Why Do Many Modern Tanks Have Shot Traps

Ever wondered why even the meanest machines on the battlefield, the heavily armoured tanks, can still be vulnerable to a well-placed shot? It's not because their armor isn't impressive, it's enough to shrug off most attacks. But a sneaky design challenge called a "shot trap" can turn a deflected enemy round into a critical hit.
Imagine a tank charges into battle, its thick hide deflecting an enemy shell. But instead of bouncing harmlessly away, the round catches an unlucky angle and ricochets right into the tank's vulnerable underbelly, spelling disaster for the crew. That's a shot trap in action.
The thing is, even the most advanced armour on today's tanks is not completely shot trap-proof. It’s indeed a never-ending tug of war for tank designers to build an impenetrable fortress while keeping the tank nimble enough to fight.
How do the designers deal with this? Well, today we are going to tackle a crucial question: why even the mightiest tanks have these weak points called shot traps? We will explore why they exist, the engineering headaches they cause, and the tightrope walk designers need to take to balance a tank's armour with its battlefield bite.
Subscribe Now :
/ @military-tv

[@utah20gflyer76]

Modern APDS doesn’t ricochet, and that’s why shot traps aren’t an issue currently. The real threat now is a 500 dollar drone.

[@user-yp7dq5xm4g]

Exactly

[@theimmortal4718]

​@@kamilhorvat8290 But you can't do that to any more than a very small minority of vehicles. It makes them blind and you can't even move the gun

[@beaconblaster33]

are you saying a WW2 tank can defeat an MBT?

[@austinlynch1813]

The ‘Golden age of Tanks’ is over The rise of Drones is upon us!

[@b.thomas8926]

@@austinlynch1813 More likely the modular tank or light tank is going to show. Same hull, different turret, quick field turn around on swapping out. Today, its an anti tank tank. Tomorrow its on anti drone detail. Of course, something like that is going to be expensive, so, very few countries will field anything like that, but whatever it will be, it will be easy to maintain, easy to deploy, and easy to turn around if it's mission changes. It drives up to a crane. They yank the old turret off. Plop down the new one, and off you go. Software does the rest. But I concede the point that drones have changed how things work. The US has already canceled its light scout helicopter program (again) because of the war in the Ukraine. Drones can do the job far cheaper than a new chopper. Only thing I know for sure is that every time someone has said tanks are obsolete, the people on the ground find out they're needed even more.

[@thunderatchley9367]

As a former tanker this sounds like a load of crap.

[@brianmin1734]

This doesn't make you a smart guy.

[@user-iz2ub9st6k]

@@brianmin1734whoever made this video isn't a smart guy (probably just AI)

[@theimmortal4718]

Yep. It's video game expertise

[@thunderatchley9367]

@@brianmin1734 you're right I have no clue what I'm talking about. What a duck head comment.

[@Leo_Pard_A4]

Yep

[@Ironside701]

Former Leo 2 Tanker here: First, find out about the types of ammunition currently used and their mechanisms of action. Then you might understand why armor is arranged this way and why ricochet is hardly a problem in tank design anymore.

[@LordOfAlwar]

Regarding the idea of ricochet, modern APFSDS and APDS rounds are neigh impossible to ricochet due to their fin-stabilization, and ballistic caps. For the sake of your argument, I'll be making my below points in regard to earlier munitions such as early cold war AP slugs. This isn't really a fair comparison since almost every, if not every modern tank/IFV seldom uses these ammo types today. The Leopard 2A5, 2A6, and 2A7 in fact do not have angled armor. The wedge shaped armor is an 80mm metal sheet overtop of the flat NERA armor with air space in between for early detonation of chemical munitions. The real armor underneath can be seen on the Leopard 2A4. As for the M1 Abrams, it is possible for earlier ammunition to ricochet off of the highly angled upper glacis armor, but the idea that the ricochet would result in the penetration of the underneath of the turret's armor is unlikely, and would require pre-trained precision shooting to hit the sweetspot. The 25mm plate underneath of the turret is simply (like on the leopard 2A5-7 series) a shroud for the actual NERA armor underneath. Now, if the round did ricochet, it would likely pass a majority of the NERA elements; however, it would still need to face portions of it, and then the big climax, the 101mm plate on the back side of the NERA.

[@tvgerbil1984]

There may also be something to do with the materials used for the dart penetrators as well. These materials are extremely heavy and dense, such as tungsten carbide or depleted uranium. When these heavy penetrators were fired from large guns, they strike armor plate at extreme velocities. They simply shear through any obstructions like cheese, regardless of the angles of the armor plates they are hitting. M1A2 Abrams have depleted uranium applique armour plates wielded on the turret front, presumably to add equally heavy barriers against these heavy penetrators.

[@simplyaugis9864]

That wedge is not 80 mm. Even from the pictures you can see that it’s less. I’m pretty sure it’s somewhere around 20 mm. Moreover, an 80 mm wedge wouls be very heavy and would add quite a lot of weight. And yes, I know that War Thunder displays it as 80, but I’m pretty sure that’s because they don’t have the physics for the APFSDS to normalise without changing trajectory. Feel free to correct me if you think that I’m wrong. This is just information that I remember, so I can’t point out any sources or anything.

[@Sobdee267]

@@simplyaugis9864 Both wedges weigh around 2 tons. Ans they arre indeed 80mm as seen in photos

[@jas-FPV]

Well, this was debunked by other channels explaining the ballistics of modern rounds. They don’t deflect like WW 1 / 2

[@timetraveller8895]

Channel names?

[@herrhartmann3036]

As we can see in the video, there are basically two common types of tank turret designs. One has the turret's floor almost exactly flush with the hull roof. This obviously minimizes shot traps. But the second type has the turret floor angling upwards, creating a prominent clearance between the turret and the hull. If shot traps really were such a big problem as this video suggests, this second design would be utterly useless. And since tank designers are normally not stupid, a useless design would never be used.

[@imperialenforcer2271]

Tank designers make mistakes too. The initial panther variants had a turret shot trap, the initial T-54s had shot traps too.

[@herrhartmann3036]

@@imperialenforcer2271 But if this was so big a mistake, they wouldn't do it over and over again.

[@utah20gflyer76]

APDS doesn’t ricochet. It’s going to be most of the way through the armor before it starts changing direction

[@Crendermin]

this feels like someone just played too much war thunder and thinks it's real because hur-dur, they shot my Maus in the turret and it killed my crew because it ricocheted 8 minutes of no actual answers, just WWII examples of poor armor design, not because they didn't know better, but because the odds of shot-traps being the reason a tank is disabled was, and always has been a very low probability, back then, guns and crews weren't accurate enough, now days the split second you would take to aim for a 'shot-trap', you're already dead because they had time to shoot you first and disrupt your ability to fire then saying and repeating the obvious, that tanks aren't invincible it doesn't matter if the tank is super armored or made of paper if it can't see or move

[@KermitFrazierdotcom]

An FPV camera can turn the tank driver into an FPV operator

[@cedrichor3338]

i feel like even a war thunder player would know better as they modern armour

[@Gracefulwarrior2124]

Knew this wasn't a problem even before clicking. In a world where rounds start taking extreme angles and thickness in order to even ricochet, shot traps arent a threat. Case in point, the leopard has less than 50 mm of effective thickness on the triangle, as most of the protection lies behind it. Even 25-30 mm APFSDS will cut clean througg and be absorbed by the internal composite. All the angled outside plate is meant to do is stop all small caliber machine gun fire or shrapnel, and to start the breakup process of large caliber APFSDS. HEAT rounds largely don't even get a chance to ricochet before self detonating, and even if they do bounce, the warhead is often crushed and fails to set off the explosive to do amy damage. The closest thing to a shot trap would likely be small caliber APDS, but between the shell shattering if it bounces, and its largely reduced performence, it would likely only scratch the paint.

[@whiteraven9666]

Military enthusiast and physics researcher. The APFSDS has more kinetic energy to bounce like WW2 shells, also heavier due to the tungsten used in some. Not to say the armor is made slightly softer on the exterior (to some extent) to eat the incoming shells. The main threat for tanks today are not shells, it is drones and artillery

[@vinceevoyap6725]

Well nowadays shot traps are not likely common due to modern armor and aps not just it but the round itself Riffled AP = Hardened steel Tungsten APFSDS = Thin steel easily to brittle when hitting the armor depends on it

[@kalicom2937]

OMFG. This is utter non-sense. You clearly have no idea of how that armour on the Leo i2 s designed to work or why it is shaped the way it is. Or, presumably, why the armour on a Challenger (1, 2 or 3) looks quite different. I will give you a hint - it is to do with the way APFSDS rounds work and the different type of APFSDS ammunition the Russians use....

[@cesarreyes1395]

Fragmentation rounds?

[@brianmin1734]

23mm and 30mm rounds?

[@operation4wheelz]

What he said…

[@_aponak4716]

Depleted uranium do the task..

[@busteze_5915]

Apfsds means Armor piercing fin sabilized discarding sabot theyre basically tungsten or depleted uranium darts tanks shoot at eachother ​@@cesarreyes1395

[@herbertwalser2504]

One of the main reasons why shoot traps continue to be used is that they don´t use WW2 AP (Armor Piercing) shells, but instead APFSDS (Armour-Piercing Fin-Stabilized Discarding Sabot). Basically, a steel arrow will be fired from the muzzle of a smoothbore cannon, with extremely high kinetic energy, at the enemy tank. And that's the point at which a steel arrow on a sloping armor plate loses a lot of kinetic energy and therefore its effectiveness. Standard AP grenades could never penetrate today's tanks armor or wouldn´t have the range that APFSDS ammunition has.

[@ursus9104]

Modern MBT armor is meant to fight at a distance like ancient battleships at sea. They must use their laser sights and firing range by firing volleys at a distance of 3-4 km. Then use lighter mobile armor with automatic cannons for close combat in combination with dismounted infantry.

[@kangaroo_jesus35]

alr so whoever reads this, lmk if i'm wrong. i only watched about 30 seconds of this video and i think i know why. it's because the angling of the armor gives them more protection against modern rounds, and those modern rounds usually don't bounce, for example APFSDS and HEATFS

[@Ironside701]

True, but there is more to it than you can see from outside. The ">" shaped turret front of the Leo 2 for example is filled with composite armorplates and the turret interior is lined with kevlar. Which should probably be standard for western tanks i assume.

[@quandaledingus-ks4xb]

@@Ironside701 yeah and that gives more slope to the armor which is more thickness because modern shots just don't bounce

[@shumyinghon]

if you cant get the armor - go for the tracks, engine or the barrel

[@KermitFrazierdotcom]

Yes. High Marks.

[@monkeychief-nk7se]

sights

[@andrewcox4386]

The external shape of a modern tank is just cosmetic or ERA. All the complicated stuff happens behind that which we cant see. Also modern compound armours tend the absorb the energy of a shot meaning a round is most likely to penetrate to a degree and less likely to ricochet.

[@salec7592]

Turrets' axis of rotation doesn't have to be normal to horizontal plane, It could be slanted forward. Stabilization system can keep the cannon barrel elevation constant during charge. Therefore, the most armored part of tank, turret itself, can stand between incoming shot and its own vulnerable "throat".

[@matthewford937]

You pointed to the front glacier plate calling it ERA. Mistake.

[@qomiq19fan]

T90m has Relikt era on its turret, hull sides, on top of skirts and upper front glacis

[@qomiq19fan]

they may use Malachite era too i dont really know but yeah

[@timl.1685]

the wedge armor on a leopard >2a5 doesnt work by deflecting an incomig projectile. they are made from an rather soft metall wich slows and shatters the projectile instead of deflecting it.

[@rudipalm9224]

I once saw how ineffictive a 76 mm. Naval gun is on a iceberg in Greenland ! It was hillaroius how little damage it did, because the iceberg just absorbed the shots !

[@HDSME]

I always felt the m 1 was vulnerable to a hit over the driver's head into the gun But after reading the comments I learned about NERA THANK YOU

[@shankewang5802]

Aim your HE at the breech the the turret goes flying ten metres in the air

[@KermitFrazierdotcom]

Obviously this Happened

[@Leo_Pard_A4]

Sure, kiddo.

[@sharpy3453]

that "shot trap" isnt a shot trap. the arrowhead on the leopard isnt for deflecting like say a king tigers armour was.

[@Izeldrak]

As soon as he called the top of the hull the "underbelly" I knew this was gonna be bad...

[@minervszombies]

I learned nothing from this. I still don't understand why a Leopard 2 for example still has a glaring shot trap. This video talks about tank designers having to make compromises, but what are the compromises they had to make for eliminating the shot traps on the Abrams and Challenger? Why doesn't the turret of a Leopard 2 look similar at the front as their turrets?

[@dusanbolek8004]

Because it doesn't. The turret of the Leopard 2 has similar boxy design as you can see on other western tanks and there is almost no shot trap. I can't post pictures here, but if you google Leopard 2A4 you will see how the actual turret shape of the Leopard 2 looks like. The wedges you see on the more recent versions are not actual part of the turret, those are thin spaced armor placed in front of the main armor and will not deflect anything, they are designed instead to bury and destabilize the incoming shell to help the main armor of the turret to deal with it more easily.

[@minervszombies]

@@dusanbolek8004 Ah, now there is something I learned, thanks.

[@Green-ader]

What I’ve learned: this channel is not a reliable source of information

[@Everything_I_Like.]

modern APDS And APFSDS actually does ricochet, but the critical angle for an APFSDS/APDS round is typically 80 degrees+ from vertical which you can already imagine is super impractical for a tank design Plus modern APFSDS penetrators travel at such a high speed and focus all that energy to such a small point that it's near impossible for it to ricochet and create a shot trap. Shot traps were a problem with earlier tanks because the shells they fired (AP, APC,APBC,APCBC,APCR,APHE) don't travel nearly as fast or focus as much kinetic energy to as small of a point, because of their full calibre design. meaning the chances of a ricochet as the armour is increasingly angled are higher compared to modern tank rounds And don't listen to the guy in the video saying that HEAT can ricochet, it doesn't unless a shot is placed at very very extreme angles 83 degrees+ which is insanely rare. and the same goes for HE shells too. basically shot traps are only a practically possible with full calibre AP shells and are nearly impossible with modern sub-calibre ammunitions like APFSDS and APDS

[@anonydun82fgoog35]

And then there is the drones...

[@suffer_with_me444]

Tank destroyers/self propelled gun :🍷🗿

[@nationalsniper5413]

Is there any combat experience with modern MBTs regarding shot traps and if they actually are a drawback on the actual battlefield? Or has this been tested? How much penetrating power does the round still have when ricochetting into another direction? What are the chances of this round still doing real damage?

[@potatoarjun4972]

Where did all your videos in "Defence TV" go?

[@keithagnew5934]

Keep the videos coming. Thankyou

[@ehrenyoav3040]

The most threat today is a shaped charge and not a kinetic one

[@GlopPlopJop]

Shot traps dont wotk on APFSDS, even if, the most damage it would do woulf kill the driver.

[@r1ppl3_13]

apfsds and apds dont usually ricochet modern armor make it less likely to ricochet missiles dont ricochet (u didnt need to mention aps)

[@suffer_with_me444]

Swm Italian tank : 🍷🗿

[@suffer_with_me444]

Challenger 3 tank: 🍷🗿

[@user-fk9pz7ve9q]

Strv 103: am i a joke to you

[@nigelmacbug6678]

the Russian solution is build a shed over your tank

[@KermitFrazierdotcom]

with sand bags, don't forget

[@awagwa]

APFSDS doesn't ricochet. They either penetrate or shatter.

[@Everything_I_Like.]

modern APDS And APFSDS actually do ricochet, but the critical angle for an APFSDS/APDS round is typically 80 degrees+ from vertical which you can already imagine is super impractical for a tank design Plus modern APFSDS penetrators travel at such a high speed and focus all that energy to such a small point that it's near impossible for it to ricochet and create a shot trap. Shot traps were a problem with earlier tanks because the shells they fired (AP, APC,APBC,APCBC,APCR,APHE) don't travel nearly as fast or focus as much kinetic energy to as small of a point, because of their full calibre design. meaning the chances of a ricochet as the armour is increasingly angled are higher compared to modern tank rounds And don't listen to the guy in the video saying that HEAT can ricochet, it doesn't unless a shot is placed at very very extreme angles 83 degrees+ which is insanely rare. and the same goes for HE shells too. basically shot traps are only a practically possible with full calibre AP shells and are nearly impossible with modern sub-calibre ammunitions like APFSDS and APDS

[@ohmmy999]

This video should be report for misinformation. Did they do any research at all?

[@GodPain93]

Does this guy actually know anything about modern Tank vs Tank combat ? we arent in the era of the Js1 and Panther Ausf. D anymore

[@peacefulcitizen8238]

Look at the gap between the turret and hull on an Abrams and merkava, and the degree of the sloped upper plate. Any APFSDS ricochet could easily hit the turret gap and penetrate it, potentially jamming the turret and rendering it unusable or kill the crew A German ww2 king tiger doesn't have that huge gap

[@qomiq19fan]

trade offs had to be made mate you cant have extreme angles on like ufp's of most nato tanks without exposing your turret ring a bit

[@qomiq19fan]

and russians use mostly Tungusten alloy penetrators (aside from 3BM46 or 3BM29 idk if they still use it) so theyre more prone to shattering on extreme angles

[@qomiq19fan]

if russians modified their 2A46 guns to be capable of firing the 3BM70 round thats whole another story that round is a bit scary

[@qomiq19fan]

I meant 3BM69 sorry mixed them up

[@robertlangley258]

No

[@rolandrolandson8017]

It´s not a shot trap, Ivan.

[@jonnyhjalmarsson9057]

Swedish Stridsvagn 103 ( S) has non shot traps

[@user-iz2ub9st6k]

Ofcourse it doesn't have any because shot traps don't exist and 120mm Rounds don't ricochet like a 9mm.

[@markdexter6338]

Nearly 5 minutes and you still haven't answered the question but repeatedly saying why do tanks have shot traps? Trying to fulfil that word count?

[@michaelanderson3096]

Turtle 🐢 slat armour is effective aganist drones & anti armour projectiles + magnetrons.

[@theimmortal4718]

And pretty much ruins every other aspect

[@EugenioMagay-fc7gm]

Drones are more Concerning than shot traps ALSO ever seen an Israeli killer drone I have it's Mc Nasty

[@ricksellner3347]

Shot traps are real. And are a point that needs to be at the forefront of protection....period....

[@emiljavier6163]

😮You dont know the difference between APFSDS and APCBC rounds.

[@colinobrien3806]

i have to disagree in a way because of what i have witnessed in the last 2 years , tank turrets and engine areas are been defeated easily by high explosive fpv drones , there is no defection or penetration required , it seems to be the sheer heat and percussion from the blast outside the area is enough , first drone hit starts it slightly smoking second one is usually the one that is catastrophic and starts the cook off ... who needs expensive sabot rounds or the british hesh round when a little drone just runs into it and is just as effective ? no deflection nothing , just a big bang and flash and its era is absolutley useless against these things . just my humble opinion .. the tank or ifv is the last place in the world i would want to be , thats the truth

[@lethalshed2272]

what playing warthunder and world of tanks like me does to a mf *Critical hit*

[@emirkomutan4212]

Then how gaijin would balance war thunder?

[@FlorkinTime]

That is not a shot trap, the round will shatter on the plate at this speed, you clearly don't understant what you talking about

[@zzzz-jo2kz]

how could a heat be deflected

[@Everything_I_Like.]

exactly

[@TM-ux2xc]

爆発反応装甲？空間装甲であって、大戦期のような傾斜装甲ではないのでは？

[@Riceball01]

No, ERA is definitely a thing, the Russians really like using the stuff, Western nations less so. The idea is that the explosives in the ERA reduce the effectiveness of the incoming, I believe, but could be mistaken, that it's most effective against HEAT round. Spaced armor is a thing too, but it's not as commonly used as ERA, but one of the Leopards uses it on its turret.

[@TM-ux2xc]

なるほど、威力を低下させる効果があるんですね。第二次大戦の時代のような鉄板を斜めにしただけの傾斜している装甲じゃない限り、ショットトラップは起きにくいんじゃないかと思ったよ。

[@mellbenham6809]

Question why do Israeli tanks have short chains hanging down along the edge the tank turrets?.

[@Gracefulwarrior2124]

Its a sonewhat crude design to prematurely set off rpgs and other HEAT warheads before they hit the main armor

[@apis_aculei]

The goal of these v-shaped structures is not to deflect incoming projectiles, big misunderstanding or poor recherche here. Playing tank games is not the solution for gathering expertise.

[@social.media.command]

Thank you for your report.

[@Weapons.Of.Victory]

Amazing video, thank you, your channel inspires me.

[@catgoesmeowmeow5877]

answer is it doesn't 💀 stop making title confusing to normal ppl cuh

[@LAVODKA12]

War thunder lore

[@caronbicep6476]

Apfsds don’t ricochet so no

[@_XKX_]

This dude does not know how tanks work

[@Everything_I_Like.]

War Thunder players...... *assemble*

[@2217Video]

8 minutes of pure waffle. Click bait.

[@KermitFrazierdotcom]

More Blueberry Syrup for the Troll, over here!

[@wolfganghuhn7747]

Good, you have no clue

[@MilkyAviation22]

Wdym

[@wolfganghuhn7747]

The arrow part is hollow, the projectile gets not deflected down

[@franzweiss9777]

Mechs are cooler anyway.

[@flareamv5503]

Yet Russian tanks dont have this issue lol

[@valkry007]

Anyone in a tank has a short life span. A spotted tank is a dead tank.

[@theimmortal4718]

Nope. Good tanks can often take multiple hits

[@busteze_5915]

This guy knows nothing about modern tanks

[@michaelh4804]

Bullshit

[@morelcultivation9339]

nato tanks are crap

[@thechef7438]

NATO tanks are superior in most cases. Both NATO and the Russian styled tanks have their own ups and downs. Russian MBTs do have more weaknesses. They rely on ERA. They are most likely to explode when they are hit. NATO tanks are designed to keep the crew safe, unlike Russian t-80s/t-90s. Russian MBTs are smaller but they do have terrible Transmission. Overall NATO tanks are safer, and do better in combat.

[@Gracefulwarrior2124]

NATO often values crew comfort and ergonomics. Warsaw tends to value mass production and throwing vehicles at the enemy. Two very different strategies for two opposite sides

[@morelcultivation9339]

@@Gracefulwarrior2124 what works in a war.... Fancy tanks don't win anything.

[@morelcultivation9339]

@@thechef7438 what works best in a war??? Fancy tanks don't win anything.

[@Gracefulwarrior2124]

@@morelcultivation9339 Oh it very much does matter. Take the 1960s for example. Nato tanks often had half the reload rate of soviet tanks due to increased loader space, they had better sights and especially rangefinders, and they often had even better turret traverse and gun laying. What little armor advantage the soviets had in the late 50s was nullified by early HEAT and APDS. In this instance, the "fancy" tank had the advantage. Nowadays the advanced computer control systems can do everything quicker with needle-like precision. Despite the auoloader setups reducing reload time of the small russian T series tanks, most NATO tanks can still reload quicker. Even with the lower profile, most nato tanks have a first hit accuracy of around 85% on T series. The T tanks have to rely on ERA for maximum protection, and despite creating Relict to counter APFSDS, it's already obselete with the newer gen tipped APFSDS rounds that prematurely explodes the ERA before it can deform the round. Most russian tanks ammo vaporizes the crew upon ignition, and sends the turret on an aeriel view, often over a hundred feet into the air. Most NATO tanks on the other hand have ammo stowages with blowout panals to both minimize casualties, and to save the tank from massive destruction which ultimately saves money and manpower. Yes almost all NATO tanks still have unprotected ammo in the hull, but with the doctrine NATO has, it often goes hull down to reduce that problem. In the instance of modern tanks, the "fancy" tanks have the advantage in nearly everything, from crew protection, to targeting and fire rate, to mobility (particularily with the traverse and reverse). These things combined have a profound impact on tank survivability, which means you lose less in a war and ultimately means you can fight more and for longer. I'm not saying NATO tanks can't be destroyed, and in fact, I encourage the fact they can be and have been, since what little is actually destroyed is a testament to their performance. The tactics a tank uses is the biggest factor in warfare. NATO tanks have tactics that are the best for their tank's survivability; essentially the ability to fight another day. Warsaw uses tactics that while it may look decent, is fairly bad in terms of losing machines and manpower. Essentially, 1 fairly major aspect of war comes down to how much you can throw at your enemy. If you can throw the same amount or slightly less vs a rapidly diminishing enemy, than that help you win a war. Now time to apply the previous example. Take the Russians and their doctrine for example. The tanks are decent and can at least do their job, but the tactics the russians use have resulted in them at the very least being stalemated by a country several times smaller. The only advantage Ukraine has is weaponry and tactics, and with this they've managed to hold back and defend against a superpower like it was nothing. Actions speak louder than words, so at least take that for granted if not from what I said.

[@drbendover7467]

What a lot of BS, it only happens to Russian tanks and you know it:)

[@goodik4885]

T90-💩

[@user-ti4kb6zh7l]

Абрамс💩💩💩👎🇺🇸

[@KermitFrazierdotcom]

FPV DRONE ENTERS CHAT - the turtle tank concept should be adapted and developed since Top-Down vulnerabilities do exist. Even the problem of traverse restriction can be overcome by using layers to set off the shaped charge & copper plate penetrator. But when frontline drones falter kornets & lancets can be called in. The reactive armor is a big problem in case the crew wants to exit thru the top as a bear miss can rip a crewman's head clean off. So turtle-type tanks promise a way to trap an incoming munition and reflect or slow it down without a stress secondary explosion. Just Saying ..

[@user-iz2ub9st6k]

Not really.. turtle tanks ruin manueverability, And add ridiculous amounts of weight. If they came from the factory that weight they would be far too heavy and large to hold in most cargo planes so there is no chance of them being used in foreign conflicts, and we already have missile/drone countermeasures, look up the Israeli trophy countermeasures. the challenger 2 has them aswell. alos turtle tanks can't aim to the side essentially turning a T90 into a strv 103

[@theimmortal4718]

A much smarter plan, IMHO, would be to continue to develop better SHORAD systems that can be pushed forward with armor units. Given enough time, radars will be standard on tanks and IFVs. They will use them to scan for UAVs and also operate with the APS. Proximity or timed fused air burst auto cannons and the airburst capable 120mm AMP. Dedicated air defense turrets are expanding rapidly. The new standard will be for integrated air defense, on the move alongside tanks and IFVs, to hit all manner of UAVs out to 5k with auto cannons and manpads. They also have EW jammers and soft kill systems. Hard Kill APS like trophy cam be adapted to also not only shoot down FPV drones as they strike, but could be expanded to allow the crew to target UAVs with the main gun or an RWS machine gun on the roof