One thing I've often found odd is how few tanks/APCs/IFVs have turret hatches that open forward, as opposed to the rear. I always thought that it would make more sense that was as a turned out commander would have a shield in front of them, but I suppose the tradeoff would be reduced forward visibility and potentially being less safe during acceleration.WebM only tangentially related, NATO training exercise trolling
>>65070924It's 100% not safer to have to pop half your upper body out of the turret to see forward.The Soviets used to do it and eventually realized their mistake.
What's with all the footage from tanks getting blown up having the top hatches open? You'd think they'd keep them closed since they're in a battle zone. The equivalent of keeping your car doors open wide while you're going 90 on the highway
>>65070953The majority of them are disabled and abandoned, where the crew left the hatches open while fleeing.The tanks get disabled by ATGMs or artillery, or rarer, by drones, and then the drones come in to finish them off at their own leisure, ultimately stealing the kill.
>>65070953Situational awareness
>>65070933Was there a reason the split hatch designs went by the wayside?
>>65070924Forward opening hatches don't provide that much protection. Autocannons rip through them and in the case of the Soviet MBTs they're round shaped so the lower section of where the commander/gunner's torso is at isn't really fully protected.That's part of why umbrella style hatches are a thing since they "potentially" can protect against shit like a mortar hitting dead on the hatch while providing some heads out visibility (looking over the periscopes).
