Military Ground Vehicles of Your Nation [NO MECHS] Type 6

[Gallia-]

When was last time Sweden fought a war?

They're in Afghanistan and Iraq, fwiw

idt SSG or paras count

[The Democratic Republic of Davida]

Is there anything untrue about this, as far as you guys know?

http://tanknutdave.com/the-british-chal ... ttle-tank/

[San-Silvacian]

Armor isn't all. Otherwise the Maus would be the ultimate tank of the world. Speed is armor.

This stopped being a thing after 1940.

So here's a good benchmark: Can the tank's ammunition load be easily penetrated from the front?

M1: No
Challenger: No
Leopard 2: Yes

Not really a good one either since you are assuming the tank will be hit and penetrated on its strongest armored point.
After all, we could just as easily ask if the driver can be easily killed by a front penetration leading to a yes on all of them. But it kind of ignores the elephant in the room.

Most hits happen to the front of a tank tbh.

Its rly cool when, at the very least, your driver gets killed and the other three ppl can either get out, or return fire.

In Leo 2s case the driver might not get killed, instead the entire tanks might blow up.

germany hasn't lrned anything since ww2 obv.

[Premislyd]

They're in Afghanistan and Iraq, fwiw

idt SSG or paras count

yeah but ; ~ ;

[Questers]

It's not its strongest armour point. Latest Russian KEP can penetrate it.

In theory. If we assume the tank just gets hit in the first place and does not have ERA or anything.

Really, comparing who can kill whom in an ideal one on one fight on a flat glass surface is kind of pointless. Would you not agree?


PS. I am not actually defending it so much as I am saying your methodology of comparison is all wrong.

I agree that it is not everything, but this isn't a minor weakness - it's actually really quite important. There's a reason no other modern tank in service today except Russian types stores its explosive ammunition in the front hull. It's a critical flaw and it's worth mentioning.

[Purpelia]

Most hits happen to the front of a tank tbh.

Not the front bottom hull.

Its rly cool when, at the very least, your driver gets killed and the other three ppl can either get out, or return fire.

In Leo 2s case the driver might not get killed, instead the entire tanks might blow up.

If your driver is dead your tank is dead. It can fire off maybe one round before it gets shot and killed for good. And if the crew abandons it than again you've lost that tank for that engagement and maybe forever. And if you've lost the tank crew survival is not always a primary consideration.

germany hasn't lrned anything since ww2 obv.

WW1.

I agree that it is not everything, but this isn't a minor weakness - it's actually really quite important. There's a reason no other modern tank in service today except Russian types stores its explosive ammunition in the front hull. It's a critical flaw and it's worth mentioning.

I am unconvinced that it's so major for the sole reason that it is only exposed if the tank is penetrated from the front which won't happen often. And if it does, a tank lost is a tank lost. Weather it blows up, burns up or just has to be abandoned.

This said, I am not a fan of the tank for other reasons. Some of whom lead me to favor the AMX-56. But that's another story.

[Questers]

Leclerc actually suffers from same problem with ammo storage.

[Lemanrussland]

Leclerc actually suffers from same problem with ammo storage.

France has learned nothing since Waterloo.

[The Democratic Republic of Davida]

Is there anything untrue about this, as far as you guys know?

http://tanknutdave.com/the-british-chal ... ttle-tank/

I think it is a good read. It raises many questions for me however. :/

[The Democratic Republic of Davida]

Leclerc actually suffers from same problem with ammo storage.

France has learned nothing since Waterloo.

Lol, I love these kind of statements.

I love'm and I hate'm.

[Questers]

Is there anything untrue about this, as far as you guys know?

http://tanknutdave.com/the-british-chal ... ttle-tank/

I think it is a good read. It raises many questions for me however. :/

It's mostly true, tanknutdave is quite biased source tho. What questions does it raise?

[Gallia-]

Most hits happen to the front of a tank tbh.

Not the front bottom hull.

Its rly cool when, at the very least, your driver gets killed and the other three ppl can either get out, or return fire.

In Leo 2s case the driver might not get killed, instead the entire tanks might blow up.

If your driver is dead your tank is dead. It can fire off maybe one round before it gets shot and killed for good. And if the crew abandons it than again you've lost that tank for that engagement and maybe forever. And if you've lost the tank crew survival is not always a primary consideration.

germany hasn't lrned anything since ww2 obv.

WW1.

I agree that it is not everything, but this isn't a minor weakness - it's actually really quite important. There's a reason no other modern tank in service today except Russian types stores its explosive ammunition in the front hull. It's a critical flaw and it's worth mentioning.

I am unconvinced that it's so major for the sole reason that it is only exposed if the tank is penetrated from the front which won't happen often. And if it does, a tank lost is a tank lost. Weather it blows up, burns up or just has to be abandoned.

This said, I am not a fan of the tank for other reasons. Some of whom lead me to favor the AMX-56. But that's another story.

A single penetration does not mean that a driver is dead, nor does it mean the tank is dead. Tank drivers are typically quite hard to hit, as are crewmen in general.

*Whether.

[The Democratic Republic of Davida]

I think it is a good read. It raises many questions for me however. :/

It's mostly true, tanknutdave is quite biased source tho. What questions does it raise?

I better not get into that.

I have learned a lot about tanks and such from this topic but I don't get along well with discussions so I am trying to avoid it at all cost.

But I am reading everything.

[Dostanuot Loj]

There's a reason no other modern tank in service today except Russian types stores its explosive ammunition in the front hull. It's a critical flaw and it's worth mentioning.

Now Matt, you know better, the vast majority of modern tanks have ammunition stowage in their front hull.

In fact it is a predominant feature of not-yet-in-service tanks as well. Ammo not in the front hull is pretty out of the ordinary.

[Purpelia]

A single penetration does not mean that a driver is dead, nor does it mean the tank is dead. Tank drivers are typically quite hard to hit, as are crewmen in general.

Nor does it mean that the ammo is going to be hit. Or that it's going to detonate.

*Whether.

I actually did want to spell that one right. Blame the god dam spell checker.

[Questers]

There's a reason no other modern tank in service today except Russian types stores its explosive ammunition in the front hull. It's a critical flaw and it's worth mentioning.

Now Matt, you know better, the vast majority of modern tanks have ammunition stowage in their front hull.

In fact it is a predominant feature of not-yet-in-service tanks as well. Ammo not in the front hull is pretty out of the ordinary.

In the front hull specifically or under the turret ring, because which have ammunition stowage in front hull? Leclerc, Leopard, Ariete I guess, but who cares about Ariete.

I don't know about Arjun. Or K2 or Type 10. But I'm pretty sure Type 90 does not. Depends on what you call modern, eh.

[San-Silvacian]

Leclerc is such a nice tank though D:

[Questers]

Leclerc's front ammo system is actually a revolver cylinder thing, because its too blocked by other stuff to be accessed openly. Or so I have read.

[Chebucto Provinces]

Now Matt, you know better, the vast majority of modern tanks have ammunition stowage in their front hull.

In fact it is a predominant feature of not-yet-in-service tanks as well. Ammo not in the front hull is pretty out of the ordinary.

In the front hull specifically or under the turret ring, because which have ammunition stowage in front hull? Leclerc, Leopard, Ariete I guess, but who cares about Ariete.

I don't know about Arjun. Or K2 or Type 10. But I'm pretty sure Type 90 does not. Depends on what you call modern, eh.

Type 90 does, as does Type 10, K2, K1A1. Only one I'm not sure on is the Altay. And I specifically ignored the Russian/Chinese derived vehicles because they're all the same.

Honestly, only Abrams stores most of its ammo in the bustle, and Challenger stores below the turret ring in the hull. Oh and Merkava in the rear hull. But everyone else keeps a large portion of their ammo in the front hull. Beside or on either side of the driver.

Damn you autoswitching!

[Imperializt Russia]

No, I'm not. I have no reason to believe it's bad. It's just that it hasn't been properly tested for what it was designed for, just like most MBTs.

Except in ODS and OIF, where Challengers fought quite a few tanks.

edit: Not to mention all those years spent on Salisbury Plain training for The Next War.

Challengers fired a fraction of the ammunition Abrams tanks did.
Obviously more Abrams served and engaged more tanks, but the Challengers didn't seem to see all that action.

[Novorden]

Is there anything untrue about this, as far as you guys know?

http://tanknutdave.com/the-british-chal ... ttle-tank/

That level 3 armour....

[Stahn]

I am stealing a lot of the looks of the Chally 2 for my Shadhahvar 2 at least. And it's gun.


I like the driver's hatch arangement. I didn't pick its gun because of how awesome it is or is not (not) but because it looks pretty and is 'good enough'. For the Shaddy 2 at least.

[Questers]

I am stealing a lot of the looks of the Chally 2 for my Shadhadvar 2 at least. And it's gun.


I like the driver's hatch arangement. I didn't pick its gun because of how awesome it is or is not (not) but because it looks pretty and is 'good enough'. For the Shaddy 2 at least.

Happy birthday.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/870 ... 0Bryan.pdf

There's a nice cutout diagram there.

[Purpelia]

A preview of my new rifle. Still WIP.

[Anemos Major]

Type 90 does, as does Type 10, K2, K1A1. Only one I'm not sure on is the Altay. And I specifically ignored the Russian/Chinese derived vehicles because they're all the same.

Honestly, only Abrams stores most of its ammo in the bustle, and Challenger stores below the turret ring in the hull. Oh and Merkava in the rear hull. But everyone else keeps a large portion of their ammo in the front hull. Beside or on either side of the driver.

Altay is a paper tank - as it stands, it doesn't carry ammunition at all. As for the Type 10, I'd love to see where you got that information, because all I'm seeing is conflicting reports in the Japanese press as to whether it follows the Type 90's ammunition configuration or whether it stores a far smaller number of rounds at the back of the crew space in isolated storage.

Leclerc's front ammo system is actually a revolver cylinder thing, because its too blocked by other stuff to be accessed openly. Or so I have read.

Yep, it is indeed. I have a few diagrams and images lying around if you want 'em.



Also worth noting that 'tanks have the provisions for ammunition storage in these places in the tank' doesn't equate to 'tanks will be carrying this much ammunition at all times'. Abrams is a great example of this - it does have the capacity to store ammunition in the hull, but whether that capacity is used in the field is a different question.

I am unconvinced that it's so major for the sole reason that it is only exposed if the tank is penetrated from the front which won't happen often. And if it does, a tank lost is a tank lost. Weather it blows up, burns up or just has to be abandoned.

This said, I am not a fan of the tank for other reasons. Some of whom lead me to favor the AMX-56. But that's another story.

For the record, the Russians in Chechnya (the first war) found much to their chagrin that a successful penetration, more often than not, translated much more readily into a catastrophic kill than they'd expected because penetrations led to cook-offs in the middle of the tank that'd incinerate everything inside and quite possibly blow the turret clear. It's arguably somewhat less of an issue when it's at the front of the hull, as you note, and a successful penetration along that arc won't guarantee a massive sympathetic detonation of all the frontally loaded ammunition (especially when all the rounds are separately encased/protected to some degree) - but on the other hand, to have this massive reserve of potentially explosive stuff along the arc of the tank that'll be hit most consistently and considering it a non-issue is a little bit hopeful.

Almost everybody does it, dangers partially considered, but I'm not convinced that it's a design aspect that should be swallowed without consideration on that basis.

It's not the AMX-56, by the way - it can't technically be an 'AMX' tank when the design bureau responsible for that nomenclature no longer even exists, let alone not being responsible for the development of the EPC into the Leclerc. It's the 'char Leclerc' - that's what the government calls it, that's what the developers call it, that's what you should call it. Good tank, has forward ammunition storage, has a wide array of potential flaws that ought to be considered in turn as well.