Soviet tank crew survival.

[kikka]

Personnally I've reduced the survival value of all russian tanks equipped with auto loaders to 3 whereas all other tanks where left as is. This gives good results and might be a compromise between setting up human bonfires with every hit and having russian armor showing up with the same survival ratings as western designs, which seems not to be the case.
Just my 2 cts.

[PlasmaKrab]

Did the same (reducing survivability to 3) on BMPs as well, and I think that several others are prone to some reducing (like the original M113). I still don't know how much it influences the calculations, and if the gameplay is still fair enough.

[Marcello]

"Personnally I've reduced the survival value of all russian tanks equipped with auto loaders to 3 whereas all other tanks where left as is."

Care to explain why a T-72 should be less survivable than a T-62 or a T-55?
I would be extremely curious to hear a justification for that.

In the game the T-72 and the T-64 have a survivability
of 4, exactly like the T-62, the T-55, the M48 and the M60.
All tanks with old style internal ammo storage.
Western MBTs are generally around 6.
I fail to see the problem with that.

[JaM]

Becouse T-72 has really small internal volume, much lower than t-55 or t-62.So there is much bigger propability that penetrating hit will hit something important and cause catastrophic kill. I saw many pictures with turret off T-72,but only a few with T-55 or T-62.Western tanks, even older are much more survivable. I read in one book about IDF (Chariots of the Desert) that Centurions had quite good survivability, some tanks took over 40 hits from RPGs,100mm AP,HEAT, Sagers and they were still capable to fight back. For T-72 you need one penetrating hit and you will loose turret with all crew inside. It is a design flaw. Soviets knew that.They did it, becouse they want a low profile tank with big firepower.THat is why today they develope new turret for T-72/80 series with autoloader in rear turret with blowout panels similar to M1.

[Marcello]

T-62
Chassis Length Overall (m) 6.63
Height Overall (m) 2.4
Width Overall (m) 3.52

T-72
Chassis Length Overall (m) 6.91
Height Overall (m) 2.19
Width Overall (m) 3.58

The above list is by no means complete but I do not see that enormous difference in size and volume.And part of that additional volume which the T-62 may have is occupied by an human loader, who is as mortal as the gunner, the commander and the driver.
Remember also that the design of the T-72 started as a T-62 fitted with autoloader.

"some tanks took over 40 hits from RPGs,100mm AP,HEAT, Sagers and they were still capable to fight back"

40 penetrating hits with Saggers and RPG-7?
I have a VERY hard time believing that a tank would still be in fighting conditions after that.Abrams In Iraq had to be evacuated after one RPG-7 penetration.Safety consideration maybe, but 40 penetrations should turn any tank in a useless piece of swiss cheese.If that was instead the total count can you tell how many of them penetrated?
If a tank took 40 glancing hits/fuze failures or just plainly the armor held that has no value for what we are debating.

"I saw many pictures with turret off T-72,but only a few with T-55 or T-62."

That deserve some consideration.To begin with it does not happen every single time as you may see here (I have seen others pictures as well)

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...fst9208470.jpg

But what should be understood is that the whole "flying turret" businness is essentially irrilevant.Why do I say such a thing?
First of all why the turret goes away in first place? Because half of the onboard ammo is concentrated directly under it.If the ammunition catches fire, then you may see that outcome.

Emphasis:if the ammunition catches fire.When that happens, then you have a big problem and that is in EVERY tank which stores its ammo internally.

Now consider your typical picture of a T-72 with blown turret and then give a look to this T-55
http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/SPMBT/

What is the difference?
Answer:none.Both tanks are killed.Thanks to the ammunition being spread in a different pattern the T-55 may still retain its turret but that is a purely aesthetic consideration.
They are both wrecks.And if they did not get out fast enough, the crews are all dead.

"For T-72 you need one penetrating hit and you will loose turret with all crew inside"

Penetrating hit with what? An M829A1 "silver bullet"? A
TOW-2? A RPG-7 hitting the top armor (Chechenya)?

Those are overpenetrations with significant after penetrations effects.Are there reports of T-62s and T-55s crews faring better against those effects than those on the T-72s? Have M60s and such ever been hit with that sort of stuff and the crews surviving to tell the tale more frequently than their collegues on T-72s? I tend to doubt it.

Finally.The storage portion of the autoloader is not in the turret.It is part of the turret , but it is within the hull.
There are then twenty something rounds stuffed in the turret and elsewhere, without the benefit of the at least partial splinter protection the autoloader provides,and they are not worse or better placed or protected than those on the T-62.And the western tanks of the period are not all that much different as the internal pictures of an M60 show.

[Mobhack]

The Israelis liked the centurion as it was more survivable, than the early US model tanks they had.

A lot of this was apparently to do with the hydraulic fluid used in these US-sourced M60 tanks, which was apparently highly inflammable, so penetrations caused problems if the hydraulic lines were fractured and sprayed the stuff around the crew compartment. later solved with a diferent formula for the hydraulic fluid & some re-engineering.


http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/11ground/mowery.pdf

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.o...-Flammable.htm

basically - high pressure hydrailic fluids as orignally fitted on M60 (before 74), could become internal flame throwers. Not nice.


Cheers
Andy

[JaM]

Did you ever been in T-72? I was. Crew compartment is so small, that if you are higher than 1.75m you will not fit in. All thee crew members are surrounded with ammo.Any penetrating hit will cook off ammo,and whole crew is a dead meat. Some T-72 crews tells that they will have quick death...(some of my friends were tankers, served in T-72M1) T-55 is little bigger than T-72 (T-62 is bigger than T-55). If T-55 is penetrated, there is a chance that at least one or two crew members survive.If T-72 is penetrated,no one will survive.

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.

[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.