"Just like Roco Minitanks?" Topic

Back in the day, half a century ago, we'd pull the turrets off the Roco tanks to indicate they were destroyed. It was easy, it clearly indicated destruction, and it could be put back together quickly for the next game.
Now in the Ukraine, I'm seeing tanks with their turrets blown off, just like the Roco tanks. This doesn't account for all the destroyed tanks I see on the news, but certainly to a significant portion of them.
So, how are turrets held on?
What does it take to blow the turret off a tank?
I'm thinking explosion in the fighting compartment, and the entire crew killed. Is that more or less correct? If so, doesn't that mean serious personnel losses to trained and experienced (and not easily replaceable) tank crews?

Grelber

Most tank turrets are basically held on by gravity, and sit on top of the "turret ring" and engages into the gears of the traverse mechanism.

So if the tank is hit and directly in its ammo storage, or a fire starts which reaches ammo storage, all the ammo explodes at once -- called "cooking off" in tank slang. The force of the explosion will blast the turret off much like shaking up a bottle of champagne can blast off the cork. The entire crew will be killed.

Some tank designs, like the US M-1 Abrams, have ammo storage in a special armored compartment attached to the turret and sealed off with a blast door, so if the ammo cooks off the crew has a higher chance of survival.

Ammunition in a T-72 (the most common Russian tank) is stored in a horizontal carousel in the base of the turret as part of the autoloading system. No guesses what happens when the ammo cooks off!

Images about half way down this very crunchy web page
link

Tanks that store their rounds differently don't suffer this fate so much.

Video of an M1 Abrams ammo explosion test:
YouTube link

Footage from Iraq, an Abrams is hit by an ATGM which cooks off the ammo stowage, but the crew survives:
YouTube link

This is why the US Abrams doesn't have an autoloader like Russian tanks.

Many thanks for the information!
A quick Google image search for Sherman tank destroyed and Tiger tank destroyed shows they often lost their turrets.
$Bminisguy, I was surprised to see the M-1 crewman emerge from the tank as late as he did.

Grelber

SBmini +1

It appears much of the Russian MBTs, IFVs, APCs, etc. have poor survival rates in battle. Not only in some design concepts but poor demonstration of tactics, combined arms warfare, etc. Verses a well-trained, armed, motivated, lead, etc., force e.g. the Ukrainians.

When you see photos or footage of KO'd Russian AFVs. It clearly shows catastrophic destruction, e.g. turrets blown off, fire, burned off rubber on road wheels, etc. Many of the crews probably didn't make it out of their vehicles alive.

Again, a weapons system is only as good as it's crew plus good leadership. This does not describe the Russians in general, IMO.

was surprised to see the M-1 crewman emerge from the tank as late as he

The M1 was designed with crew survivability a priority. And that has been improved upon as time went on. E.g. the M1A2 TUSK II. link Now the crewman in this M1 in the video, he may have been a bit shook up, etc. ?

During one of my rotations to the NTC for desert warfare training in the late '80s. With a Mech Hvy Bde. An M1IP[with the 105mm] was hit in the rear during a live fire range exercise. The M1s were using live rounds. However no DP rounds for obvious reasons.

That M1 that was hit with a live round 105mm round. The TC said he felt like his M1 was ran into by another Tank. Didn't think he was hit. When he looked out over the rear deck, smoke was rising from the engine compartment. And could see the white foam of the fire extinguishing system coming thru the hatches, etc. on the rear deck. No one was hurt or even knew they were hit …

The engine, etc. was replaced and the M1 was fully mission capable in about 4 hours. We had some very good repair crews.

I'm betting the Russians can't do anything like that now …

My understanding is the M-1s have blow-out panels too, which go first if the ammo rounds cook off, protecting the crew from the blast and resultant fire.

Those are weaker than the protection between the ammo and crew, which is why the crew is better protected than in many/most tanks.

Yes, that is one of the systems that the M1 has to improve crew survivability, etc.

Very many Russian Build Tanks seem to have turrets blown off. Main Gun ammo bigger than most of WW2, so when it does go off..

A buddy of mine was a TC on an Abrams at 73 Easting, I don't think his platoon even took any hits, wiped roughly a battalion of t-72s.

There is probably a morale effect to a tank crewman here, too, like +1 if your tank enhances crew survivability and -1 if it enhances crew death.

Whenever I see a destroyed Russian Tank/AFV… part of me Cheers… than, a second later… God… I Hope they got out before that went up…

Heedless Horseman +1 – my compassion for their and their family's pain and loss is tempered by the pain they are inflicting on others…

Well based on the anecdotal information coming out regarding Russian tankers refusing to re-sign on and the alleged running over of an armoured unit officer rather suggests they typically aren't. There is a reason as previously stated why some armies like to design survivability in! And its not just because they're the 'good guys' tankers cost a lot of money to train properly.

Again … bottom line … the Russian AFV designs are not high in crew survivability, per se. The crews are poorly trained and motivated as are their leaders. Their fieldcraft is weak, they don't fight combined arms, etc., etc.

All that being said, I think again … they are going with Stalin's concept of quantity over quality … However they have added ERA, Shtora, and other defensive systems to improve survivability. But even with that if you don't use terrain, combined arms, etc. You will still take losses as we see … And in many cases heavy losses.

All that being said, I think again … they are going with Stalin's concept of quantity over quality … However they have added ERA, Shtora, and other defensive systems to improve survivability. But even with that if you don't use terrain, combined arms, etc. You will still take losses as we see … And in many cases heavy losses.

Could be. but unlike the days of the early USSR with a vast peasant population that could be thrown into combat as cannon fodder, modern day Russia has an economy on par with Italy, negative population growth and has already suffered as much as 10% loss of total AFVs in the Russian military, and up to 17% of active front line soldiers as casualties. They have also lost their Black Sea Fleet flagship and another warship, dropping them down to just 9 Corvettes and DDs, supported by another 8-10 small missile boats and patrol craft. This is completely unsustainable.

I like to think of the turret-less T72s as having been necklaced.

Saw some photos of a tank in Ukraine that had a turret popped off and land in the 5th floor of an abandoned residential building.

Reminds me of Rock'Em Sock'Em Robots where the head pops up when they are KO'd

Could be. but unlike the days of the early USSR with a vast peasant population that could be thrown into combat as cannon fodder, modern day Russia has an economy on par with Italy, negative population growth and has already suffered as much as 10% loss of total AFVs in the Russian military, and up to 17% of active front line soldiers as casualties

May explain why BTGs are organized as they are. E.g. 3 Mech Cos., 3 FA Btys, 1 MBT Co. Seems this is relying on FA Firepower, than higher numbers of Infantry & Tanks. But we have discussed this before.

However, the BTGs used by leaders who knows what they are doing can be effective. That plus if the troops are trained, motivated, and have good Log support.

turret-less T72s as having been necklaced.

You mean a turret ring hit ?