Bradley Fighting Vehicle Troop Transport Capacity

[akd]

which sites this book as the source:

Perrett, Bryan (1987). Soviet Armour Since 1945. London: Blandford Press.

Seriously?

Auto-loaders eating arms during normal operation is a myth. If you use equipment improperly you can get injured. AFAIK, Abrams crews have been injured and even killed by improper loading procedures.

[Aurelius]

he could drop anything. knee jerk reaction to droppinh something important is to reach down to pick it up. Ive seen people do all kinds of incredibly stupid things around dangerous hardware I see no reason why a tank crew perhaps conscripted should be different. You also said correctly sitting in the seat. So you honestly think in thousands and thousands of tanks the gunner always sat in the seat correctly at all times when firing? Or thwre was never some stupid 19 year old goofing off? Yes my post was provocative Im obviously a Western intelligence agent here to smear the reputation of tank auto loaders. no i dont have military experience. however evidence has been provided by someone else. no i have no military experience except being born on a military base in western germany and growing up with a father who.d been in F4Cs in in Vietnam, and was in the military until I was 25 retiring as Lt Col. Your post was provocative too ans reading another of your posts you refer to your squad. if you.ve served in the military, like i asked what your relevant experience is, then hats off to you you.d know more than me though not necesarrilly about some thing 50 years ago. And as for both you and Aurelius what if anything is your friends and families experience in Chechnya, Afghan, GPW but also ANECDOTAL evidence. The Pravda thing was sarcastic of course but sarcasm doesnt translate well over the internet. And Ive lost quite a few friends too, in case you forgot the US has fought wars recently as well. I lost one friend in Iraq in 03, another in Afghan in 09, and another same place in 11.

By the way if this Western bias bothers all of you so much jave you ever stopped amd thought Im on the internet an American creation on an American game companies website? I mean really. You dont like it goto the Russia Today forums or something so you can hear what you want. Im honestly sick of how the Russia Stronk crowd gets super defensive about ANYTHING to do with Russia in a negative way and starts saying the West and NATO and America like we.re a borg like one minded entity. Its as stupid as early US coldwar policy thinking all Communist countries were dictated and controlled by Moscow and aligned as one.

Actualy, because this is a NATO-stronk forum I wrote what I wrote as a friendly reminder to Vladimir. And as far my alegiance to NATO-stronk or Russia-stronk - I remain neutral.

[Nidan1]

Let me save you the trouble and tell you right away. As you are from the "East" (as myself) any personal experience on any matter is irrelevant on these forums. Only western anecdotal evidence is accepted.

Really? I think the opportunity for us "Westerners" to get interesting anecdotal stories of real military experiences from our former "enemies" is really important. I grew up during the cold war, the missle race, the space race and all the other competitions real or imagined that took place primarily between the US and the former Soviet Union. I myself am tired of the conflict. Russian and American people have more in common than we like to admit, and to continue the Cold War on these forums is a waste of time. We can learn from each other here, many more things than just the common interest we have in military matters.  As my friend sublime has said, sarcasm and other verbal nuances do not work well in message boards and forums, especially when not all of us have a common native tongue. I only brought up the T-64 autoloader story because it was something we heard back in the 60's when the Soviets were putting them into front line service. If its totally without merit then you have convinced me, and I will stand corrected on the issue.

 

Let's not waste the opportunity, to move past our old suspicions and predjudices and really have some credible give and take.

We can still enjoy playing this game, and debating related interests without starting World War Three on these boards.

Edited August 13, 2015 by Nidan1

[A Canadian Cat]

Seriously?

Auto-loaders eating arms during normal operation is a myth. If you use equipment improperly you can get injured. AFAIK, Abrams crews have been injured and even killed by improper loading procedures.

 

Ah actually I was trying to point out that this whole story was a myth that may have been totally made up or might have started from some early safety problems that were fixed.  Clearly I did not express my self well enough.  Even if you take the worst case scenario of what was quoted form that book that would only mean initial production T64s had a safety issue that was fixed.  Personally I do not even think that is the most likely interpretation - even more likely that there were problems in prototype stage.  Either way this idea that for decades the Soviet auto loaders were causing serious bodily harm to tankers is clearly just a story.

 

When I searched I found several places that made mention of "loading limbs" as if it were fact but with nothing to back it up - sounded like a myth to me.  The only thing that looked even remotely like someone actually looked at data was this and it clearly makes no mention of loading limbs as something that happened with any regularity or even at all, it talks about some injuries and safety features that were added.  The loading limbs story sounds like a myth to me.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

The simple reality is that sitting inside of any Soviet armored vehicle will frequently result in the crew being ingested into the exhaust system.

 

The autoloaded arm story is at the very least, a very persistent urban legend.  I'm willing to concede it might have never happened, or it was the corruption of an actual event (as getting caught in the recoil of the main gun is quite the possibility anyway, it could have been an incident along those lines that got "telephone" gamed into an autoloader problem).

 

The degree of secrecy, and often of active coverups historically committed by the Soviet Union also gives legs to these sorts of stories both in terms of providing a reasonable reason why we haven't heard of folks being fired out of a T-64, and why an urban legend may continue to exist in a grey area.  It's equally reasonable in the absence of open press that the Soviet Union covered up a small number of injuries/deaths due to mechanical malfunction, or that the historical cover up of similar incidences merely gives a total fabrication enough legs to keep running after 30 years.

Regardless of arms being fed into things or not, Soviet-Russian vehicles are often an ergonomic nightmare, and make crew safety compromises that western forces would not condone.  Again for a totally not made up/really interesting story, see the unified German state's attempts to bring BMPs up to code, and the ultimate failure of same effort, the ability to escape a burning BMP, the BMD-1's service in Afghanistan, and carousel style autoloaders.  While it's not as interesting as autoloaded arms and such, at the core of the story there is the nugget of fact that inside of an armored vehicle can be quite hazardous, and in the case of many Soviet-Russian platforms, it might be additionally dangerous.  

[VladimirTarasov]

 Have you ever stopped and thought Im on the internet an American creation on an American game companies website? I mean really. You dont like it goto the Russia Today forums or something so you can hear what you want. Im honestly sick of how the Russia Stronk crowd gets super defensive about ANYTHING to do with Russia in a negative way and starts saying the West and NATO and America like we.re a borg like one minded entity. Its as stupid as early US coldwar policy thinking all Communist countries were dictated and controlled by Moscow and aligned as one.

 

Super-defensive? I am on this forum because I like this game and discussions based on it, What you don't want any non-westerners here? Im not even replying to the rest of your reply.

 

The simple reality is that sitting inside of any Soviet armored vehicle will frequently result in the crew being ingested into the exhaust system.

 

The autoloaded arm story is at the very least, a very persistent urban legend.  I'm willing to concede it might have never happened, or it was the corruption of an actual event (as getting caught in the recoil of the main gun is quite the possibility anyway, it could have been an incident along those lines that got "telephone" gamed into an autoloader problem).

 

The degree of secrecy, and often of active coverups historically committed by the Soviet Union also gives legs to these sorts of stories both in terms of providing a reasonable reason why we haven't heard of folks being fired out of a T-64, and why an urban legend may continue to exist in a grey area.  It's equally reasonable in the absence of open press that the Soviet Union covered up a small number of injuries/deaths due to mechanical malfunction, or that the historical cover up of similar incidences merely gives a total fabrication enough legs to keep running after 30 years.

Regardless of arms being fed into things or not, Soviet-Russian vehicles are often an ergonomic nightmare, and make crew safety compromises that western forces would not condone.  Again for a totally not made up/really interesting story, see the unified German state's attempts to bring BMPs up to code, and the ultimate failure of same effort, the ability to escape a burning BMP, the BMD-1's service in Afghanistan, and carousel style autoloaders.  While it's not as interesting as autoloaded arms and such, at the core of the story there is the nugget of fact that inside of an armored vehicle can be quite hazardous, and in the case of many Soviet-Russian platforms, it might be additionally dangerous.  

Soviet secrecy stuff also became popular in the west from the Afghan war, Whenever there were high losses amongst troops they started saying stuff like "died in a crash" or "died in a training accident" but it wasn't in huge numbers, Like stated by some.

 

And escaping a BMP-1 or BMD-1 is not hard at all the back door can be kicked open in worst case scenario as long as you loosen it out, Or you can get out the other hatches. The autoloaders was a design against NATO type warfare, Tanks shoot at the most exposed part, Which should be around the lower turret and upper hull, Infact another reason why you see T-72 turrets fly in the air is because the crew put up a HE round inside the turret. To stay safe they only keep the ammo in the carousel. But of course having a bustle is a very good way to keep the crew safe, And I think a combination of these 2 would be a good solution. 

Although if you ask me, Todays T-72s would only be good with a T-72B(2,3,4) solutions, Other then those models you can expect modern NATO tanks to destroy them, With ease.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

 

Soviet secrecy stuff also became popular in the west from the Afghan war, Whenever there were high losses amongst troops they started saying stuff like "died in a crash" or "died in a training accident" but it wasn't in huge numbers, Like stated by some.

 

Among other topics.  I mean it took some days to even announce there was a problem at Chernobyl (to the west at least).  Given these sort of delays and deceptive tactics it reduces the credibility of "official" reporting and leaves this weird grey space in which there's suppressed truths* and believable lies cohabiting.  Which is why I hedge my bets on autoloader arm feeding as that's the sort of thing that isn't totally out there, and could have happened (especially had it been on a small scale), but also could be a total BS story made up to encourage new gunners to respect the inherent danger to sitting beside a cannon.

 

In terms of escaping a BMP or BMD, that's still problematic.  They don't have a good record of crew survival after being struck regardless of how kickable the door is.  In regards to T-72, I am dubious to if it's just a matter of loose HE rounds.  The T-72 wrecks I had the pleasure of being told to stay away from all had their turrets popped (if not separate from the tank, the turret had been knocked off the turret ring and now rested on the deck).  A sympathetic detonation of loose rounds certainly might cause some of those results, but there's enough flipping turrets to lead to questions if all T-72 operators stow excess HE rounds inside the turret.  

 

I'm partial to the armored bustle stowage myself.  There's been some total ammo cookoffs from Abrams stuck by IEDs that the crew walked away from**.  Unsold on autoloaders until we start talking about larger rounds (the sheer size of the various 140 MM experimental rounds rule out conventional manual loading).  

 

*Not to imply moon bases or lost cosmonaut level suppression, but three or four loaded arms could easily fall through the cracks

**Which should not be taken as a good chance to show times it did result in a tank loss anyway.  Simply that usually catastrophic ammo fires on most tanks almost always mean "tank explodes everyone dies" while on the Abrams there's a high chance of crew survival and respectable chance the tank might be salvaged and restored to action with depot level work.

[Lethaface]

Sublime mate chill out, as I read Vladimir posts there was nothing offensive / defensive. He merely claimed the arm loading story is a hoax. I for one am tired by all "stronk" BS no matter east or west. Like Nidan said, it is great to exchange opinions with people from around the globe that have different insights, experiences and cultures.

[Sublime]

i am chilled out. but stereotypes especially persistant ones amongst generally intelligent communiies stay persistant for a reason. I could easily see it being a story invented by the military to make troops respect the gun as Panzersaurkrautwerfer said, or as i believe having tens of thoudands of tanks i think it prolly happened around 100 times ( purely from my arse ) in all Soviet style autoloaders in the world.

Edited August 13, 2015 by Sublime

[Lethaface]

Well I hope your T-type tanks in our PBEMS load up an arm :-) Turns incoming.

Edited August 13, 2015 by Lethaface

[Sublime]

ill have em right back. as far as having non western people banished from the forum certainly not and i believe no man is better than any other alive or dead no matter what life they led. Not inherently at least, some have made some inherently evil or sadistic choices I personally dislike.

Please also do not put words in my mouth as it were by saying things like i suppose you.d like non westerners not allowed. i never said or implied anyone shud be banned or not allowed to post and its a ridiculous and below the belt statement.

Edited August 13, 2015 by Sublime

[Sublime]

Well I hope your T-type tanks in our PBEMS load up an arm :-) Turns incoming.

Probably be more effective than my rpgs

[VladimirTarasov]

Among other topics.  I mean it took some days to even announce there was a problem at Chernobyl (to the west at least).  Given these sort of delays and deceptive tactics it reduces the credibility of "official" reporting and leaves this weird grey space in which there's suppressed truths* and believable lies cohabiting.  Which is why I hedge my bets on autoloader arm feeding as that's the sort of thing that isn't totally out there, and could have happened (especially had it been on a small scale), but also could be a total BS story made up to encourage new gunners to respect the inherent danger to sitting beside a cannon.

 

In terms of escaping a BMP or BMD, that's still problematic.  They don't have a good record of crew survival after being struck regardless of how kickable the door is.  In regards to T-72, I am dubious to if it's just a matter of loose HE rounds.  The T-72 wrecks I had the pleasure of being told to stay away from all had their turrets popped (if not separate from the tank, the turret had been knocked off the turret ring and now rested on the deck).  A sympathetic detonation of loose rounds certainly might cause some of those results, but there's enough flipping turrets to lead to questions if all T-72 operators stow excess HE rounds inside the turret.  

 

I'm partial to the armored bustle stowage myself.  There's been some total ammo cookoffs from Abrams stuck by IEDs that the crew walked away from**.  Unsold on autoloaders until we start talking about larger rounds (the sheer size of the various 140 MM experimental rounds rule out conventional manual loading).  

 

*Not to imply moon bases or lost cosmonaut level suppression, but three or four loaded arms could easily fall through the cracks

**Which should not be taken as a good chance to show times it did result in a tank loss anyway.  Simply that usually catastrophic ammo fires on most tanks almost always mean "tank explodes everyone dies" while on the Abrams there's a high chance of crew survival and respectable chance the tank might be salvaged and restored to action with depot level work.

 Of course the carousel has been hit and caused catastrophic destruction, I mean come on, M829A1 vs T-72M. Not a good reaction. 

 

The Chernobyl incident was not told to the public so fear doesn't strike the people. A fine job was done securing Chernobyl, And a lot of men died trying to secure the reactors. Going off topic, Now today Ukraine's government wants to turn it into a tourist attraction... But anyways, I never heard about the M1s ammo cook offs from IEDs thats a first for me. You know of any other incidents?

[Sublime]

Of course the carousel has been hit and caused catastrophic destruction, I mean come on, M829A1 vs T-72M. Not a good reaction.

The Chernobyl incident was not told to the public so fear doesn't strike the people. A fine job was done securing Chernobyl, And a lot of men died trying to secure the reactors. Going off topic, Now today Ukraine's government wants to turn it into a tourist attraction... But anyways, I never heard about the M1s ammo cook offs from IEDs thats a first for me. You know of any other incidents?

the attempt to secure Chernobyl was extremely brave by the men who went in and died for it. Extremely good job? eh have you read anything about the 'cases' over the old reactors? they're falling apart and have tons of leaks. Id say actually the men were quite brave but the job done was quite inadequate for something that ll stay toxic for a long time and could threaten other nations than just at the time the (SU)

btw nice jab at Ukraine the country all Russians seem to despise and are told there are Navy SEALs there ( you.d think if Russia wasnt really invading the Ukraine you.d be pleased American special forces are running around everywhere then. Our military special forces arent as good at 'humanitarian aid' as they are at blowing stuff up )but arent officially at war or aiding *at all* ( except with the quite obvious first aid kits and food your nation has a long history of aiding rebel groups who fight nations who dont ask "how high" when you say 'jump!'

edit: lots of love from the NSA and CIA to our pal and yours Ed Snowden and regards, obvious Western agent-provocateur

p.s. ask your anecdotal Afgantsy sources if they remember being tols Afghanistan was teeming with and being invaded with Americans just like Ive seen several ex Soviet soldiers say in documentaries about Afghanistan and oddly now Ukraine too.

Edited August 14, 2015 by Sublime

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

In terms of Chernobyl:

 

The point was not to debate if concealing the event had merit or not.  That is a sort of incident that much of the Western World would expect to know at the outset, and its magnitude was global.  The fact it was suppressed for as long as it was, and then in many cases understated to a western observer, makes more modest disasters (that the brand new tank of the Soviet Army eats arms if you are not cautious) entirely reasonable to have simply been erased from history.

 

It's not really a strong position to argue from simply because it's very hard for an untrustworthy/has a history of concealing information source to prove an event did not occur (as after all, if someone was lying about it occurring at all, the "evidence" that there's no evidence could be considering equally indicative of the event not occurring, or a good cover up!).  Just because the Russians deny having a secret base in the Urals where they are keeping Elvis hostage does not mean they have that base.

 

On the other hand, it does make lesser, more "believable" denied events seem more probable at least at a glance.  

 

In terms of T-72s

 

It's not strictly a M829A1 thing.  The carousel did not seem to protect from many penetrations, regardless of KE or chemical energy (such as HEAT) type rounds.  If something gets into the interior of thetank it becomes a pretty high risk for a major ammunition fire as the knocked out tanks in the Kuwaiti desert, burned out shells in Syria and other places where T-72s have been shot at seem to attest to.

 

In regards to M1s

 

I honestly can't remember.  Someone I used to work with told the story, but the highlight was talking about the "oh  crap" factor of a small inferno going on behind the ammunition bay doors, followed by driving the tank back to the FOB (where it was doubtless flown out of country and spent several months* being worked on before returning to the force).  Just guessing, might have EFP someone had set up in hopes of getting a tank (you have to "aim" EFPs, so to hit the turret you'd need to angle it right or mount it higher up).

 

 

*I imagine if there'd be a war in which every Abrams counted the turn around time would have been much faster.  As the case was most of the heavily battle damaged vehicles got rebuilt at the pace usually reserved for DMV employees.

[Melchior]

Among other topics.  I mean it took some days to even announce there was a problem at Chernobyl (to the west at least).  Given these sort of delays and deceptive tactics it reduces the credibility of "official" reporting and leaves this weird grey space in which there's suppressed truths* and believable lies cohabiting.   

 

Deepwater Horizon

 

Does anybody wonder why Russians feel like they're constantly judged against the backdrop of a double standard? Because there clearly is one. It's just so normalized after years of rivalry that we're totally oblivious to it. 

Edited August 14, 2015 by CaptHawkeye

[Nidan1]

panzersaurkrautwerfer, in your experience have you actually seen EFPs emplaced at an upward angle, rather than being mounted higher along the target path to strike a tank turret or higher up on say an MRAP vehicle?

 

I would think that the lethality of the penetrator would be compromised if it struck at an upward angle rather than straight on.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

 

Deepwater Horizon

 

Not the same.  Deepwater Horizon was a lot of "whoa okay something is wrong" then progressing to "crap this is really a lot worse" with the ensuing progression tracked more or less in real time by a free media.  Chernobyl was pretty much massive disaster from the start that was simply not discussed at all for days, and then continued to be deeply downplayed well after it was apparent that a significant nuclear incident has occurred.  You can look back and see the progression from "whoa man, oil derrick just blew up" to "hey think there's a leak, better go check it out" to "crapcrapcraphugeleakunderwater" and the follow on repercussions.  While the degree of spread remained uncertain for some time with Chernobyl, the degree of damage, and certainty of radiation release was known quite up front.

 

Re: Nidan

 

I have no idea.  We had no "real*" EFPs in our sector, and no tanks either.  You mostly had the EFPs in the Shia dominated parts of the country, and I was in the very Sunni part of Baghdad (who preferred RKG-3s, and mortars/rockets, and then IRAMs, carbombs and RPGs when they could get their hands on them).  I was just making a half educated guess on a half remembered story from a coworker.  

 

*Our local insurgents had gotten the plans for EFPs, but did not fully wrap their head around the concept.  As a result they were using non-ductile metals instead of stuff like copper for the penetrator, so the actual results were lacking to say the least.

When the IEDs went off at all.  Bluntly our local IED dudes were pretty bad at what they did.  Thankfully.

[VladimirTarasov]

 

In terms of T-72s

 

It's not strictly a M829A1 thing.  The carousel did not seem to protect from many penetrations, regardless of KE or chemical energy (such as HEAT) type rounds.  If something gets into the interior of thetank it becomes a pretty high risk for a major ammunition fire as the knocked out tanks in the Kuwaiti desert, burned out shells in Syria and other places where T-72s have been shot at seem to attest to.

 

In regards to M1s

 

I honestly can't remember.  Someone I used to work with told the story, but the highlight was talking about the "oh  crap" factor of a small inferno going on behind the ammunition bay doors, followed by driving the tank back to the FOB (where it was doubtless flown out of country and spent several months* being worked on before returning to the force).  Just guessing, might have EFP someone had set up in hopes of getting a tank (you have to "aim" EFPs, so to hit the turret you'd need to angle it right or mount it higher up).

 

 

*I imagine if there'd be a war in which every Abrams counted the turn around time would have been much faster.  As the case was most of the heavily battle damaged vehicles got rebuilt at the pace usually reserved for DMV employees.

Early model T-72s didnt have protection on the autoloaders so you are right, And even so if the projectile has penetrated with enough strenght it will still penetrate the autoloader shield. 

 

You know, I watched a few American documentaries on the war of Iraq, And they stated stuff like not one single Abrams was lost or stuff like that. And me at the time I believed it because you know, American documentaries wont lie about their own war (what I was thinking as a teen  ) But now that I have the chance to speak with a US tanker, How much were really lost? Counting ones that were mission-killed. 

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

In 1991, there were no losses to enemy action.  I believe a few were "mobility" kills from mines and friendly fire, and I think one was badly damaged in a self-destruction type action (the tank got stuck, no recovery assets were available, tank defended itself against Iraqi tank attack, then follow on unit picked up crew, tried to destroy the tank as they couldn't recover it either.  They failed to do inflict lasting damage besides triggering the blow out panels.  A real recovery team came along and salvaged the tank, and it is likely still in service somewhere in the Army).  The only Abrams crew member KIA was lost due to being outside of his hatch when a nearby Iraqi tank cooked off.

 

Any claims of no Abrams being lost result from the 1991 conflict.  The loss of Abrams in the 2003 conflict were quite openly admitted and recorded throughout the US campaign in Iraq.

[Sublime]

so yes vlad sorry but those US documentaries didnt lie. believe or not most Americans are very against boots on the ground war of any type and even are annoyed by the drone actions. Our media though often stupidly informed or plays tape of wrong equipment also along with the public rips politicians and the military a new @$$hole when it turns out that for example troops were sent into combat with HMMVs that were underprotected.

[Codename Duchess]

$0.02 on the autoloader:

1) These incidents would have been from the 60s and 70s.  Finding any sort of hard evidence online from what would have been random events (that wouldn't have generated much if any attention anyway) is going to be next to impossible.  This leads to-

2) Having been around heavy machinery, the military, and "well-intentioned" junior enlisted, anything is possible, truly.  The videos I found online showed the autoloader as being exposed to air within the crew compartment.  It's a big piece of moving equipment in a small space.  That's the classic recipe for injury.  Do I think that every gunner lost his arm?  Of course not.  But I would bet that more than one suffered serious injury from that thing, especially if you factor in bouncing around in a moving vehicle cross-country.  To illustrate "new guys do the darndest things" here's a photo of someone caught sleeping inside the intake of an F/A-18C


 

[VladimirTarasov]

In 1991, there were no losses to enemy action.  I believe a few were "mobility" kills from mines and friendly fire, and I think one was badly damaged in a self-destruction type action (the tank got stuck, no recovery assets were available, tank defended itself against Iraqi tank attack, then follow on unit picked up crew, tried to destroy the tank as they couldn't recover it either.  They failed to do inflict lasting damage besides triggering the blow out panels.  A real recovery team came along and salvaged the tank, and it is likely still in service somewhere in the Army).  The only Abrams crew member KIA was lost due to being outside of his hatch when a nearby Iraqi tank cooked off.

 

Any claims of no Abrams being lost result from the 1991 conflict.  The loss of Abrams in the 2003 conflict were quite openly admitted and recorded throughout the US campaign in Iraq.

Sounds hard to believe not to lose a single tank but, If you say so. You know more about the conflict then me. either way some good info. 

 

$0.02 on the autoloader:

1) These incidents would have been from the 60s and 70s.  Finding any sort of hard evidence online from what would have been random events (that wouldn't have generated much if any attention anyway) is going to be next to impossible.  This leads to-

2) Having been around heavy machinery, the military, and "well-intentioned" junior enlisted, anything is possible, truly.  The videos I found online showed the autoloader as being exposed to air within the crew compartment.  It's a big piece of moving equipment in a small space.  That's the classic recipe for injury.  Do I think that every gunner lost his arm?  Of course not.  But I would bet that more than one suffered serious injury from that thing, especially if you factor in bouncing around in a moving vehicle cross-country.  To illustrate "new guys do the darndest things" here's a photo of someone caught sleeping inside the intake of an F/A-18C

 

It would have been put on file, Sure some incident might have happened but not from the design, It would be the crews fault. I've sat inside a T-72B, Not in service though it was at a show where they allow you to check out the equipment, I didnt notice a problem with it, It was a snug fit, But I didn't face any trouble from the autoloader. Contrary to belief it is spacey in there when not in combat positions, But if you are in combat position, You will be aiming and looking through your optics which cancel out any chances of getting your arm crushed into the breech. The cramp feeling is not true, in that tank. I haven't had the chances of getting into any western tanks. But who's not to dream. 

 

Sleeping in a aircraft intake is funny, Did they party the night before 

[Codename Duchess]

Sounds hard to believe not to lose a single tank but, If you say so. You know more about the conflict then me. either way some good info. 

 

It would have been put on file, Sure some incident might have happened but not from the design, It would be the crews fault. I've sat inside a T-72B, Not in service though it was at a show where they allow you to check out the equipment, I didnt notice a problem with it, It was a snug fit, But I didn't face any trouble from the autoloader. Contrary to belief it is spacey in there when not in combat positions, But if you are in combat position, You will be aiming and looking through your optics which cancel out any chances of getting your arm crushed into the breech. The cramp feeling is not true, in that tank. I haven't had the chances of getting into any western tanks. But who's not to dream. 

 

Sleeping in a aircraft intake is funny, Did they party the night before 

Just because it's put on a file in the Red Army archives doesn't mean those are accessible online, especially from the 60s.  I think we all agree that the story is much more widespread proportionally than the actual number of incidences, but I'm sure there were a couple conscripts seriously injured by it.  And yeah it would almost certainly be the crew's fault moreso than the design (unless they designed a separate claw to grab arms of non-believers), but it's much easier to design a safety guard than to deal with idiots most of the time.

I've been in an Abrams and peered inside a T-72.  The Abrams is much roomier.  Even in the space, I would still be initially unnerved sitting as close to the breach having seen the videos of how far back it kicks. 

As for the napper, that occurred at sea so I sincerely doubt he was sleeping off a hard night.  If that had been a British Carrier, might have been more likely

[VladimirTarasov]

 As for the napper, that occurred at sea so I sincerely doubt he was sleeping off a hard night.  If that had been a British Carrier, might have been more likely

Hehehe