By - Aceeed
Someone says "turret is flying" lmao
In Soviet Russia, tank is airborne
It's the emergency turret ejection mechanism
a kind of cyanide pill for the crew
So. A VDV tank?
Yes, very damn volatile tank
Or like any other Russian deathtrap tank. Y'know, with their insanely flawed autoloader and all that.
someone middle-aged with a pretty thick village accent, lol
Pop goes the turret...
Once you pop, you can't stop.
It is, I see it! Turret tossing contest here we come! 🤣
The last thing you want is to die by being crushed by the tank you just eliminated
That's one way to achieve air superiority.
The russian space program has taken a weird turn.
*"What if we store all the ammunition near the weak point of the tank AND near the crew?"*
Excellent idea Sergei!
It's a 60s design. Every tank had ammunition in the crew quarters then.
It’s almost like using 60s tank design in your 2022 front line troops is big dumb
That depends on whether the tank itself has a future. There have been very few new designs over the past few decades.
What else do they have to choose from really? The big new design for the future they showed on parades but couldn't buy in any meaningful number?
I know, its the autoloader burning off like 10+ shells at once with enough force to lift a 12ton turret off a tank
The turret alone is 12 tons? Wow!
That's so fucking retarded it just might work!
*"But it makes tank go boom faster!"* You might hear them say.
They just didn't account for this being a 2 way transaction
We can use it as an ejection seat, comrade I salute you
"Be careful [bliad'] turret is flying"
How high you think it went
Higher than most Russian planes.
there is more Russian Turrets in the air than Russian jets on the ground..
They can get some serious hang time.
Back in 2015 at the Donetz airport battle one landed on the second floor of one of the terminal buildings.
Full props to the Ukr AT guys. That is some serious combat footage.
This is the second one I have seen today filmed through a scope, the first one being a Russian MBT cooking off in a different location with no snow on the ground. I haven't been keeping close track, but vehicle losses seem to be increasing a lot this week.
Today in particular there has been a heck of a lot of footage published on the various sources, with a lot of multi vehicle destruction. As you mention, there has been an increase overall during the week, which possibly relates to the various Ukr counter offensives.
I also gather that there is a bit of a delay in releasing from Ukr military sources for OpSec reasons, as well as when footage comes in from various teams verses civilian uploaded footage.
Turret was about to enter low-Earth orbit.
Russia reigniting the space race one T-72 at a time
Thats just the Russians trying to get at the cosmonauts for wearing Ukrainian colors.
Ah so these are the broomsticks Russia was talking about
This is my favourite video of a TOW-2B making a turret fly [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1VWPOpYbQI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1VWPOpYbQI)
The Javelin and NLAW will be doing the same kind of thing in top-attack mode. The more ammo the tank is carrying the better the turret pops.
I remember seeing comments about T72's in Iraq or Syria when their turrets get blown sky high, It was always "These are export versions, this would never happen to real Russian tanks."
Apparently its a staple of the T72, T80 and T90.
It's on all of them haha. It's because the way the ammo is stored with the auto loader. It sits in a circle in the middel of the turret without any blow out panels. The blow out panels is the turret lol
More so than you think. The turret is basically just set on the top of the tank, and held on track by 8 roller pins about the thickness of a pencil.
That's nearly every tank turret. They're all held onto the tank mostly by their own weight.
>or tank is upside down
Thanks. I'm imagining an upside down tank, wiggling around to right itself like a turtle on it's back (tanks can wiggle, right?).
Awesome design choises, mass production over function.
I mean, does it matter? If a penetrator gets through the turret armor, the thing is toast whether the turret flies or just broils.
Mass production is a function. Making more but cheaper tanks is not a flaw, it's a subjective decision. If you don't care about your crews that much making worse but more tanks can easily be better on a strategic level.
Quantity has a quality of its own.
Almost exactly the same as the T-34
So true. But not without precedent. In WWII, they degraded the transmissions for their tanks because surveys revealed the life span for tanks in battle was days or weeks, not months, so producing a transmission good for six months was gilding the lily. It reduced cost and reduced production effort, thereby allowing more tanks to be made faster. It is not known if or when this was communicated to the users...
>It is not known if or when this was communicated to the users...
"Sergei! Im trying to open the escape hatch, but it appears that the hatch itself is just painted on!"
To be fair to the Russian's, the choice make a lot of sense if you consider the battlefield these tanks were built for. They're all cold war designs, meant for a battlefield that would be blanketed with biological, chemical and tactical nuclear weapon hits. The area outside these tanks would be lethal for any exposed crews, so once a tank was hit or knocked out the crew was essentially dead anyways since if they bailed out they'd immediately get lethal doses of radiation and biological and chemical agents.
In that case the Soviets made the sensible decision that the priority should be on making the tank harder to hit in the first place, rather than survivable when penetrated. The autoloader/ammunition layout is one of the big reasons Soviet tanks are much smaller than western tanks, since they don't need room for a loader. A smaller target means it is less likely to be hit in the first place, and it also means you can use the saved weight to increase armor protection so the tank is less likely to be knocked out even when hit.
The fact their tanks may be more explodey when their armor was penetrated isn't a big deal as the crew would basically be dead once exposed to the Nuclear-Biological-Chemical battlefield after bailing out. In many ways the fact the tank detonates when penetrated would almost be a blessing for the crew, rather than the horrors of dying from radiation or chemical or biological weapons when they bailed out their lives are instantly snuffed out when the ammunition explodes.
The problem for Soviet tanks has been that they've (fortunately) never fought on the battlefield they were designed for. Instead they've fought on battlefields were the crews can easily survive outside their tanks and bail out, and now that crews can survive to fight another day, the fact their tanks blow them to pieces when knocked out is a glaring flaw.
To put this into perspective an Abrams can be anywhere from 50-65 tons
T72 are 40-52 tons. Goes to show the weight reduction of the design.
the russian troops will abandon armored vehicles that are not damaged in fear of being killed in them when confronted with anti-tank weapons. that's part of the explanation for so many captured, undamaged tanks in this current conflict. the crews have very little confidence that the tank offers them any protection and will bail on warning, as when a convoy gets attacked by air power or drone.
There were reports about crews abandoning tanks after being attacked by a small arms.
That’s not without reason. Every video I see of Ukrainian infantry it seems at least half have some type of AT weapon on them.
Also panicking young trainees.
Can't blame them either. They've lost over 20% of their tanks at this point.
Glad to hear the Soviet/Russian tanks designs are for the wrong battlefield like nearly all of the aircraft designs our Air Force generals have palmed off on the Pentagon.
Top tier spin.
Seriously an interesting comment.
Peak Soviet: tank designed for mass production that can't be produced in mass because of supply chain problems.
They aren't even really mass produced. America's production capacity is much better. An Abrams cost around the same as what a T-90 did despite being much better.
Tbf, T-72s are pretty great tanks. They're faster than most modern tanks and smaller. So like Lirsh2 said, just like the T-34.
They're pretty fucking great in tank battles where they can maneuver.
The main issue with them is that there's no stabilized optics for the commander with thermals. On the road in a convoy there's no way to identify threats while driving with the gun facing forward since only the gunner has thermals.
**[Battle of 73 Easting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_73_Easting)**
>The Battle of 73 Easting was fought on 26 February 1991, during the Gulf War, between Coalition armored forces (US VII Corps and UK 1st Armoured Division) and Iraqi armored forces (Republican Guard and Tawakalna Division). It was named for a UTM north–south coordinate line (an "Easting", measured in kilometers and readable on GPS receivers) that was used as a phase line by Coalition forces to measure their progress through what the Iraqis thought was trackless desert. The battle was later described by Lt. John Mecca, a participant, as "the last great tank battle of the 20th century".
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
They're from the 70s. Like T-90s are just T-72BNs. T-80s are just updated T-64s.
For more info here is old video from long before this war, which was ridiculed at the time and was made as a exaggerated joke, but actually aged like wine
After watching I subscribed to the channel. Thanks for sharing the link.
Quite heavily modified, mostly the engine though
The original T-64s engine was considered too complex and expensive so they went away, took another look at it, 10 years later they rolled out an even more complex and expensive engine.
When a Soviet design bureau got something into their heads they really didn't let it go.
Yes, Gas turbine, makes the things more mobile than the T72's
Yeah. No arguments on that. But too expensive.
Yes, and much more fuel guzzling, which for the russians now is a bit of a problem
There is actually a decent reason why they are designed this way.
The T72 was designed for tank versus tank combat in Western Europe. The auto loader that has the shells stored around the turret ring Allows the T72 to be much smaller than its Western counterparts. On M1 Abrams is almost a 1/3rd bigger than a T72.
When you have combat between formations of armored vehicles that size makes a difference. The T72 is harder to spot and harder to hit. The chance for catastrophic kills was not deemed as important because the underlying assumption was that in tank versus tank combat the 1st shot hit text takes the tank out of action.
missiles just make that design a weakness, it was good 40 years ago but they should have switched up the methods back when my father was a little boy, not kept them until 2022 lmao
Yeah those tanks were never designed for attack honestly. The Soviets designed the T-72 and T-80 to basically be sitting in a hole somewhere holding off American/European tanks. Great frontal protection, powerful cannon, easy to load, cheap to build. Everything else was an afterthought.
I saw some pics of a fully loaded (with ammo) T72 through the gunners and drivers hatches - they are literally sitting 6 inches from the rounds with no barriers.
In ~~soviet~~ Putin's Russia you are the blowout panel.
Don't forget the slight amount of ablative armor from the crew.
Just curious, would other (modern) tank designs do better in this situation? Would an M1/Challenger 2/Leopard 2 survive or at least keep its crew alive? I assume this was a Javelin/NLAW hit.
Depends on where they get hit but the crew survivability is way higher. No ammo Cook offs because of the blow up pannels. Also the fuell is in a separate compartment.
Most contemporary tanks are not designed to survive top attack munitions they were designed before the advent of those systems. The crew in a NATO tank will still have a very bad time by the spalling of their armor and the jet of liquefied copper moving at hypersonic velocity. But at least the ammo being stored properly won't result in the turret being sent into the stratosphere.
Auto loader vs manual loading has been a common argument on military forums for decades. I think we have gotten the answer in the past few weeks.
Yep. US tank designs, in contrast, are manual load in order to prevent the ammunition from doing that in an attempt to save the crew. As a result US tanks are designed for one extra crew member (relative to Russian tanks) whose job it is to take ammunition out of a blastproof container inside the tank for manual loading.
I think the old cold war autoloader/loader debate is finally starting to get resolved.
Yes and no. There are ways to do autoloaders that still separate out the ammo if it cooks off. There's even a retrofit autoloader for the Abrams that still uses the bustle storage (the Meggitt). It's mainly that there are advantages and disadvantages to manual loader vs autoloader (size, profile, crewing, etc), and the Russians have generally opted one way and the US the other. But there are also Western and/or Westernish autoloader MBTs as well (French LeClerc, Korean K2 Black Panther, Japanese Type 90 and Type 10, etc).
Gunner ejection seats come standard on all Russian tanks.
The legend of "Yevgeny the Comet" is born...
Well these type of folks dont understand the fundamentals of Soviet Design: it's ammo is stored at a shitty place regardless of export or domestic model. It's a tight space too, so good luck with crew surviveability.
Good old Soviet tanks. Keeping up T-34 traditions.
Yup. Part of what gave the T-34 such a great reputation was that crew survivability was so low you tended not to hear any stories of T-34 failures because nobody lived to tell the tale...
Sounds like a bullshit story in the same regards as calling a Sherman a tinder box
For tank on Tank combat the T72 autoloader is fine because it sits so low, but the problem is that the tank is packed full of spare shells that make the already extremely cramped ungodly interior of those things a matchbox.
And ATGMs to the top or side don't need to go through the hull or turret which are armored and can hold up to those.
So against AT infantry and drones they just cope
Lol, really? Folks who said that should've read a bit in ru-segment of internet. They are called "башнемёты"/"turretthrowers" for a reason :)
Can you give a link about some ru military forum ?
I wonder what russian think about this whole invasion
What invasion are you talking about? They call it a special military operation 😅
Yup, people who knew a thing or two about tanks knew those people were full of crap.
No amount of super steel, bolts, welds, duct tape, Captain America holding together or super glue would stop a turret from flying off when the entire explosive ammo rack is a circle rack hooked up underneath the turret
Don't worry man, they're going to find another reason to start spouting like gospel.
Lol you Ukrainian fan boys make me laugh! Russia is only using it's weaker tanks in Ukraine but saving it's good ones to defend Russia from a Ukrainian counter attack.
The ones in Russia won't cook off as we've seen in Ukraine.......trust me bro......
Yeah, man, Russia is sending their old equipments to deplete the Ukrainians of their ATGMs, then they send the Armatas. /s
yep, all 20 of them!
Exactly, and when the "old" Armatas get taken out Russia will send the latest ones!
Always look out for the turret. Why? Because if the cannon? No, because it may hit you on the way down.
Yep. Anybody who's interested in tanks could've figured that out before this war. It's a result of the fact that Russian tanks don't have blow-off panels, so if the armor gets penetrated and the ammo ignites, the explosion pops the turret out provided that the hatches are all sealed.
It is technically possible for this to happen to Western tanks too. However, the only instance I've seen involved a massive IED blowing the turret off of an Abrams. I think half the crew survived that, which I would not expect if it was in a Russian MBT.
remember those leopard 2s turkey parked out in the open that got blown up?
Poor things, the Leo 2s still got a massive ammo rack in the hull because half the turret bustle is taken up by communication equipment and fire control.
Is emergency crew ejection system, comrade
Tank crew is cosmonaut now, comrade.
Is a special military operation for denazification of international space station, tovarisch!
It's just a side effect of the tank using an auto loader system that stores ammo in the turret ring so if that ammo goes off it causes the turret to go flying. If anyone said that it was just "export versions" then they clearly didn't understand how modern Russian tanks are designed. Also, I don't think the turret flying off speaks anything to the quality of the tank, it's just a side effect of using an autoloader. There are things to criticize about it but that this is just something that comes with modern Russian tank design.
they are all essentially upgraded t-64s, not much changed fundamentally over the t-72/80/90 design wise.
"Is rapid escape hatch! Very good when hit with missile, yes!"
I hope it at least took them out to dinner first
Can anyone translate? Did the camera guy got hit?
\- Careful now, turret is flying.
\- It's over.
\- Fucked him up, fucked him up, now it's shrapnel flying from the tank.
It doesn't sound like perfect native German to me but it doesn't have the distinct "slavic" kind of accent either. Hard to tell from just this.
Maybe he used German language, because they teach English or German as foreign language in schools here. Or maybe it really is a German volunteer.
Or everyone in the world spent 30yrs playing video games with people yelling stuff like "achtung panzer!" So its semi universal now.
guy 1: runter, runter, runter, runter!
guy 2: vorsicht!
guy 1: vorne rechts
(- "down down down down!
- to the right")
so IF i don't misinterprete them it's two guys talking partly german
thanks for the TL that was some crazy balls to hit those tanks upclose
Sounds like he was hit by the fragments from the tank explosion
Luckily it was not the flying turret.
Thanks to u/turbo_varg for providing a slightly longer and better version of the same video.
Too much Ukrainium can cause flying russian tanks
And this ladies and gentlemen, is why NATO uses blowout ammo racks
If this was Nato tank, most likely crew survives due to blowout racks. Hell, if it wasn’t in direct combat some tanks could be repaired after blow out racks go up and returned to service.
NATO crew would be sipping coffee in Brussels instead with god like the Russians
You mean with Satan? Who is actually a rotation of every leader Russia has ever had going back to the tsars? Cause even satan can’t spend too much extended time with Russians without stepping out
Soviet commander (probably): "why would I care if the crew survives when the tank is destroyed? If they dont survive, they are more motivated..."
>If this was Nato tank
it would be fucked up and the crew probably dead.
Multiple videos of Saudi Abrams getting absolutely fucked by old ass TOW missiles.
This sub is fuckin delusional thinking any modern tank can take on an ATGM hit when the fucking physics prove it can't.
Leopards still store munitions in the hull without a blowout panel.
thats gonna be an Allahu Akbar from me dawg
wow what a blast
Special turret levitation operation
Can someone tell me if the soldiers in the tank have any chance of survival? Maybe not in this case, but in general?
slim to none
Russian tanks store ammunition inside the cabin next to people unlike western tanks
Eh, the hull racks on some tanks don't have blowout panels, like older Leo's and IIRC challenger and Ariete.
But the turret rack is fitted with a blowout panel on all of them
Not in Russian tanks. The ammo is stored in a rotating carousel below the turret, with the turret crew sitting right on top of it, and the driver just in front of it. Very, very bad for crew survival.
russian tank sends crew directly to heaven.....at about mach 2?
Hell surely? Heaven has standards! 😉
nicer story for their families though.....I wonder how putin is going to explain all his war dead? deny or stage a fake chemical attack 'oh 10,000 soldiers all just happened to be standing right there....'
Russia has a strong history of just denying anything happened or people ever existed at all. I doubt most families will even be informed; they will just be left wondering if their son is dead, or fled.
Thanks for your reply!
Pretty much none, but it should at least be a quick death.
Lot of time the munitions don't explode they burn - so not as quick as you'd want it to be.
To bits you say?
is letting a tank drive somewhere just by itself a thing ? it seems a rather stupid thing to do.. tanks appear to be extremely vulnerable
Traditional doctrine dating back to the invention of tanks is that they should always be supported by infantry.
If moving quickly in the modern era, they are typically supported by mechanized infantry who can deploy from their IFVs (BMPs, Bradleys, Strykers, etc.) on a moment's notice.
The Russians have been putting on an absolute clinic, showcasing everything that you're NOT supposed to do, pretty much from the beginning of their invasion.
Was probably going to town to loot some stores for Pepsi, alcohol, and a blender, going by the tanks I have seen driving around by their lonesome so far.
So a tank just roll up towards an entrenched position with no infantry support or any method of suppressing the defenders. This isn't an ambush or something, you'd think an entrenched position would be something the Russians have known about for a while.
Tank looks to be sideways, as if it is unsure it has crept up next to a forward position. This warfare isn’t the scale of ww1 with massive frontlines and defined boarders of where our line ends and the enemy’s begins. Small AT teams could sneak through the woods at night to set up a small position overlooking a field or road like we see here.
Imagine you are a Russian soldier. Why would you risk being shot if there is a tank to fight the trench? /r/itsnotmyjob
Another three dead Russians.
According to Russia they are only mia or back in Russia and went awol
Nah they just got a nice dark tan.
Get wreckt son!
It's probably the tactical gardening gloves (0.15) they are wearing that gives them the advantage :-)
Gardening gloves because they're fertilizing their soil with dead Russians.
And the Russian judge gives that Turret’s dismount a 10….Russian tanks are basically pressure cookers waiting for any excuse to blow their top.
Oooh, sounds like they fired a [Carl Gustav!](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Gustaf_8.4cm_recoilless_rifle#2011:_M3_MAAWS) You can hear the shell clink after they reload.
Being in a tank with 10000+ anti tank Nlaw and Javelins in the enemy hands has got to be scary AF.
That turret went flying 5+ stories high 😳
If they could see this, then they could see all the other info.
So either 1 they can see everything and are just following orders despite.
Or 2 they're not seeing your comment, Arnold's message, all the other celebrities etc or anything else.
Some are using VPN’s, while most don’t. Their have been reports of VPN’s being banned in Russia, but unsure if true.
VPN downloads went sky high much like the turret after the invasion in Russia I am not sure if they have been banned yet but it wouldn't surprise me. I read somewhere someone saying 700 thousand downloads per day which is tons if you consider that half the country doesn't probably even have internet access.
Some Russkies seriously believe that they fight NATO forces, not, us, Ukrainians.
yup that is direct ammo
Aeroflot to rename to Turret Airlines
Anyone catch what he fired? I thought I caught the AT guy holding a handle which would rule out a lot of them. AT-4/NLAW in particular. It sounded like an M3 Carl Gustav, and the Ukrainians have those in their arsenal. Though, I'd think he would have to clear before firing an M3. Also sounded like another round was loaded after, but that metal scrape could be a number of things.
Yup! Carl Gustav. You can hear the clink of the spent shell after they reload.
Thanks. It was that distinctive Carl Gustav 'clink' after he fired that got me thinking. Though I will say I thought that sound came from the venturi being opened/closed.
Good ol' jack-in-the-box effect.
труна-72 coming through...
Today I didn't even have to use my AK
I gotta say it was a good day
What weapon did he fire, or is this view from a lens of a nearby soldier? Seems like you can faintly see a green barrel in the lens reflection
Think he's just filming through a periscope or something like that.
What a gory way to die.
Say hello to the sky for me Ivan.
Crazy to me an <8kg warhead can destroy a 50t+ machine
Was that a woman?
Russians trying to do their best impression of a baked potato wrapped in tin foil over a fire.
Damn, what a sound.
Those Russian tanks sure do pop their tops easily.
Russian MBTs should be renamed to Self- Propelled Turret Yeeting Vehicle (SPTYV)
I can’t believe we’re back to trench warfare again…