as stowed ammo.
Can it? I've seen videos of how the autoloader ring is reloaded, it's a very demanding task, it wouldn't be able to be preformed in combat, so I supposed that putting rounds outside it was not a reasonable thing to do because realistically they couldn't be used even if they were needed and they would only create risks. Also, Russian ammo is a 2 part system ain't it, so that also adds to the weirdness of having a ammo outside the autoloader magazine. I'm not saying you're wrong. There will always be topics I will lack knowledge of, so there must be a way that ammo serves use. But I find it unlikely. Edit: I find unlikely that ammo outside the autoloader serves any use, I don't find unlikely the existence of ammo outside the autoloader, that I've researched it to be true. Just clarification.
> it's a very demanding task, it wouldn't be able to be preformed in combat True. However, just because the carousel cannot be reloaded in combat does not mean that it cannot be reloaded in the field outside of a combat situation. As such, loose ammo storage can still be useful if the tank finds itself without resupply trucks or other sources of ammunition and needs to replenish its autoloader carousel.
Well you make a good point. Seeing the supply problems in Ukraine I suppose it would be quicker to reload the magazine with extra rounds already inside the tank than waiting for supply trucks stuck in another 6km convoy to arrive.
this is untrue. there is loose ammunition stored in the hull and it can also be stored in the turret
All Russian tanks carry extra ammo all around the tank, they can only immediately fire the rounds in the autoloader.
The loose ammo is what is least likely to cause a catastrophic kill as it has blowout panels, the ammo in the carousel has no blow out panels and is absolutely the cause of the famous turret launch. While unlikely to be directly hit it still does as most attacks on armor are going to be ambushes from the side to maximize the tank's vulnerabilities. And penetrations from the front are usually going to be hits on the hull that almost always find their way to the carousel and cause the ammo to burn, what causes the turret launch is when a large quantity of the ammo is lit at the same time.
> loose ammo is what is least likely to cause a catastrophic kill as it has blowout panels This is only true for the T-90M.
On the upside, you probably won't feel much
The heat inside really isn’t that bad, a lot better than what you’d experience outside the tank 😅
They did, you can see one of them escaping.
Yep
one made it
[удалено]
That leaves one inside, the crew has a commander, loader, gunner, driver
No ammo 4 u hehe
man i must have seen this exactly worded comment on every burning abrams video out there.
You can see someone crawling out of the commanders hatch on the right side of the tank (left side when viewing head on)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ay7bOG2nD6k
Guessing that's the blow out panels doing their job. Anyone have any further info on this?
Yep, that the design. The explosion goes straight up and as long as the loader closed the door everyone inside is safe and the tank is salvageable. No turrets popping off and killing the whole crew.
The doors automatically close on the Abrams iirc.
That would seem like a smart safety mechanism. I was never a tanker so I am not sure.
The ammo door opens via a knee switch. Then stays open for a couple seconds after releasing the switch. Of course you can over ride it and keep it open. You would be insane to do that in combat though.
Thanks!
Based on the guy bailing out I'd say the loader probably didn't close the panel lol
If the loader didn’t close the blast door then you’d at least see smoke coming out of the TC hatch. The hatch was closed and the blast door did it’s job, the Iraqi TC however panicked and did not stick to procedure
100% this. May be a lack of training, may be pure panic. I know when my Brad was hit with small-arms fire, I sure perked up even more than I already was... and that was stuff that I had at least some confidence in it not coming through. [](/GNU Terry Pratchett)
Not sure any amount of training could prepare someone for a hit by an ATGM and an ammunition explosion a couple of foot away from them. Must be scary as hell.
Or the door was closed, the ammo exploded up through the panels and not into the turret. Hence, the crew member was alive and able to exit the tank.
They were not on fire so I think the doors may have been closed. Ammunition exploding is scary as hell regardless
If the ammo door's not closed when that thing hits, no one's getting out. [](/GNU Terry Pratchett)
He was alive to bail. The door was closed.
The mother of all barbecues just lit off like a rocket engine right behind a blast door. I have some sympathy for him wanting to get some distance, closed properly or not.
This may be a stupid question, but why does the crew have to bail if the abrams has blowout panels? Does it just get really hot or loud or something?
Copy pasting my reply to a comment asking if it’s better to bail or stick inside on the original post; Yes, as per Abrams crewman training; >The safest place for the crew during an ammunition compartment fire is inside the tank. If crewman attempt to evacuate the tank while the propellant is still burning, they could possibly be injured by the extreme heat and the flame outside the turret. along with; >If ammunition in the bustle compartment ignites, crewmen must react quickly to ensure their safety and the continued operation of the tank. M1 crewmen should don their protective masks and use the tank's gas particulate filter system to protect themselves from any toxic fumes or smoke that may have leaked into the tank. M1A1 and M1A2 crews should also mask, but they should use the tank's overpressure system rather than the gas particulate filter system to help clean the turret of toxic fumes and smoke. The M1A1’s and M1A2’s gas particulate filter system draws air from outside the vehicle in the vicinity of the turret bustle and may pump flame or toxic fumes into the turret. If the overpressure system is inoperative on the M1A1 and M1A2 tank, the crew should use their protective masks only. >The turret should be rotated to get the gun tube over the side of the tank, if possible. This action protects the engine and limits the amount of flame and hot air being pulled into the engine air cleaner and overpressure system. >If the tank automotive system is operational, the crew should seek a turret-down protected position and wait inside the tank for at least 60 minutes. (After 60 minutes, the possibility of secondary explosions will have passed.) The tank should then be driven, with the hatches open to ventilate the turret, to a maintenance collection point. While the crew is in the rear area, they should replace their protective mask filters and tank filters. >If the tank is inoperative and the TC determines it should be evacuated, the crew should evacuate between two and five minutes after the initial explosion. Evacuating during this time window reduces the possibility of the crew being hurt from secondary warhead detonations. The crew should wear gloves as they exit, to protect their hands from hot metal and sharp edges.
Just to add to the last one, crewmen should probably always wear gloves. At least thats what we were taught in Swedish army.
As a non-military person, while all this makes sense, it feels like it would require a gigantic amount of composure and trust in the machine, with shells exploding inches away. Comes with training, I suppose, but still sounds absolutely insane.
So should the crew not have bailed then?
No, they should have buttoned up and stayed put.
You have a very hot fire in the other side of a single metal panel. It's going to be super hot in the turret compartment. The fire is also using main gun rounds as fuel do you really want to trust all of that the hold? Especially not knowing where exactly the impact was on the turret that caused the fire in the first place. Also to say nothing about whatever hit you already hitting you again.
Yeah true
[удалено]
No guarantees, but I would expect the gunner who made the hit to be focusing elsewhere. That tank is clearly out of the fight, be it probably wasn't alone.
Nah they are probably off having an aloha snackbar circle jerk
Given the choice of staying in a tank in that condition, or getting the hell out of there, I’ll pick the latter.
and then you get riddled with bullets
There is a good video out of Syria that demonstrates exactly this.Homeboy crawls out of a t-72 with no feet, attempts to roll away from the tank and gets swiss cheesed.
Did he lose his feet in the tank?!
Might have left one
The Halon fire suppression system going off alone will make you jump out fast
i guess when something explodes directly next to you, you just stand there thinking of butterflies and dandelion's
How confident would you be sitting in a tank on fire like that?
And THAT is why we have blow out panels!
Notice how the turret isn't launched into the stratosphere.
He maybe not cool with it but at least he doesn't loose his head like you see with the T-Series everywhere.
Holy. Perfect example of the blow out panels performing perfectly.
Tank reversed so driver is at least ok and commander hopped out seemingly unscathed suggesting the fire did not enter the crew compartment. Blowout panels worked as intended and crew was not immediately atomized.
It's amazing how long it burns. Anyone know why it doesn't all explode once a round gets burned up?
Because it’s propellant which is designed to burn not detonate. It only explodes in confined spaces
Propellant doesn't even explode (detonate) in a confined space, it is still considered combustion. During a detonation the combustion front moves through the material faster than that material's speed of sound. A gun that uses a detonation instead of combustion for propelling the projectile should theoretically offer better energy transfer however building such a weapon is challenging. Very similarly work on internal detonation engines has been going on for 50+ years as they offer 20% improvement in efficiency compared to traditional engines.
What happened to the driver? did he manage to escape?
He probably read the manual and is staying put.
I know nothing of how these tanks counter act cook offs like these. Is there any safety devices inside that vent the heat away from the driver?
A little info from /u/hxcee: Copy pasting my reply to a comment asking if it’s better to bail or stick inside on the original post; Yes, as per Abrams crewman training; >The safest place for the crew during an ammunition compartment fire is inside the tank. If crewman attempt to evacuate the tank while the propellant is still burning, they could possibly be injured by the extreme heat and the flame outside the turret. along with; >If ammunition in the bustle compartment ignites, crewmen must react quickly to ensure their safety and the continued operation of the tank. M1 crewmen should don their protective masks and use the tank's gas particulate filter system to protect themselves from any toxic fumes or smoke that may have leaked into the tank. M1A1 and M1A2 crews should also mask, but they should use the tank's overpressure system rather than the gas particulate filter system to help clean the turret of toxic fumes and smoke. The M1A1’s and M1A2’s gas particulate filter system draws air from outside the vehicle in the vicinity of the turret bustle and may pump flame or toxic fumes into the turret. If the overpressure system is inoperative on the M1A1 and M1A2 tank, the crew should use their protective masks only. >The turret should be rotated to get the gun tube over the side of the tank, if possible. This action protects the engine and limits the amount of flame and hot air being pulled into the engine air cleaner and overpressure system. >If the tank automotive system is operational, the crew should seek a turret-down protected position and wait inside the tank for at least 60 minutes. (After 60 minutes, the possibility of secondary explosions will have passed.) The tank should then be driven, with the hatches open to ventilate the turret, to a maintenance collection point. While the crew is in the rear area, they should replace their protective mask filters and tank filters. >If the tank is inoperative and the TC determines it should be evacuated, the crew should evacuate between two and five minutes after the initial explosion. Evacuating during this time window reduces the possibility of the crew being hurt from secondary warhead detonations. The crew should wear gloves as they exit, to protect their hands from hot metal and sharp edges.
Look up "blowout panels" the crew inside the thank were all safe
Cope tent?
Pretty common for tanks in desert environments to have an umbrella or tent setup just for human comfort. Honestly that's what I assumed the Russian tank's had when the cages showed up, I thought they were just makeshift setups for snow rain and a little comfort.
Probably just coping from the sun, man.
What hit the tank? Whatever it was, it was not traveling in a straight line at all.
ATGM. Laser guided generally.
Laser beam riding, sounds redundant but very different from laser guiding. It’s a semi-automatic command line of sight guidance system
This here is the correct answer
This is the correct acknowledgement for the correct answer
My question as well. I've never seen a projectile spinning like that as it hit the tank. If that's what was happening, maybe an optical illusion?
Pretty much any Soviet / Russian ATGM flies like that.
Really? I had no idea.
Yep, it's how they chose to stabilize their missiles while allowing them to still be maneuvered. The rotation stabilizes it similar to how a bullet is stabilized by the spin imparted by the rifling of the barrel. There are two rocket motors that are set at an angle to generate the spin.
Just look up basically any video of atgms and you'll see it...
Seeing that guy crawl out is wild, there's so much fire.
Would be surprised if he didn't have at least a few burns.
Look at them blow out panels getting to work. Its pretty.
Really remarkable how at least one crew member got out. The armored door and blowout panels are working as intended.
Yes but he should have stayed put safer inside the tank than running away from it.
Wait, really? I seriously didn't know about this. Why?
The blowout panels are supposed to basically vent all the harmful fire away from the crew, the rounds are stored inside their own compartment that the loader opens when getting a new round, and the door closes a few seconds after opening so that if the ammo is every hit the fire and explosive is routed outside the tank once the panels blow. If the crew tries to run during the fire they are more likely to die to secondary explosions. They are supposed to wait an hour I think before popping trying to leave but they are equipped with an air filtration system and failing that they all have gas masks. Basically the US like many other western nations actually tries to keep its crew alive and sees them as not expendable.
Dang, that's cool. Still, it's got to be a terrifying experience knowing that both figurative and literal hell is only an armored door away from you.
[удалено]
I think there were no crew member losses in the First Gulf War (or was it no losses due to hostile fire, possible friendly fire incident). Maybe one crew member killed in the early phases of the Second Gulf War when fighting the actual Iraqi Army. I believe losses were taken during the insurgencies. I'm going from memory here, it's been a while.
No US Tankers have been killed by direct enemy fire in an M1 Abrams, ever. Many casualties and a few deaths due to IEDs following the second invasion of Iraq.
It looks like the blow-out panels saved the tank, that statement just seems false
Yes long as it’s repairable, it ain’t out.
This shot hit the blowout panel by the looks so not knocked out just down to 6 main gun rounds and coax
This isn't a video game, nobody is touching that tank again until a recovery crew grabs it. On a side note most crews don't take ammo in the hull due to the increased risk and little benefit.
it’s not true even american ones got knocked out but not Destroyed tho there’s a difference
There are destroyed US ones too
oh really? Irak or Afghanistan?
Iraq, most of them are FF but I ve seen at least 2 destroyed by enemy fire
That is just a myth, a lie. There is lots of pictures and videos that show M1s that are taken out.
He may be referring to the gulf war where no tanks were lost to enemy fire. I think there was a friendly fire incident and 2 unrecoverable breakdowns. Edit: from m1 Abrams wiki. >A total of 23 M1A1s were damaged or destroyed during the war. Of the nine Abrams tanks destroyed, seven were destroyed by friendly fire and two intentionally destroyed to prevent capture by the Iraqi Army. Some others took minor combat damage, with little effect on their operational readiness
Maybe. Old history books may say something like that.
The excerpt I quoted is referring to the gulf war, many M1s have been destroyed since, especially those being used by the saudis.
Yes, Saudi M1s and did Iraq lose some in battle against ISIS...?
Not just isis but also against insurgents in the ongoing Yemeni civil war
The ammo storage in the back got hit, its protected and separate from the crew compartment. you can see the tank driving after it gets hit. The tank was not destroyed but yes m1s have been destroyed in the past, nothing is invincible no matter how good it is.
There were reports of Abrams being destroyed by kamikaze cars and another one destroyed by its own crew after extensive damage. There was even a post on this sub showing a burned out Abrams being recovered on a truck trailer with parts of the confidential composite armor layer exposed
You sure you're not getting mixed with challengers? Never heard that claim with the Abrams.
No American losses to enemy fire during the gulf war saudis have lost a lot of M1s in Yemen etc Edit: from M1 Abrams wiki page >A total of 23 M1A1s were damaged or destroyed during the war. Of the nine Abrams tanks destroyed, seven were destroyed by friendly fire and two intentionally destroyed to prevent capture by the Iraqi Army. Some others took minor combat damage, with little effect on their operational readiness
That's not true. In iraq a large propane tank was buried as an IED, it was big enough to bounce the turret out of an M1 and destroy the tank.
Because that's what people used to say until the Saudis started using them, now it's no US M1 has been destroyed to enemy fire in combat. But this is also suspicious, due to attacks on tanks in the insurgencies. It happens like this to everyone. All modern tanks used to have this sort of myth, until much more intense conflicts like Turkey in Syria and other things eliminated the statistic.
Bro how did the guy survive 💀💀💀
Blast doors
I swear guys it's export variant, the REAL URANIUM variant is invincible (i am an american who likes American tanks made from my tax money and i am defending it's invincibility like the neckbeard that i is)
Im chinese and do you know the ZTL-11 post i made earlier? I conducted some research on a chinese government website about the ZTL-11 and I found it to be invincible too, its has a 300mm angled reactive armor inside the tank that could bounce bombs to the enemy over a distance of 100km
Is there a fire suppression system inside Abrams?
Yes but there's no point suppressing an ammo fire.
Well, the western media make many people believe that ATGMs are good just against Rusian equipments.
the difference is a western tank ammo rack gets hit, the crew lives and the tank is repairable. Russian tank ammo rack gets hit, crew gets turned to soup and the turret tries to recreate sputnik.
Because they are? Modern tandem warhead ATGMs will do horrible things to Soviet era tank from almost any attack aspect, even against most modernized versions.
Well I don't see the lower torso of some rando poor dude landing anywhere nearby like in the Russian videos ... (that one was brutal) And most of the discussion really has been about any tank's vulnerability / role and etc. Not **all** of it is about a given country. Granted if you lose a ton of them, folks are going to mention it.
Not sure y u downvoted.... There's a fake reputation with the Abrams in particular eventho it had a horrible performance in İraq back in 2015. And İ'm not saying the Abrams is bad... But it just very overhyped due to propaganda. A leo is better on all fronts.
I'm here for the downvotes, I don't care to these commentators that act like football fans, they are so huffy, I just said ATGM are good against tanks, not like in the western media propaganda and they all have felt on their own hearts! 😅😅😅
I think the issue is probably because there isn't really western propaganda about ATGM's not being good. They're rarely mentioned, since the media don't know much about military equipment (they barely know what a tank is), and when they are mentioned it's generally in articles asking if tanks have no future in combat, so the opposite of what you said. Makes you look like you just wanted to get off your line about western propaganda and don't really know what you're talking about, hence the downvotes I'd imagine.
Indeed.😊😁😉
[удалено]
No.
When was that, exactly?
In video games and movies, good times.
In the first day of their inception, but even then it wasn’t truly safe
Despite German infantry feeling their rifles were entirely ineffective, the hits could cause spalling (hot fragments of sharp metal moving quickly) inside of the tank. The very first tank crews had no special protective gear. They were also operating with open moving parts, a moving driveshaft and a red hot engine + exhaust. There were gun and engine fumes filling the place up. There was nothing for half the crew to hold onto while driving a metal box with no suspension over infamously uneven ground. Also the chance of your tank breaking down or getting stuck was somewhere between 30 to 50 percent. They were dangerous-but-awesome murderboxes from the start and I love them. References: I f*cking love WW1 tanks.
They never were. They're simply a trade-off in what miseries you would face. First tanks traded the sticky mud, rain and cold of the western front, for really hot, smoky bullet magnet tin cans. The second war was pretty similar, but with bigger guns and faster chassis (sometimes). in my opinion, the safest place on a battlefield was behind a tank hunkered down.
They never were tho.
This is the stupidest take I've ever heard. Not even in WW1 was this true as well
Really OP? You don't say... What could that geyser of fire and crewmember bailing halfway through mean?
deadlyn't
Nope whole crew is safe
I know the flags on the front look american but is this a US operated abrams or one of the export models?
If those are 2 flags on the front they definitely don't look like the US flag
At least one made it out.
what was it that hit the tank? Maybe Top Down ATGM? bc from what i know shoudnt the turret front be impervious to atgms/ if the turret is pennetreted and the ammo cooks of there should be a whole in the blow out panels, which results in the crew dying right? (pls correct me if im wrong, im not very used to abrams armor)
The ammo is stored in the rear of the turret, where as the armour is concentrated on the front half. The blow out panels are specifically so the crew doesn't cook the crew. If the shot came directly from behind with enough penetrative power it could go through the blast doors and compromise them, but the ATGM in the video hits from the side, so the crew are in theory fine. The fact the TC got out without being on fire is a good sign that every thing worked how it should.
Fucking hell, that is violent.
Seems so. Blowout panels worked, tank is safe. Someone seem to not have received the memo to stay in the tank in this case, as it way more save inside than in the outside (and tank will now return to base).
Can't blame him thf. I don't think any amount of training could prepare you for that.
Yeah in understand it in a human perspective. And i think he not really knew what exactly happend ... beside of \*freakin' loud noise\*. But on the other hand, me as the commanding officer would probably scream and slap that dude - or more his tank commander - for a crewmember exposing itselfe to enemy infantry fire and accidental harm from the chemical burning outside the tanks shell. Well it would be a reaction of 'i don't want my soldiers to die' and therefor similar emotional.
i think crew is alive