Video není dostupné.
Omlouváme se.
Why the Russian T-72 Tank Turret is Flying in the Sky?
Vložit
- čas přidán 15. 08. 2024
- But the question is, “What causes Russian T-72 tanks to shatter upon impact, with their turrets thrown a significant distance from the tank's body?” The current phenomenon, commonly referred to as the "jack-in-the-box effect," involves a devastating explosion that occurs when the heat or shockwave from a blast triggers the detonation of all the ammunition stored within a tank. This explosion generates an intense overpressure, propelling the tank's turret straight up into the air.
Subscribe Now :
/ @military-tv
"Unfortunaly such incidents proove instantly fatal to the Tanks Crew"
he says
well no shit sherlock
I would say “fortunately”
Well if parents are lucky, they might find some bones
the T72 is used by both russia and ukraine
@@SalmanAdan-bk6nl But far far fewer are being used by Ukraine. Tanks in general is far less popular with Ukraine. Both operational and resource scarcity reasons.
This design exemplifies Soviet and now Russian total disregard for their soldiers’ lives.
That's why they would have lost a cold war gone hot
You're not exactly scaring Russian tank crews with this one. Nations running them might spook if they didn't know already.
ammo rack detonation
Correct!
over pressure?
"incidents prove instantly fatal to the tanks crew"
Id fuckin hope so i wouldn't want to be alive after that
Sounds like everyone missed the Leopard 2 that exploded near the tree line during the offensive last week that set an all time turret height and hang time record the first time. It's small but you can see it spin like a boom-a-rang, go straight up possibly twice has high as any other, seemed to almost stop in mid air at the top and then came down.
The turret popping off is of no significance. After a tank is hit and penetrated and molten metal and fire enters the turret the crew is most likely severely injured or dead. Then the ammunition burns or explodes weather the tank turret stays on or not doesn't really matter a slight difference on maybe a crew member getting out or not. The purpose of the extreme low profile of the T-72, Auto loader and ammunition carousel is to not get hit in the first place. T-72, T-80 and T-90 still the best all round tank for war in eastern Europe 125 mm gun, fast auto loader, 45 tons good mobility, 300 mile range, can snorkel under 15 ft. river obstacles along with BMP's that can swim. M-1 Abrams 120 mm gun, 72 tons, poor mobility, poor range, as low as 100 miles, needs lots of fuel trucks, needs bridging equipment to cross 5 ft of water, is now over weight for US bridging equipment, recovery vehicles and trailers. Bradley's can't swim overweigh now but aircraft aluminum hull to save weight catches fire and burns melting entire vehicle down to the ground. It's TOW missile is wire guided and vehicle has to stop entire flight. Russian Kornet anti tank missile fired by man, vehicle or helicopter has more then twice the range
Soviet designers when they first learned about this phenomenon explained that, once it happened. Enemies cannot use their own tanks against them.
Yet Ukraine is stupid enough to do it and still asking for handouts. Russia picked a perfect country to bully, why win the war? The war must go on for technological advancements
It was meant to win one war all or nothing the Cold War to defend Russia from NATO in war of survival. And it would have smoked the M-1 Abram 1980-86 105 mm gun commander with mirror periscopes blind as a bat at night. Still will hold up against overweight M-1A2 Sep 3 Abrams in Eastern Europe 10, 000 ready to roll.
And their tank crew too 😂
😂😂😂😂
They fixed all this with the introduction of the T-90M.
Partially fixed.
Unfortunately for Russia everything in the 90s was just stolen and sold by future oligarchs including the arms industry.
Theres a video of a russian T90M being destroyed in Ukraine with its turret flying to the sky
They tried to fix it.. Still happens.
@@thesubigang4291that's due to the inclusion of a "turret ejection systen" in the new designs along with a "crew ejection system" to throw the crew members to safety.
This is not not new... NATO has known about this for years.
So have the Soviets.
When I was a gunner on a leopard C1 in West Germany in the early 80's we trained to get a hit where the turret meets the hull. Fun stuff at 17 years old.
So, the crew just evaporate. Some call it turret tossing.
I bet there are still some identifiable chunks left.
Now in your next video I want to see the Leopard 2 flying
The leopard 2 turret doesnt fly as much as t72s.
They fly much more rarely, a couple flew in Syria when Turkey used them. Other NATO tanks also fly very rarely and no Abrams turret has ever flown even when the tanks have been destroyed.
@@duitk Thats because the abrams is the only tank in the world that stores its ammo right, in my opinion the best tank in the world.
@@scothf1273 I agree it is the best designed tank of the past generation, it's not perfect it is very heavy, but it really protects it's crew the best out of any tank. Really the Leopard is the most overrated NATO tank. Just because it's German does not mean it's better, it's very good, but it's not perfect.
Other very good but underrated tanks are the Asian ones, Japan's and Koreas, Korean K2s are very impressive following the Abrams as an original template and improving it for specific circumstances seen on the Korean peninsula.
@@duitk Yeah i like the k2 black panther it has an autoloader but stores the ammo in the back of the turret with blowout panels so crew is pretty safe incase it gets hit.
can u make video how leopard got blown by lancet drone
they already have. but that is not really why you comment though right? just want to say NATO weak RUSSIA strong blah blah blah
Am I wrong to ask? I want to know how the drone can penetrate armor, is it explosive power or something else
@@jeanmuyuela8112 and what purpose are u here sir?
@@jeanmuyuela8112 нормально общайтесь 🗿
Take a shot every time he says "Jack in the box effect"
That’s a lot of Z-crying under this video.
It's a design feature from the Russian
As I understand the problem is more about the ammunition stored outside the autoloader. This ammunition is less protected. And more likely to go off. But in any case the result is the same
How many iterations of the same information do you need to convey the substance of this post ... I lost count of the number of times I heard "Jack in the box" and this video could have easily been shortened to 3 minutes ... This is how you loose subscribers, we're not idiots, you don't need to 'pound home' your seemingly partisan viewpoint; Where's your coverage of the Leopard tanks destruction by Russian loitering munitions? ...
searched "turret toss"
Youth pastor Ryan sent you too? Lmfao
How many times can you tell us how munitions are stored in T-72 tanks? I counted at least four. This video could have been completed in 5 minutes vice 9+
What about the tank crews ? They are not mentioned here . Are they safe ? Did the escape from the tank ? Or they become medium rare human barbecue ?
It launch a 12t turret to moon, if anyone was there no longer is i dont think they could find any part of ur body
He did say it was immediately fatal. As in, everyone in there becomes a fine paste.
Not barbeque, more like what's left over from a wood chipper.
medium rare human ? I'd say more like a crispy well done with a heavy char.
Like Jackie Gleason of The Honeymooners used to say, "" To the moon Alice""
It's a bird,no its a plane oh its a turret
Best Sputnik turret so far.
Even if the ammo was not detonated a penetrating round is still very fatal to the crew because of the overpressure and spall, or shrapnel. --If I am not mistaken.
The once-airborne turret around :41 looks like a death's head. Fitting.
Thankfully this problem does not affect Ukrainian T72's because they're not Russian T72's.
I am not a chemist or a physicist, but, in all probability and visibility, the stronger the temperature and pressure of the explosion, the higher the departure of the tank turret of any tank, not only the Soviet one, as practice and facts show...
When you gain something, you lose something, and vice versa...
It often happens that when hitting any tank of any country, even if the tank does not explode and the tank turret does not fly high, the crew will feel a loud sound and shock wave along with flying fragments that will cut flesh and break bones, plus high pressure on the body, eyes, ears, heart and brain, and in addition to this, there is also fire... And all of the above can lead to serious injury and death... Therefore, which is better - a slow death or a quick one? Consequently, an instantaneous strong explosion leads to a very quick death.
I would rather have a 50% probability of survival over 0%. What a terrible argument to make... A strong firewall and rear mounted ammunition cuts down deaths massively. It forces the explosion backwards instead of towards the cabin. Who cares if it is quick and painless, survival is of upmost importance. No good soldier wants to be a metal coffin, high survivability means less anxious soldiers, which means better fighters..
@@amazin7006 The author of the video shot a superficial, inadequate and primitive video. A few tanks does not mean that all tanks, most of these types of tanks have been disabled rather than completely destroyed. There are many tanks of the same type that have quite successfully survived explosions on anti-tank mines and hits from tank and field artillery guns, including ATGMs, RPGs and javelins.
These Soviet and Russian tanks proved to be quite durable. The survivability of the team of these tanks is often 100% with some damage, and some return to service after repair. It must be remembered that the military armored vehicles of the Soviet Union had a good reputation, including with NATO.
The most important thing is that the huge amount of fuel and ammunition inside the tank during detonation does not give a chance to any tank that is used in the world.
The flight of the turret of any tank depends on the location of fuel and especially ammunition. There is a video on CZcams showing how the heavy turret of the Abrams and Leopard tanks flies forward during the explosion, since the ammunition is located in the rear of the turret.
Therefore, the turrets of the Abrams and Leopard tanks do not fly as beautifully as the T72.
@@justman77.21 Look up "M1 Abrams Ammo Rack Explosion Test" an ammunition blow out does not reach the cockpit. Stop coping bro, this is a Soviet tank issue. They don't care about their tankers.
@@amazin7006 Well they fixed that issue on the t90m or lets say made it more survivable for the crew.
@@scothf1273 I don't buy that at all
Newton's Third Law !?!?!
2nd law of thermodynamics?!?!
Stalin's Law
6:06 When one picture is worth a thousand words. 😵
Take a look at the first few seconds when the tank shoots and watch the heavy hatches lift up from the over pressure….
all tanks are mobile metal coffins, they all blow up when hit by modern ATGMs, 155 Artilery rounds, and misiles.
In conclusion: Autoloader
*Ya no más guerras ni golpes o provocación oculta a países amigos. Mejor vengan a invertir acá en la República Dominicana 🇩🇴 Con incentivos económicos y fiscales, con excelentes recursos humanos, profesionales y técnicos expertos certificados, en crecimiento económico al 5% anual, con más de 8 millones de turistas mundiales extranjeros anuales. Ya no más guerras y armisticio en Ucrania y Rusia ya?!!*
those incidence are fetal to the crew, no shit
🤣
Its like they never watched star wars.
also this happen to Abrams tank and leopard tanks not for T72 only be honest when you speak.
Not at all, Ivan. Take your copium and leave the chat.
@@stischer47 He is right.
Leo 1-2 have unprotected ammo in the hull, it's to the right of the observation devices of the driver (this is why those Turkish Leo 2A4's were lost in ambushes in Syria).
Abrams does have protected ammo storage in the hull though.
Challenger II doesn't, i don't think it has blow-out panels even in the turret storage ammo.
@@stischer47you are the one cope, cope harder
@@Milo-id9qdCanada and Turkey both has their Leopards modified for the same reason, and Canada had wild success with Leopards during war on terror sometimes outperforming US army with those.
@@niweshlekhak9646 This is not the war on terror.
That is vs a not very advanced military, that is not obsessed with artillery and firepower.
This is different.
Old news try bringing something original
But you wouldn't be able to earn your ruble, Ivan.
@@stischer47 come again?
What changed with the "T90" variant of the T72?
Nothing. Same effect
So majestic
Literally a glass cannon
If explode with 1 ton heavy turret goes in to sky..
How about people inside the turret?
I think their body are evaporate because the explotion..
RIP😢
Ford called and wanted its Pinto design back from Russia.
Tanks are expensive here in Russia, You need to be very very careful driving one. We have ways to make sure you bring tank back undamaged or you don't come back at all, you get my meaning, hahahahahaha.
I think everybody saw the Ukrainian T-72 Space Mission! Oh yeah the Leopards also like flying don't they?
Leopards and Challengers also store ammo in their crew compartments, but operators can choose to carry less ammo by carrying it in their ready racks only, which are isolated from the crew with blast doors.
I don’t think any leopard went flying but all the Russian tanks.
Jerk in the box 😂
T-72 and T-80: Particularly prone to destruction due to their auto-loading mechanism.
M1AX: Hold my beer.
All US crappy armored vehicles were pulverized out of existence with your beloved US backed ukronazis inside. Get over it.
Unlike the Russian tanks, the M1AX’s variation is a bustle auto loader. Ammo is still stored in the bustle with blowout panels. It doesn’t have the ‘carousel of death’ winding around its turret.
The author of the video shot a superficial, inadequate and primitive video. A few tanks does not mean that all tanks, most of these types of tanks have been disabled rather than completely destroyed. There are many tanks of the same type that have quite successfully survived explosions on anti-tank mines and hits from tank and field artillery guns, including ATGMs, RPGs and javelins.
These Soviet and Russian tanks proved to be quite durable. The survivability of the team of these tanks is often 100% with some damage, and some return to service after repair. It must be remembered that the military armored vehicles of the Soviet Union had a good reputation, including with NATO.
The most important thing is that the huge amount of fuel and ammunition inside the tank during detonation does not give a chance to any tank that is used in the world.
The flight of the turret of any tank depends on the location of fuel and especially ammunition. There is a video on CZcams showing how the heavy turret of the Abrams and Leopard tanks flies forward during the explosion, since the ammunition is located in the rear of the turret.
Therefore, the turrets of the Abrams and Leopard tanks do not fly as beautifully as the T72.
Ejection system.
Bruh just say turret pop
You say that like it's only the Russian made tanks that do that. Propaganda much?🤡🤡🤡
Just umagine what 3lhe does to hhe crew. Thats why russians are daying that his loses are low. There are no bodies so how to count them
The Russian space program
So many people on copium in the comment section 😂
lol you are forgetting that the majority of the tanks that Ukraine uses are from the Soviet era too. Therefore Ukraine tanks has suffered the same kind of damage.
Tanks are an offensive weapon mostly, Ukraine has been on the defensive for a year and maintaining the stalemate while Russia is wrung dry. This is why Russian vehicle losses are so insanely high compared to Ukraine's. 3,989 tanks vs 489 respectively. We will see more Ukrainian tank losses as they increase their offensives
Not quite the same risk, because the fascists don’t have NLAW and Javelin, etc.
@@gdutfulkbhh7537they have the lancet which has been doing a lot of damage to the Ukrainian/Soviet armaments.
Lots of z fascist in the comments
Tell me something i dont know!😂😂😂
We are still ignoring western vehicles getting smoked eh? They even nailed one of those british "game changer battle proven" APCs you spoke of last video lol
Western vehicles don't go up like Russian...but one can't give facts to Russian trolls.
It's impossible to fight any war without casualties, nobody is ignoring anything, it's just meaningless. The fact that you brag about killing a few vehicles while Russia loses 14 towns, several KM of territory and 3,989 tanks is hilarious and very telling of how weak the Russian army is.
Are you dumb? Of course western vehicles are going to get destroyed it's a war. The whole point of the vehicles is to protect the crew as well as they can when catastrophic damage happens, in Russian vehicles you just get turned into pieces, western vehicles give you a chance of survival.
The difference is that the crews of the western tanks and APCs can still get to safety on their own after being hit.
Meanwhile, the remains of the Ruzzian Orc fly through the air and fertilize the fields and meadows when they land
т-72 - бест оф зе бест о
best at killing Russians yes.