How does a drone accomplish this though? Shaped charge at point blank?How do tank manufacturers mitigate this? Ultra thick armour in 360 configuration? 1 meter thick hatch? WtfEW doesnt work either since they are all fibre optics.
Shoot the drone
>>65214773>How does a drone accomplish this though?Combo of top armor being very thin and autoloader carousels being genuinely a horrible idea.>How do tank manufacturers mitigate this?Hard kill systems and training crews not to sit immobile on a fucking road.
>>65214793>training crews not to sit immobile on a fucking road.This isn't going to work that well. You can train a man for 100k hours not to get shot in a war and he will still get shot. >Hard kill systemsSuch as? Surely not just slapping more ERA
>>65214793nothing to do with carouselsthese explosions are caused by the detonations of tank shells kept in the turret for some reason
>>65214773better cope armor unironically. Its quick but if you watch it frame by frame you can see the drone thread itself between the slat armor on the rear basket and the roof structure to get a clean hit with likely a shaped charged on the turret armor.A drone can line up a shot on even a small section of bare armor so you have to go full turtle tank to fully mitigate small drones
>>65214803My leopard tank has ammo in the turret. I also store my food in there. Is this a concern?
>>65214803it has everything to do with carousels because all ammo is bunched closely together right in the middle of the tank, right over propellent cases made out of tnt-soaked papernot even the old early cold war tanks with large shells strewn across the turret and hull are this explosive or combustible.
>>65214819Whats the solution then? Manual loading again?
>>65214801>This isn't going to work that wellIt's going to work better than sitting immobile on a road.>Such as?There are already a plethora of them and even more in the works. Some use a directional explosive at close range. Some new stuff is gun based. The next gen US tank will have an unmanned auto cannon on top basically for this express purpose.>>65214803It has everything to do with carousels, retard. Hull stores with blow off panels don't cook off like this video. There's a reason western tanks don't toss turrets.
>>65214834>There are already a plethora of them and even more in the works. Some use a directional explosive at close range. Some new stuff is gun based. The next gen US tank will have an unmanned auto cannon on top basically for this express purpose.Yeah but those run out of ammo. Drones are dirt cheap and theres gorillions of them. Surely toughening up the hide is the way to go
>>65214829That or autonomous tanks, if your concern is crew survival. But every T series is just an explosive coffin now.
>>65214834>There's a reason western tanks don't toss turrets.I remember pics of blown up turk L2A4 with missing turrets.
>>65214801>Such as? Surely not just slapping more ERAAPS, nigga. Do we have to spoon feed you everything?
>>65214840Im not autistic enough to be thoroughly learned in matters of modern warfare, hence why I have to make a thread here instead of figuring everything out on my own.
>>65214847>Im not autistic enoughMy apologies, anon. Git gudder.
>>65214836You can't add enough armor to stop this, idiot. Not with something that has to be at all mobile. You add more armor and they just add larger payloads. Running out of ammo isn't a concern because if you're somehow expending all of it on one mission, you were doing something fucking wrong in the first place. Or someone was for you to be in that situation.The new meta will be for auto cannons and machine guns with automated firing systems that can detect and down a drone at distance. Probably optical and laser based scanning and targeting. The crew's warning they're being targeted will be these systems engaging a drone, instead of finding out how high their turret can fly.Well, ziggers won't ever afford these systems. So I guess rather than turret tossing the current western tank warning is some gnarly splinters bouncing around the cab. Still better survival odds than a toss, though.
>>65214773is this recent? that tank looks to be in decent condition (before exploding) and I can't remember the last time I saw a russian tank that wasn't a rust bucket and/or some Frankenstein creation
>>65214855Why isn't this on the new L2A8 though? Or is it for the new MGCS
>>65214871I won't even begin to say I understand yuro retardation. The Abrams has had Trophy for what has gotta be at least a decade by now. Yurop as always is behind the curve and waiting for the US to just give them the technology, most likely.
>>65214810>Is this a concern?Yes, the detonation of the stored ammunition may overcook your food and ruin your meal. A very serious wartime risk.
>>65214834>It has everything to do with carousels, retard. nope retard, see >>65214839>Hull stores with blow off panels don't cook off like this video. I’ll go ahead and assume you mean blowout panels, which the t-90mhas for example >There's a reason western tanks don't toss turrets.nah see pic related
>>65214893Where do I put my MREs then? I need space to move in the tank and theres no where else other than outside. I really dont want to put it on the floor.
>>65214886the Leopard 2A8 has Trophy integrated, not sure what US tanks have to do with an Israeli company supplying their tech to european tanks
>>65214894>1 off photo vs the hundreds of videos of T series turning crews into airmenIt's the carousels, churka.>>65214907I don't really care if the krauts have it or not, really, to be honest. They'd probably lose a 1v1 against Romania currently so it's difficult to take them seriously.The US is going to move to auto cannon and MG based systems and Trophy will go back to handling traditional AT threats.
tank mounted anti-drone machine guns/autocannons feels like polishing a turd
>>65214953Well if you have a better idea, please, do share.
>>65214773The primary solution is to not use any tank derived from the T-72 because their design is fundamentally flawed.
>>65214953They're a last line of defense, not the first/only.
are there any inrerceptor type drones out there that are actually capable of flying around and just slicing optical fibers?
>>65214976We will probably eventually see interceptor drones equipped with rapid fire 22lrs or something. I mean they already exist to some extent, there are videos of gun equipped drones hunting drones. The future of war is WWI drone on drone dogfighting.
>>65214773Same way planes with rockets were countered in WW2, integrate SPAA into armoured unis.
>>65214773>Shaped charge at point blank?The explosively formed projectile is created by the explosion of the shaped charged which can be detonated at contact (like an rpg) or above the top of the tank ( weak area) like from the TOW missile that flies above the tank and explodes shooting the efp downward into the tank. I saw a vid of efp warhead on a robot sitting some bushes and it sits and waits for a heavy vehicle to come by and it auto detonates and shoots the efp like 10 or 20 feet and destroys the target. The heavier the armor the closer it needs to be.
>>65214773Very hot copper from the RPG warhead meeting unprotected ammunition inside that T-90.
>>65214773Russians cannot into wet stowage, bustles or blow-out panels.
>>65214773>How does a drone accomplish this though?By the target being terrible slavshit, like rational minds have been telling you guys since the 2000's, but no, Russkie garbage is le rugged and le functional and le manly unlike that gay homo western shit
>>65214894
>>65215272We never thought Slavshit was good, it just had a style and was contrarian.And it used to be cheap AF surplus.
>>65214894>blowout panels, which the t-90mhas for example
>>65214863no it's old footageyou can tell because Russian tanks in the current year are a very rare sight
It seems that chain reactions can result in flames erupting from any hatch, or in instantaneous explosions that even destroy the tank's hull. In the latter case, did the jet from the HEAT warhead come into contact with the explosive charge inside the tank's HE round?
>>65215290Russians store propellant and the munitions close by. Usually these russkie slavshit conflagrations are caused by the copper jet igniting the propellants stored in the slavshit tank's caroussel.
>>65214773Shaped charges tend to off at a standoff about 2-3m to allow the penetrator to form into the 'shape', but some of the bigger ones are completely capable of sending some hot shit through your tank at 25m awayIn terms of EW, it depends on what signals your jamming and what signals your enemy are using, there is no real 1-switch and forget unless you're using some kind of arc-gap shenanigans in which case no one has comms, not you, your side or the enemy either. So it does need accurate and active use to get the most out of it, majority of the time anything radio-wave is good enough though.In any case, there are things your armour can do by itself, there's things it cannot.The rest is combined arms, same as it is for protection against gunships and CAS, your tank has no solution to those, so someone else is required to secure that avenue
>>65215280You can clearly see the T-90M blow-out panels working as intended in this video. LOL
>>65215355>155 T-90M: (1, destroyed), (2, destroyed), (3, destroyed), (4, destroyed)...
>>65214894Pic related was a result of ied
>>65214810What food do you take with you?
>>65214773A tank? In this economy?!This is an old video right?
>>65215348Legendary webm
>>65215348>>65215383Anyone have the orbital turret launch video captured by the Chinese news crew?
>>65214819>not even the old early cold war tanks with large shells strewn across the turret and hull are this explosive or combustible.Oh they will definitively explode if they take a hit that strikes one of the rounds, the T-80 however (and other slavshit) wins in the turret toss competition since it can carry 38 125mm rounds which are way more energetic then the older tank rounds so it can toss the turret higher and further. If the tanks main gun rounds are not seperated from the crew compartment with a blast door then it is gona run the risk of performing a turret toss.Reminder for everyone in this thread. The M1 Abrams is the ONLY active tank in the whole world that has EVERY round seperated from the crew compartment with a blast door and blowout panels.>>65214829Blowout pannels combined with highly insensitive munnition and propellent. I remember reading how the germans were doing testing on a new type of propellent for tank guns. It can only be activated with a electric signal from the tank gunner pulling the trigger, you could toss the propellent into a fire and it would just slow burn or not react at all.As for insensitive munniton there was some talk of a new type of high explosive that also could only be activated by a electric signal from the fuze on the front of round. It would also only slow burn or not react if exposed to fire. You could also shoot at it with a gun and nothing would happen.This old bofors demo show why insensitive munition is goodhttps://youtu.be/CwOa0_u-izc?t=462>comb b violently explodes after being exposed to a fire for 2 min 30 sec>IM PBX burns slowly and has a very weak explosion after 4 mins
Don't use tanks, russia has stopped deploying armor at all.
>>65215402Turret is the blowout panel da?
>>65215442That's the one!Thanks!
>>65214773Is that a Russian or Ukrainian tank? I want to know if I should cheer or get mad
>>65215458RU, it's an old video, you should be able to tell by the logo
>>65215460Seen the logo but Russians have them too. Anyway thanks. Tanks will come back, EW will one day work well enough to jam all drones and the fiber optic ones will probably always be pretty rare.Crazy to think how many drones they could have built with the money that went into the tank though
>>65215466also the T-90 is not used by ukies
>>65215467I don't know tanks well enough to spot a T90 vs T72 fren. And I guess there isn't much point learning now, it would be like spotting different types of biplanes
>>65215482>I don't know tanks well enough to spot a T90 vs T72 frenYou're in luck because it's basically the exact same tank.
>>65215362So 155 was a lie or did they realize sending more was embarrassing?
>>65215466>>65215467>>65215482It is a T-80BVM and Russia is the main user of the T-80BVM. Also helps that it does not have ukie camo pattern.>engine exhaust at the rear>3 vision blocks for the driver on the front>relikt era.
>>65215488What was the aggregate rate that they made new hulls? Less than 36 a year?
>>65215466>EW will one day work well enough to jam all dronesNot unless you pump in enough energy to ensure every tank doubles as a popcorn machine and every crewman becomes a sterile lobster. But sure, for the time being EW kind of works.>fiber optic ones will probably always be pretty rare.That makes no sense, fiber is cheap and since it works it will be scaled up as much as needed.
>>65214773Man, those cages are really ruining the aerodynamics of the turret, with the current meta the early-war turret toss records will never be broken...
>>65214894That was an IED you retard, the explosion came from underneath so of course it lifts up the turret.
>>65214801>hard kill>"Such as? Surely not just slapping more ERA"Isn't hard kill systems usually active and not passively responsive?
If you're a western nation you go all in to automated anti drone turret upgrades for every machine gun that can point up in the air on all your vehicles. If you're some shithole like Russia you just suffer because you have no choice.
>>65215467Didn't they capture a few T-90s during the Kharkiv Counteroffensive? Not sure they would've used them, and any that are still around are probably stuck in a hangar somewhere, but still.
>>65215501
>>65215591
>>65215591>TONIGHT>I TRY OUT THE NEW WUNDERWAFFE>RICHARD FLEES A DRONE ON HIS MOTORBIKE>AND JAMES GETS A DRESSING-DOWN FROM HIS NEW COMMANDING OFFICER>"Oh cock."
>>65214773a lot of these videos are legit propaganda and fake/ai generated
>>65214773Naval history has already shown the way. Battleships went extinct after it was shown it is impossible to fully protect the ship with armor against aircraft AND still be able to do its job AND be affordable. Tanks must follow the same path. Discard all armor, save for splash damage/light weapons and focus on the 3S: speed, sensors & stealth. The main tank weapon must be BVR missiles and or drones. Tanks must be the land equivalent of Arleigh Burkes.
>>65214829>Whats the solution then? Manual loading again?The problem is that modern tanks use combustible cartridges with a metal base for obturation. Old tank cartridges were all brass and small droplets of molten metal would not penetrate them. Russian tanks store the rounds in a carousel autoloader at the bottom of the turret, and this carousel is not sealed off, so a shaped charge penetrating into the turret and spraying tiny droplets of molten metal will ignite any charges stored. So you do not even need to hit the ammo magazine, you just need to penetrate into the turret, and you get a propellant cookoff. Modern self propelled artillery is no different including modern NATO SPGs. They all use combustible subcharges that are, as far as I have seen, not protected in any kind of special container, the idea being "they arent supposed to get hit because far away". Maybe the pzh 2000 has some kind of blow out compartment setup because of german autism but f.ex M109 does not.The only tank that has all its ammo stored in compartments with blow out panels is the M1. Leopard 2 has a hull storage compartment with no venting. The M1 setup does not give 100% protection against an propellant fire killing the crew because if it gets hit in the few seconds the ammo compartment door is open or the round the loader is holding is ignited, its a total crew loss. Also, you have to differ between ammunition propellant fire and HE shell cookoffs. The latter are far more energetic and cause these 400 feet high turret tosses.
>>65214855>You can't add enough armor to stop this, idiot.Russian tanks have most of their armor weight budget invested in steel armor. Their composite armor schemes never advanced beyond the early 1960s tech and are very primitive. They did create some composite armor upgrades in the late 1980s that were far better with very good performance against shaped charges, but this technology was apparently lost. In 1991 there were these iraqi T-55s with upgraded turret armor that tanked hellfire missiles into the turret without getting penned before getting hit in the hull and abandoned. This was not noticed until some americans went to examine the wrecks to write a post battle analysis. A modern tank designed for the modern battlefield would be very different from the cold war era tanks you see today. Remember that the M1 and Leopard 2 are early 1970s designs for a battlefield that was like world war 2. F.ex the high pressure smoothbore gun can be considered obsolescent today.
>>65214871>Why isn't this on the new L2A8 though?Because when you can bribe the government people who buys these tanks you dont need to innovate technologically to beat your competitiors. Your product just needs to look warlike. This isnt limited to just Europe, you can see similar deranged procurement choices in America.
>>65215581>Didn't they capture a few T-90s during the Kharkiv Counteroffensive?I think that was a T-80BVM with the fancy IR shielding cloak on. Either way, that one is probably sitting in a hangar somewhere in the US. In its fully disassembled state most likely.
>>65215581>>65216495Actually nevermind, they did capture a T-90 and that's what I was remembering.
>>65215348That is a sympathetic detonation of the HE shells carried by that tank. Not a propellant conflagration. That doesnt mean that the propellant didnt ignite, just that it doesnt looke like this when only the propellant catches fire. No amount of venting will help with a HE shell detonation, so yeah, even NATO tanks can blow up like this. Its just less probable.
>>65215415>Blowout pannels combined with highly insensitive munnition and propellent.NATO uses basic TNT as HE filler, the US army insensitive muntions program was cancelled a couple of years ago after developing a new HE filler. AFAIK Russia uses hexogen, which is more powerful than TNT, but also less safe.
>>65216376>F.ex the high pressure smoothbore gun can be considered obsolescent today.why? whats the alternative
tanks are obsolete. it's not 1940 any more.
>>65216761why? whats the alternative
>>65216771>whats the alternativearsenal birds
>>65215591>>65215797heheue
>>65214804You need several meters of standoff to stop an RPG warhead from penetrating armour that is only rated to resist machine gun fire. Meme cope sheds are barely good enough for that purpose, and even then only from some angles. A little bit of wire spaced a foot away from the rear of the tank's turret is going to do absolutely fuck all.
>>65215348What a beautiful shockwave.
>>65214839>>65214894I recall the Leopard and I think there was also a Challenger with a minor turret toss/blowout failure, but has there ever been a documented case of an Abrams having its turret tossed or any blowout failure, even without a toss?
>>65219682
the abrams is the best and im sick of pretending its not
>>65214829>Whats the solution then? Manual loading again?tanks as concept are obsolete now, same way aircraft carrier make battleship obsolete by having more range, accuracy and speed FPVs are basically precision guided artillery shells, they can do everything a tank can do, faster more accurately and infinitely cheaper same was for the sword or the bow, technology just move forward
>>65220000Does this make IFVs with APS destroyers?
>>65214894why is this the only example?
>>65219718>but has there ever been a documented case of an Abrams having its turret tossed or any blowout failure, even without a toss?I believe there were some in Iraq due to them driving over huge IEDs.
>>65219718It honestly doesn't matter anymore, any crew is going to eat drone shit when they bail anyway with the way warfare is going.From watching a few abrams cookoffs, all it does is prolong the fire for the crew a bit longer to get outside before dying.
