Jump to content

BMP-3 Ammo Storage


Recommended Posts

Yes, if HEAT jet, KE penetrator or spall ignite propelant charges, they also can ignite HE material in HE ammo to 100mm low pressure gun... also GLATGM's for that gun can be ignited.

Well after such cook-off there will be not much left from vehicle and if someone was inside then... well You know.

But to be honest, all IFV/ICV's have no protected ammo inside, in M2/M3 series inside are stored BGM-71 TOW ATGM's, just imagine what will happen if these will be ignited.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed, if the TOWs inside of the M2 go off there won't be too much left, but the BMP-3 has quite worse chances in my opinion. It is the cost of such a degree of firepower.

The front of the BMP-3 has decent armor for an IFV, but the Bradley has much better side/rear protection. Unless it is fitted with ERA or an optional armor kit, .50 caliber AP or SLAP ammo can penetrate the sides.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, looks like experienced BMP-1 gunners could manually load the 73mm main faster than the autoloader, leading to its removal. Also, the autoloader was prone to malfunction after vehicle movement over rough terrain. The BMP-3 system presumably has fixed all or most of these issues, or it wouldn't be there!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

System in BMP-3 have also one more shortcoming, it is similiar to T-64/80/84 MBT series, this means that ammo or propelant charges are stored in erected position so they are easy to hit by HEAT jet, KE penetrator or spall.

T-72/90 series design would work better, there ammo and propelant chartges are all stored beneth crew turret basket and are fully isolated from the rest ot the tank, and are so low that hitting them is very hard, Russians learned in Chechenya that it is good to not take additional second use ammo in hull and turret, then T-72/90 series MBT's are very safe, safer than even western tanks, besides M1 of course do to it's design philosophy of maximasing crew survivability at all costs.

Another interesting thing is that, autoloader is not correct name for such systems in AFV's, more correct is mechanical loading system. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope, all T-72's got the same, low design carousel mechanical loader, not the same like in T-64/80/84 series where ammo is on the floor and propelant charges are in erected position.

The only changes within T-72 series between T-72/T-72A series and T-72B/T-90 series was how it works.

In first series it could rotate only in one direction, later variants could rotate in both directions thus, the whole loading cylce was faster... hmmm I must think if T-72A don't have this better loader as well.

Well, in Chechen war after Russians learned some thing, crews take only ammo in carousel, so T-72B's with K-1 ERA were preatty tough and survivabale tanks, still though, if internal fire have enough time, it will reach ammo in carousel and effect will be same as in tanks with storage racks in hull and turret were full of ammo.

Ok here some drawings and one pic:

T-64/80/84 series looks like this:

80-inside.gif

t-80BV-turm.jpg

T-72/90 series looks like this:

t-72bm_all.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Damian the T72 export that the Iraqis had in Desert Storm utilized that system and when hit those tanks went up catastrophically, killing the crew instantly. Most of the time the turret would fly 50 ft. into the air as the ammo exploded. I witnessed this personally on several occasions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Iraqi T-72M's and T-72M1's were equiped with standard carousel like any other T-72 variant. They explode just after hit because Iraqis take ammo not only in carousel but also in ammo racks that are placed in turret and hull, so these were easy to hit by KE penetrators, HEAT jet's or spall. After ignition of propelant charges or HE filler in HEAT and HE ammo in these racks, ammo in carousel also started to cook-off.

But none T-72 ever (maybe besides first prototypes) shared same carousel mechanical loader with T-64/80/84 series.

Still T-72 carousel loader is preatty safe, it is low, have hermetic isolation from the rest of a tank, from the sides it got additional protection from wheels.

If only crew don't take second use ammo in hull/turret racks, T-72/90 series are safer and give more time for crew to bail out than Leopard 2 series, FV4030 Challenger 1 and FV4034 Challenger 2 or Leclerc, Challenger series MBT's have exposed HESH ammo in racks and propelant charges in armored bins that protect only against spall, Leo2 and Leclerc have big, ammo magazines in hull that are exposed to enemy fire... heh Germans were so concerned about this problem that they lowered magazine, but this means 5 rounds less.

The whole problem is more complex, but today's conflicts proof one thing, the design way choosen by M1 designers was right... of course ammo in M1 series is more exposed but is isolated from crew and blow-off panels system prooved to work as it was designed. Unfotunetly such system of ammo storage have also one short coming, turret is big, very big and heavy, maybe this is why 99,99% of tank design don't use such solution. Hmmm it seems also that turret bustle storage in M1 could accomodate more ammo, but because M1 side armor is thick (350-400mm LOS) and angled, max ammo stored in ready ammo and semi-ready ammo rack are 18, 120mm rounds each.

Well maybe if designers choose to sacrifice armor thickness on turret bustle there could be place for few more rounds, but then again auto cannons could hit this area and bulk of ammo in a tank can be taken out, so You stay only with 6 stored rounds in rear hull magazine.

Then again in Soviet (Russian/Ukrainian) designs in mechanical loader You got ~22 ready to use rounds. More than in M1 (ready to use are 18 rounds... but when we consider that in combat loader doesen't reload ammo from semi-ready to ready rack, and only loading rate is a bit slower, than M1 got 36! ready to use rounds, more than any other tank besides Challenger series) and in Leo2 (only 15 rounds ready to use, after using them, turret must be rotate and loader starts to reload ammo from storage in hull to ready to use ammo rack. In this process tank is completely vurnabale to enemy fire and can't defence itself + it expose weaker side turret armor). Leclerc got 22 ready to use ammo + 18 rounds in hull, it is however secret to me how stored in hull rounds are reloaded to mechanical loader, inside it looks a bit crampy to reloade them... so probably it is needed to seek cover and reload it from outside by reload hatch... solution worser than in Sovet designs where You can reload from the inside. In Challenger series all ammo is ready to use.

So not all western solutions are better or even good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Damian90,

The only carousel I ever saw depicted on the T-64/T-72/T-80 was the vertical type, so this is definitely news to me. Love the illos and pics, especially the fabulous T-72BM color cutaway (had previously only seen this one from Znamenosets, but much smaller and with no translation http://military-photo.blogspot.com/2008/12/russian-t72-tank-cutaway-drawing.html)! Please be sure to put them in the modern armor internal array thread so we don't lose them. I think your argument as to why the Iraqis ate it so badly is interesting, but I have no data to support or dispute your assertions regarding their ammo stowage practices in Desert Storm and OIF. The new Zaloga Duel series book M1 Abrams vs T-72 Ural looks interesting and highly pertinent, but this is the first I've learned of it.

Am not even sure that the horizontal carousel is survivable in the face of DU penetration. What I am sure of, though, is that belly busting antitank mines look really attractive now! Very good discussion of ammo stowage arrangements on various tanks.

Splinty,

Please clarify which carousel type the Iraqi tanks had that you saw destroyed. I can't really tell from your statement.

Regards,

John Kettler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can support what Damian says. Having talked to some former ex East German tankers the most dangerous practice was to transport ready-ammo and expecially propallent charges within the turret basket. Besides this the whole design seems to be pretty safe.

For some nice pics also take a look at this german web-site:

http://www.kotsch88.de/l_t-72.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HetzerII,

Welcome aboard!

Please explain what you mean about transporting ready ammo and propellant within the turret basket. Does that mean not in the carousel? The pics are great, but I sure wish the site had a translate button. Can follow just enough to frustrate me no end that I can't really read it!

Regards,

John Kettler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The loader-carousel itself only contains 22 shots out off the 44 onboard a T72. The rest is stored mostly in "bunkers" within the tank but some (6-8 shots and their propellant-charges) were stored "unprotected" within the fighting compartment (ready racks and stuff). At least 4 of these charges were stored on top off the carousel.... exposed to any spalling or penetration hit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think your argument as to why the Iraqis ate it so badly is interesting, but I have no data to support or dispute your assertions regarding their ammo stowage practices in Desert Storm and OIF.

How they stored ammo is more than certain, this was typical fo Soviet block practice. Damn I live in a country where we still got ~500 T-72M1's, most of them are old and not used, just sit in storage but there are still some unit's that use them, and PT-91 use same type of mechanical loader and ammo storage design. So they probably used same practice in ammo storing.

I saw some T-72B's from Chechnya after hits, even with armor perforated and if ammo was only in mechanical loader then tanks were in preatty good shape, heh some hardcore crews were abale to fight even after perforations. I remember a story of T-72B with overheated engine, in middle of battle, crew can't force engine to run, they were hit several time from several sides, until engine started again and they continued to fight. IRCC tank was also equiped with K-1 ERA... when I think about it layout, this was firts tank, really suited for urban combat.:rolleyes:

The new Zaloga Duel series book M1 Abrams vs T-72 Ural looks interesting and highly pertinent, but this is the first I've learned of it.

Well, to be honest, in tank lovers community, Zaloga is threated like propagandist... but I never readed his books so this is not My opinion.

Am not even sure that the horizontal carousel is survivable in the face of DU penetration.

It is only if will not be hit by any AT ammo, if penetrator also perforate carousel then flying turret effect is more than certain. ;-)

What I am sure of, though, is that belly busting antitank mines look really attractive now!

Yup, it is very dangerous for these tanks, well IED's also, and Russians doesen't even have addon armors for tanks belly... but this is maybe effect of small use of IED's in Chechnya and other Caucasian republics... but I saw one T-72B(M) after IED or something like that, it was preatty big pile of TNT.

The rest is stored mostly in "bunkers" within the tank but some (6-8 shots and their propellant-charges) were stored "unprotected" within the fighting compartment (ready racks and stuff). At least 4 of these charges were stored on top off the carousel.... exposed to any spalling or penetration hit.

All ammo stored outside carousel is unprotected, such "bunkers" protect max only against spall, and still in many cases ammo will cook-off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But most off the "bunkers" are place well within the lower part off the vehicle like the carussel itself. That way they are not prone to direct hits and they are reasonably protected against spall. Also to place warheads within the compartment isnt such a big problem. Placing charges at a such exposed place is.

Stefan Kotsch told me that they had orders to either feed the exposed ammo as soon as possible into the loader or to wast the charges completely before combat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But most off the "bunkers" are place well within the lower part off the vehicle like the carussel itself. That way they are not prone to direct hits and they are reasonably protected against spall. Also to place warheads within the compartment isnt such a big problem. Placing charges at a such exposed place is.

Yeah thats true, but best way is just to not take this additional ammo, especially when we take in to consideration that in Soviet constructions You have more than 20 rounds ready to use.

Stefan Kotsch told me that they had orders to either feed the exposed ammo as soon as possible into the loader or to wast the charges completely before combat.

Mr. Stefan Kotsch is a TankNet member with very good knowledge about tanks, I wonder how different was T-72M1 use doctrine in NVA than in LWP. :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding the M1 Abrams ammo storage layout, IIRC the only difference between the ready rack and "semi-ready" rack is that the ready rack door automatically slides open when the loader hits the switch with his knee. The "semi-ready" rack door has to be slid open by the loader.

Indeed the T-72s autoloader ammo carousel itself is tough to hit and most T-72 explosions are caused by ammo stored elsewhere than the autoloader. Yet if you do hit the ammo carousel the results seem pretty devastating.

I remember in an old Steel Beasts game you could easily tell when you hit the autoloader ammo storage because the whole turret went flying off! Yet most hits wouldn't have the same brilliant effect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding the M1 Abrams ammo storage layout, IIRC the only difference between the ready rack and "semi-ready" rack is that the ready rack door automatically slides open when the loader hits the switch with his knee. The "semi-ready" rack door has to be slid open by the loader.

Yup, but I talked some time ago, maybe a year ago, with M1 crew member that in combat they don't play with reloading ammo from semi-ready to ready rack but just load it to gun from semi-ready, it takes more time than from ready rack but it is faster than reloading rack's.

Indeed the T-72s autoloader ammo carousel itself is tough to hit and most T-72 explosions are caused by ammo stored elsewhere than the autoloader. Yet if you do hit the ammo carousel the results seem pretty devastating.

I wonder if ammo store method with projectile beneth propelant charge is good, maybe reversed layout should be better? Then in some manner projectile itself protect more vurnabale propelant charge?

I remember in an old Steel Beasts game you could easily tell when you hit the autoloader ammo storage because the whole turret went flying off! Yet most hits wouldn't have the same brilliant effect.

I think that if internal fire have enough time after any hit, effects would be same or similiar, maybe turret won't fly off the hull but it will be off traverse ring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Splinty,

Hope that's all you got from the experience, seeing as how many who clambered on such wrecks got really ill later on.

Damian 90,

Ah, the Georgian lollipop! Appreciate the autoloader vids. Regarding Mr. Kotsch, I know just enough German to be able to tell it was very groggy stuff on his site. As for Zaloga, he is a heavy hitter in the U.S. defense analysis community. For whom is he supposedly a propagandist? I have his Soviet Combat Tanks And Combat Vehicles. It was part of my professional library during my Threat Analyst days, as were a number of Osprey titles by him on Russian tanks, fire support systems and elite forces.

http://www.amazon.com/Steven-Zaloga/e/B002JHPXYK

Here's a better professional background from Teal Group Corporation. Don't know about you, but I find it impressive.

http://www.tealgroup.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=23:steven-j-zaloga-senior-analyst&catid=6&Itemid=

Lampshade111,

I knew about the ready supply and have seen footage of the M1's loader in action, but I thought something was wrong when I saw the auxiliary supply in use. Somehow, that had escaped my attention.

Hetzer II,

Until this thread, I had never heard of additional ammo stowed as you describe in the T-72. Do you have any pics or diagrams?

Regards,

John Kettler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, the Georgian lollipop!

Not really. :)

It is from rormer Yugoslavia, look at the turret closely, it is M-84A. ;)

As for Zaloga, he is a heavy hitter in the U.S. defense analysis community. For whom is he supposedly a propagandist? I have his Soviet Combat Tanks And Combat Vehicles. It was part of my professional library during my Threat Analyst days, as were a number of Osprey titles by him on Russian tanks, fire support systems and elite forces.

I can't tell much, but here in central and eastern europe, many people claims that his knowledge about eastern block equipment is small and in books most informations are wrong, etc. As I said, it is not My opinion, I never read his books.

Until this thread, I had never heard of additional ammo stowed as you describe in the T-72. Do you have any pics or diagrams?

Wait a moment I try to find one.

Ok, this is how it looks like:

14.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...