T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants

Also the main killer is exploding HE rounds not burning propellant, and blowout panels are proven to work against them comparfed to a carousel full of HE rounds.

There are lots of variations on what happens when a tank is hit and penetrated and it largely depends on a lot of things... where it hits and what is in the tank and where.

The T-72 and other T series tanks got a bad reputation for exploding with their turrets blowing off when penetrated, and that was obviously because such vehicles only have half their ammo in their autoloader and the rest is inside the crew compartment in the turret and next to the driver.

I would add that the Abrams and also most western tanks also have ammo in the crew compartments and when they were penetrated were just as vulnerable to being destroyed too.

When there is no ammo outside the autoloader in a T-72 or T-90 then they didn't explode normally even when the turret or hull were penetrated.

For the Soviet ammo it was worse because the propellent does not have a full length brass case, so hot sparks or flame or hot fragments landing on the rounds in the tank immediately set off the propellent, but turrets could be blown off the T-54 and T-55 and T-62, all of which used brass propellent cases.

HE round generally only explode if hit directly... which is easier against the Abrams because the rounds are exposed in the turret bustle.

Otherwise it takes a few minutes of the tank burning for the HE and HEAT rounds to cook off and explode... the crew would normally have already bailed before that happened.

Also your point is kind of moot since if an APFSDS penetrates the crew compartment from the front, it will shatter after penetrating and bounce around the compartment, killig the crew plus incinerating them if its DU.

Not really... APFSDS cores are design not to shatter... because shattering means they are no longer able to penetrate any useful amount of armour, so most of the time it will exit the other side of the vehicle spraying small fragments and pieces of armour but most tanks have an inner anti spall liner made of kevlar and nomex and similar materials and will also be wearing body armour also to protect them from fragments and hot material.

Most of the time the incinerated crews were the ones that couldn't get out as the propellent burned...

Blowout panels absolutely work for shots from the side and the crew of a western MBT are much better protected from dying from a cookoff if hit from the side.

They are a catch 22 type situation... they essentially require that the ammo is in the turret rear exposed to enemy fire, which makes it vulnerable to being hit.

As long as it remains a propellent fire it would allow the crew to escape the vehicle before the HE and HEAT rounds start exploding, but whether they save the crew or not that tank is going to burn out so tank down.

franco wrote:Don't believe it to be armour but a camouflage netting and support rack. Someone had posted pictures earlier of them being used during maneuvers. To hid from UAV's.

It is both.
The spacing under those roofs is high enough to disperse a cumulative stream.
Its goal is to detonate top attack ammo at the distnace.
It is something that holds the camouflage net, sure.
But for that purpose only, it would not need such a dense metal rack. Take a look at the photos.

This is what it is on a closeup.



A metal rack holding a sandbag.
Of course "a sandbag" is just the general idea, it can be anything else, starting with Nakidka type cover.
But the sandbag of that thickness, I assume it is a 20 cm range, is more than enough to resolve a hole precursor warhead issue.
Anyway, this is another brilliant idea on how to deal with top attack munnition. Costing close to nothing, easy to install in field conditions, easy to replace/repair if damaged.

franco wrote:Don't believe it to be armour but a camouflage netting and support rack. Someone had posted pictures earlier of them being used during maneuvers. To hid from UAV's.

From the top view it keeps the same design so it's hardly a cammo.

In very hot countries it would provide sun protection in the middle of the day and many new suicide drones will dive down and try to hit the top of the turret to damage optics and injure any exposed crew.... in that situation this will be useful, but I would not expect it to be some super shield to stop everything and anything.

Even if it is just used to attach a camouflage screen that sits off the armour and allows the machine guns to be used and for the optics to work without covering all the optical and radar based sensors on the roof of the turret then that will be useful enough.

Hiding the IR view would make Javelin ineffective in its fire and forget mode, which in itself makes a super expensive weapon rather less effective.

GarryB wrote:In very hot countries it would provide sun protection in the middle of the day and many new suicide drones will dive down and try to hit the top of the turret to damage optics and injure any exposed crew.... in that situation this will be useful, but I would not expect it to be some super shield to stop everything and anything.

Even if it is just used to attach a camouflage screen that sits off the armour and allows the machine guns to be used and for the optics to work without covering all the optical and radar based sensors on the roof of the turret then that will be useful enough.

Hiding the IR view would make Javelin ineffective in its fire and forget mode, which in itself makes a super expensive weapon rather less effective.

It can be all of that, at the same time.
When covered with Nakidka type of material, it solves the problem of IR-guided missiles like the Javelin and Spike. If used to hold a camouflage net, it can resolve the problems of long-range Spike with electro-optical homing. Makes them less effective in fire&forget mode, forcing the enemy to use other options, like on flight correction, or manual steering. That both, expose the missile operator for counteraction, and as far as Spike is a slow missile ...
Those two missiles are the core of the antitank forces of all Russian potential enemies.
Then, it can be combined with some additional protection against top attack ammunition. Its presence itself is a protection, as it will detonate the missile warheads too far from the main armor to work properly. If you will add a thin layer of anti-HEAT protection, a ceramic plate, a sandbag, a composite cover that can both depress IR signature and act as a NERA ... you make the precursor warhead ineffective. The effect of the main warhead load focused at the wrong distance and fighting even first-gen ERA panel? Highly questionable ...

Mir wrote:I can see that the application here is far more serious but it reminds me of the M-48 in Vietnam complete with sun shade and deck chairs

For the records, the fact that Poland produces Spikes with the Israelis is a sad thing.
It is not a widely known fact, that cooperation between South Africa and Israel was in a full swing from the 60s.
You cooperated not only for a nuclear weapon, and tested it near the claimed Norvegian Bouvet Island.
There was wide cooperation in other spheres.
Spike is nothing else than your, South African, NT missiles family.
Dialogue between Poland and SA was at a quite high level in the early 90s.
There was a common prototype of the Hussar helo created along with Denel and other SA companies, and the prototype was tested at your ground in 1992 or 1993, can't remember correctly.
Its weapon system used to be closely connected to your Rooivalk.
Poland could obtain quite a potent medium-class support helo, with weapon systems surpassing those in possession of the Polish Army, and actually very advanced from the perspective, in mid of 90s.
It took 15 years only, to end this discussion, but already with Israel, and to start production of NT line ...

flamming_python wrote:To what extent will this canopy affect the turning or elevation radius of the AA machine gun up top?

That goes especially for the T-90 models, which have a remote weapons station where it's not possible to see obstructions blocking you from turning or elevating the gun

There is an answer to your question in a thread already, take a look at the side photo.
The turning and elevation are quite OK for right and rear, and you can always rotate the turret if needed.

It won't stand it. ERA block detonation would tear that to pieces.

They already have ERA on the top of their tanks.

But in terms of protection it should be enough to counter the small missiles carried by drones like MAM-L. That adds 1m of fresh air as protection.

Against a rel atgm it won't protect that much.