Soviet tank crew survival.

[Marcello]

"But it is just a fact that when a T-72 or any other Iraqi tank was hit by a DU round from a 120mm gun there were no survivors."

All that I can say based upon game experience is that when iraqi T-72s meet abrams they tend to die rather quickly, as they should.Not everyone plays exclusively GW1 scenarios,do you really want to make the T-72s weaker than they should in others scenarios against others threats to have less crew survivors running around in 1991?
You cannot simulate accurately everything here,consider the lack of tandem HEAT warheads for guns and RPGs for example.

[kevineduguay1]

Marcello,

Catastrofic destruction of a T-72 is due to design flaws. Ammo and fuel are both easily torched by a pennetrating hit.

[kevineduguay1]

Mobhack,

Your input helps a lot!

I'll do some tests and see what can be done.

Thank you!!!!

[Sewter]

Hi Kevin,

What are you testing?

I am not too sure of what you are doing, but it seems pretty neat. I developed a massive warhead that annihilates the crews of my foes, but I am not sure how realistic it is.

[Marcello]

"Catastrofic destruction of a T-72 is due to design flaws. Ammo and fuel are both easily torched by a pennetrating hit."

That because ammunition is stored internally exactly as in ALL the the tanks of the period. The T-72 is as "flawed" as the M60 or any other tank before western 3rd generation MBTs.Are you planning to rework their survivabilities as well?

[JaM]

M60 is much more survivable than T-72. M60 has quite large internal volume, so there is a quite good propability that penetrating hit will not hit stored ammo or other dangerous (for crew) parts.If T-72 get penetrating hit, it will blow, as this tank has quite small internal volume, so there is very high propability that round will cause catastrophic kill becouse autoloader fill most of space in tank

[Marcello]

"M60 is much more survivable than T-72. M60 has quite large internal volume, so there is a quite good propability that penetrating hit will not hit stored ammo or other dangerous (for crew) parts."

Twenty something rounds are stored in the front of the hull (and close to the glacis plate for that matter) on each side of the driver position.An other twenty something are in the turret in the ready racks and in the rear of the turret.That does not sound very survivable to me.

[JaM]

Ok, but there is 50% propability that front hull penetrating hit will not hit ammo, same for turret, but volume of T-72 is so small that any penetrating hit will get to autoloader...

[JaM]

By the way, all Leopard 2Ax tanks have front hull ammo storage...

[Marcello]

"By the way, all Leopard 2Ax tanks have front hull ammo storage... "

Yes but I suspect, judging from some drawings, that hull ammo storage offers substantially more protection against splinters and such than the racks on the M60.I will have to see if I can find some pictures of the area.

"Ok, but there is 50% propability that front hull penetrating hit will not hit ammo, same for turret, but volume of T-72 is so small that any penetrating hit will get to autoloader..."

If you look at a cutaway drawing of the T-72, you will see that the autoloader is not exactly that huge compared to the rest of the tank.A round can penetrate the turret and most of the upper glacis plate and it will miss it.The autoloader itself appears to be fully enclosed providing at least some protection against splinters and such.
I suspect that the reserve ammo racks in the turret and elsewhere are the main problem, but that is the same for any tank of the period.Greater volume might help, but I would not make too much of it.