tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post7107228764329225645..comments2024-03-28T14:35:30.147-04:00Comments on Tank Archives: Common Questions: Separate PropellantPeterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09622237223229485503noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-65512903779350768612024-02-06T07:15:58.598-05:002024-02-06T07:15:58.598-05:00Except it does because they store it under there b...Except it does because they store it under there because it's in two pieces and fits. It's much more inefficient to store one piece ammo under the turret floor. You need a lot of space in the turret to transfer it to a ready rack. The western style storage in the rear of the turret with blow out panels is far and above superior design. It makes the entire tank more survivable not just the crew. BrotherWillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09258618233019476266noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-87573981145526953932016-02-03T09:58:26.632-05:002016-02-03T09:58:26.632-05:00The habit of the Soviet designs to "lose thei...The habit of the Soviet designs to "lose their tops" upon serious penetration comes from the placement of the autoloader "carousel", which in turn is entirely due to the priority given to keeping the overall size and weight of the vehicles down. In which they certainly succeeded; the Sov MBTs are about 40 tons, give or take a few, whereas eg. the Abrams started out at over fifty and went over sixty in the M1A2 version. (The Leclerc manages to stay under 60 due to replacing human loader with a bustle autoloader.)<br /><br />Unitarly ammunition would blow up just the same (and modern ones use mostly combustible casings anyway) and only be that much more inconvenient to store and handle in the autoloader system used, and thus would really just defeat the whole point of the exercise.<br /><br />That said, given the solution used in the (still under 50-ton) Armata - more or less a turreted version of the setup used in the old Swedish Strv 103 AKA "S-Tank" really - the Russians clearly would rather not lose the whole crew with the tank if they can help it.Kellomieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04915110653443066212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-83621100732565529182016-02-03T02:36:13.210-05:002016-02-03T02:36:13.210-05:00Well it kinda does when its claimed to be an advan...Well it kinda does when its claimed to be an advantage of two piece ammunition that it can be stored conviniently than in 'bulky' turret installations. But I agree there is (Obviously) optimium size and weight limit for one piece ammunition, probably somewhere around the KwK 43 round, which was just managable.Kurfürstnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-43834802007376299632016-02-02T18:41:49.192-05:002016-02-02T18:41:49.192-05:00That has absolutely nothing to do with having the ...That has absolutely nothing to do with having the ammunition on one piece or two.Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09622237223229485503noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-70678164048958605282016-02-02T17:34:02.603-05:002016-02-02T17:34:02.603-05:00Well except the new drawback of turrets flying aro...Well except the new drawback of turrets flying around since all the ammunition placed directly under it and will ignite without any possible way of wenting the gases out. See also: Why modern Soviet tanks are seen so often without their turrets in recent conflicts.Kurfürstnoreply@blogger.com