Soviet tank crew survival.

[JaM]

By the way, you cant compare T-72 and T-62 this way. T-62 has bigger turret. Try look at internal volume for both tanks and you will see the difference. US M60 has 3 times more space inside than T-72 (maybe more...)same for centurion and other western tanks

[Marcello]

"Crew compartment is so small, that if you are higher than 1.75m you will not fit in."

Not exactly news.The T-72 is a tight fit.Did I ever state otherwise?

"All thee crew members are surrounded with ammo"

In a sense, yes.However at least the T-72 does not have its driver sitting in the very middle of an ammo depot, even if of course the turret still has rounds strapped to the walls and everywhere.

"If T-55 is penetrated, there is a chance that at least one or two crew members survive."

Penetration may mean a lot of things.TOW-2 and M829A1?
Then I am afraid I would not want to be in that T-55.
Penetration with lower performance rounds? It will happen.

"If T-72 is penetrated,no one will survive."

How much data do we have on T-72s being hit with low performance ammo? Not much I suspect.So I would avoid such broad statement.

"About those Centurions, During 1973 war, all Israeli Centurions were hit.Some of them were repaired, and fought another day again.I read stories about Tzwicka fight against Syrians (dont remember name correctly), where his three tanks stopped Syrian tank battalion. Syrians even thought that they fighting against Israeli batalion, so they withdraw.All his tanks took many hits, but were capable fight back."

That does not answer the question.How many of those hits were penetrations and with what internal effects?

Furthermore were they shot at with ammo comparable to what was used during GW1? No of course.

"By the way, you cant compare T-72 and T-62 this way. T-62 has bigger turret."

And a fourth crewmember inside it.Roomy is no the first thing I would associate to the T-55 either.

"US M60 has 3 times more space inside than T-72 (maybe more...)same for centurion and other western tanks"

That may help somewhat.How much is debatable, given that there are several factors to consider (the hydraulics fluids issue being an example).The T-72 may well be less survivable than tanks like the M60 but I doubt that the difference is that great.
The real gap is between 3rd generations MBTs and what came before.

As far the game goes remember: average tank with rounds strapped to the walls 4,Abrams with blown off magazines 6.
I doubt what we are debating warrants a whole point of difference.

[Marcello]

Regarding the T-72 ammo storage.There are a few rounds and propellant cases stored behind the gunner and commmander seats, strapped to the walls of the turret.
Two propellant charges seems to be placed on the turret floor.A few rounds and charges are placed in recesses in the fuel tank to the right of the driver (the fuel tank would appear to be designed as a shield to protect them from splinters coming from the glacis plate), with an other two/three rounds and charges stored vertically immediately behind the tank, between it and the autoloader.The rest of the rounds and charges is stored in the space between the autoloader and the firewall,on the floor of the hull,the charges in vertical recesses in the fuel tank located here,the rounds apparently strapped orizontally to the side hull.

[JaM]

Survivability in game is not a survivability you think it is. In game, if you have two tanks with armor 50, one with surv. 4 and other with 5, and if you hit them with weapon with penetration 51, tank 2 will have better chance to survive than tank 1. My point is that T-72 armor is not solid.For example maximum thickness of T-72M1 turret is around 430mm vs KE (corners of the turret), minimum 290mm(upper front turret,weakened zone around the gun - mantlet).There is good chance to hit this weaker armor instead heavy. Same for all versions of russian tanks (T-90 max. turret armor 80cm KE min 35-45cm KE)

[Marcello]

"In game, if you have two tanks with armor 50, one with surv. 4 and other with 5, and if you hit them with weapon with penetration 51, tank 2 will have better chance to survive than tank 1."

This is more or less what we have been told repeatedly.

The point which you and others made was that T-XX with autoloaders should be more vulnerable due to their armor storage and others factors and should deserve a lower survivability rating with its consequencesater chances of going boom with even only limited penetrations, lower chances of the crew getting out and whatever.
I disagree, to an extent, for the reasons exposed in the previous posts (at least as far as T-72 goes, I do not have detailed manual drawings for the T-64 and the T-80).

"My point is that T-72 armor is not solid.For example maximum thickness of T-72M1 turret is around 430mm vs KE (corners of the turret), minimum 290mm(upper front turret,weakened zone around the gun - mantlet).There is good chance to hit this weaker armor instead heavy. Same for all versions of russian tanks (T-90 max. turret armor 80cm KE min 35-45cm KE)"

So now the issue becomes armor ratings.There is no easy answer for that.The T-72 armor scheme is supposedly designed according to hit probability,with the area most likely to be hit being given the maximum protection and viceversa.Or so I have heard at any rate.That simply cannot be captured accurately in the game.ERA in the game is a mess.Several compromises have been implemented at various times to deal with these issues.

[JaM]

I didnt change my opinion. M60A3 is much more survivable tank than any T-72 (to post penetration efects) Im just telling that survivability rating mean much more than how many crew will survive penetrating hit.

[Marcello]

"Im just telling that survivability rating mean much more than how many crew will survive penetrating hit."

Well, I already knew that.