Turret basket or applique armour?

[sardaukar]

something that has been bothering me for a while. When does a turret basket actually become applique or standoff armour?

 

I got interested in this after seeing the rebar cages on several soviet tanks in Syria, filled with whatever to stop an RPG. But then of course tanks often have turret storage filled with whatever the tank crew can get their hands on to make their lives more easy. Rations, ammo, battlefield loot whatever.

 

I was reading about the Chinese type-69 which is in reality a t-54/55 variant with added 'boom' shields, ie standoff armour. However looking at the photos of it, it looks a lot like a turret basket to put your packed lunch in. I had visions of schurzen like a pziii or iv.

 

I guess it comes down to intent and what they are actually made from, but interested in others thoughts on this.

[Kingsman]

The Alvis Stormer had high-hardness steel (i.e. armoured) stowage bins as a means of adding additional protection to the aluminium hull armour.  I don't think the CVR(T) series, from which the Stormer evolved, did.  I know we looked at the idea for the FRES Utility Vehicle when I was working on that project, which has morphed into the Boxer Medium Infantry Vehicle.

 

Stowage bins are usually clearly identifiable as such and yes, they can add a little to the protection of lighter vehicles.  They would do little for an MBT.  Open stowage racks would do nothing for protection but could be loaded with something more solid.  Or could be skinned with sheet metal/armour plate.  Cages specifically made to hold additional protection such as sandbags go back to WW2, a not uncommon practice on Shermans for example.

 

A problem facing AFVs since late WW2 are hand-held shaped charge launchers.  MBT guns moved on to shaped charge munitions in the mid-60's with the T-62's 115mm gun, and they are now fairly universal.  However, being relatively low velocity - compared to APDS etc - they can be defeated by detonating them at a stand-off distance or catching them without detonating.  And this is where the various manufactured and improvised cages, slats, nets etc come into play.  But they are often - even usually - open at the bottom and not designed to take the weight of stowage.  And any stowage inside them is likely to be destroyed in action.

 

So while a stowage bin or rack might deliberately or inadvertently become part of the protection suite, protection devices are not intended to become stowage.  And soldiers tend not to like their kit being incinerated by RPG hits.  Which is essentially what stopped the idea on FRES.

 

The Type 59 and 69 are evolutions of the T-54, starting out as straight licensed copies.  China did not transition to the T-55.

[spruecutter96]

If the turret-baskets are filled with enough machine-gun ammo cans, water jerry-cans, spare track-links and other stuff, could it not be argued that they will form a kind of "soft" applique armour on their own? As I understand it, some modern anti-tank rounds are highly dependant on immediately striking hardened steel to be fully effective - shaped charge rounds are one type, IIRC.

 

When you look at images of M-48's and other AFV's in Vietnam, the crews seemed to go out of their way to cover the whole turret in as much extra gear as they could - I've always assumed it was to make their rides as "RPG-proof" as possible.

 

The M-113 APC was hideously vulnerable to RPG's from what I've read and the crews were very keen to beef up its defences. Apparently, a lots of GI's flatly refused to ride inside the M-113 - they rode on top of the vehicle instead, rather than get trapped in the burning hull after an anti-tank attack.    

 

The Israeli version of the M-113 had some very substantial side armour added, which I think was filled up with sand-bags. The Israelis have a reputation for giving their AFV crews as much protection as possible - they knew their personnel were their most valuable resource. 

 

Conversely, in the First Gulf War, many M-1 Abrams crews removed a lot of the soft stowage from their turret-baskets, as they found that RPG's would often set fire to the items being stowed and caused a lot of additional issues. 

 

The ex-Iraqi T-55 "Enigma" now on display in the Bovingdon tank museum has a number of custom-built armoured boxes grafted on to its turret and sides. I seem to remember that these boxes are filled with thick, high-density rubber pads. How much extra protection this provides, I have no idea. I'm guessing the Iraqi army judged it to be a worthwhile exercise.

 

Cheers. 

 

Chris.  

[sardaukar]

Thanks both for the input. I guess these things are largely designed as either storage or protection. Although what happens out in the field may differ from original intent depending on needs and circumstances.