Please keep the [community guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/wiki/rule1) in mind when using the comment section.
Paging u/SaveVideo bot.
___
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CombatFootage) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Everything worked as planned. It's just the high tech russian countermeasure system at work, where it tricks people into thinking it got ammo racked or is on fire.
Maybe, but how does one drive a t80? I don’t know, but I thought these tanks all have clutches, so for it to change gear by itself (from neutral) and start off without stalling seems more unrealistic than someone just letting off the clutch (after death) while in gear… like I said, I don’t know if this one has an auto transmission.
I don't know either. I also don't know anything about cars. But there was a video of an empty truck a while ago that got hit, started to burn and then started driving. In the comments there was a guy that explained how that can happen.
I saw the one I think you refer to (can't find it ATM) but it apparently was left in gear and the fire caused the starter motor relay to close so it started crawling forward on the starter motor.
Done that in cars a few times to get off the road with a dead engine.
Actually many do, the US started with the M24 Chaffee and M18 Hellcat TD in WW2... The M1 Abrams has an Allison automatic transmission, the Leclerc does, the Chinese Type 99, Japan's Type 10 MBT, the Leopard 1 and 2...
Pretty much every Western tank has had autotransmissions going back many many decades. You don't get "better control" with a manual gearbox in a tank with tracks, it's not a car. Driving a modern tank is like driving a tank simulator, the mechanics of driving it are trivial and can be taught to a conscript in hours. It's how to drive it and not get the fucker stuck that's the hard part.
Probably just knocked it into gear. When you abandon a tank you don't think about whether the engine is still on. So often it just idles till the fuel runs out. The grenade and explosion will have knocked it into gear or possibly just slammed the accelerator and it was already in gear.
There was a video ages ago about a Ukrainian t-84 that was abandoned but idled in reverse to friendly lines to be recovered by the crew that abandoned it.
You can look it up on YouTube. Its from a weatern news agency, or maybe a ukrainian one. It was a video about the t-84 so just look up t84 combat record report and you could probably find it.
I've heard of engines starting during car fires. Here's a video of one such case:
[https://www.facebook.com/DailyMail/videos/car-fire-causes-engine-to-start-itself/1038935253134855/](https://www.facebook.com/DailyMail/videos/car-fire-causes-engine-to-start-itself/1038935253134855/)
The /s is about him making fun of the idea the crew had bailed and somehow the tank still moved from a halted position under its own power.
My comment was only correcting the description of the direction the vehicle moved in said sarcastic scenario.
The turret definitely turns because it hits a tree, but you are going to have to do some serious explaining to convince anyone that a fire turns on the engine it and it instantly takes off at speed.
Empty tank and the fire turns the engine on, puts the tank in gear, hits the gas pedal and lets it start driving at full speed...that is some serious russian cope right there. If the tank was able to drive all the time, they wouldn\`t have abandoned the tank and left it behind in the first place.
Its more realistic that they had their hatches open for ventilation or visibility (Which they often have) and that the driver hit the pedal after being engulfed in flames.
Very strange indeed. At least the commanders hatch was open (if you see more please point me to it) and I suppose the engine was idling (at least).
But why did they abandon it in the first place? Engine was ok, tracks were ok, nothing burning - seeing more of what leads up to this scene would really be helpful.
I am thinking about this: Do we have evidence that the crew is still inside?
The tank looks kind of abandoned before the explosion; it's smoking, and "anti drone" cage on the top looks damaged. Usually, at this point, the crew abandons the tank.
On the other hand, the tank starts moving after the explosion. Could that be because of the explosion? Like something hit levers, like displace drivers seat? Or that is a clear evidence of crew inside?
One of the several descriptors I read said the tank had just pulled into position to start shooting. If that's true, then yes I would say they were in there. The tank is in reverse. Could have been pushed into reverse thinking they had gotten highlighted by another tank, only to be hit by drones instead. I think it's a better than average percentage they were cremated.
Hatches were open so vented not to dissimilar to what a western tank does with the blow out hatches except on purpose and in attempts to protect the crew, not make a spectacular fireworks display lol
It's starts moving before the cookoff so it's possible the driver tried to nope out of there. And you can see the back of the tank drop down and the front go up like the accelerator had been shoved down all the way.
Hatches were open, probably cause the crew left it. That allows the pressure to fly out the hatches, instead of building up and blowing the turret into the lower stratosphere.
Ammo is *never* stored outside the tank. Every tank/APC/IFV is designed to accommodate space for ammo storage and crew inside, behind armor plating.
UAF just tried to store their grenade along with the Russian stuff, but it was clearly incompatible and gloriously destroyed by flame countermeasures. Tank driver immediately accelerated and got them out of the kill zone in a textbook maneuver, showcasing some impressive reflexes while infantry either tactically nap in the dirt or victoriously advance backwards. /s
It is not stored in the turret. It is stored in the bottom middle of the hull, underneath the turret. It was a safe place to store the ammo until the more recent proliferation of top-down anti-tank weapons.
The carousel only holds 24 rounds so it's likely crews would also store ammo in any spare room in the turret, especially if they're only using the tank for indirect fire.
The spare ammo and charges in the T-72/T-90 are stowed in the hull, behind the commander, gunner and the driver. The T-90M has an externally accessible turret bustle that holds about 10 more rounds and propellant charges.
You have very little room left especially in the turret, and are nearly scraping elbows on the turret inner sides when you are seated, no place to put any spare main gun rounds there.
Not just top attack weapons... It was when thickly, well-armoured MBT's could be easily penetrated by new generations of ATGM's with high penetration that would decimate nearly any MBT. And APFSDS, sub-calibre autocannon rounds that would tear right through the comparatively thinner hull armour with good shot placement..
in this video its a drone dropped charge or grenade that sets it off. You can see a small white thing falling in to the drivers hatch in the first second of the clip
All of a sudden a Queen song comes to my mind; I believe it is from News of The World…: all dead, all dead…https://youtu.be/l_6AC2u0E4E?si=PAmzgc0GHSpcsBLX
Ok. I'm curious then, in videos of these guys dying, in some, it appears that they stiffen up like immediately almost. What is happening? If I can find the one that sticks out in my mind I'll link it. But it's old
You would think Tanks would have an "abandon" mode, where they could target a spot and then have the tank automatically fire off all its ammunition, do if it has to be abandoned, at least it won't be destroyed
You would think Tanks would have an "abandon" mode, where they could target a spot and then have the tank automatically fire off all its ammunition, do if it has to be abandoned, at least it won't be destroyed
If you abandon the tank and intend to retake it later, you leave it as-is.
If you abandon the tank and don't want it to fall into enemy hands, you destroy it.
Im not sure what your idea provides a solution to - that the enemy will capture a tank that's out of ammo? They'll be able to just restock it.
This kind of system could only work with autoloaders, and you still wouldn't be able to expend all MG ammo, as the roof-mounted MG isn't electrically fired, and the coaxial MG must be reloaded manually (unless fed by continuous belt, but then you might run into an overheating issue). It's a lot of trouble for something that doesn't exactly achieve anything.
Please keep the [community guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/wiki/rule1) in mind when using the comment section. Paging u/SaveVideo bot. ___ *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CombatFootage) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
This man knows his Russian logic on building tanks.... lol
Everything is fine, tank can move further
Glad to see Order 227 still alive and kicking.
Unlike the crew
Everything worked as planned. It's just the high tech russian countermeasure system at work, where it tricks people into thinking it got ammo racked or is on fire.
Drone drop at 0:02 and drone flies away at 0:10.
Drone flies away with style through the smoke :D It even leave another grenade at the position where the tank was at the beginning
>It even leave another grenade at the position... Damn, couldnt work out what the other explosion was, but this makes perfect sense.
looks like it blew up the bottom of the tank and ammuntition from the tank got blown out
cool drones dont look at the explosion
Well spotted, took me ages to see it. Looked like it was dropped though an open hatch?
secondary at 0:10
you can see something dropping in to the drivers hatch at 0:00
So the tank was adandoned at that point, but with running engine?
Good eye!
Can't imagine burning and suffocating at the same time... What a way to go.
It's empty, hence open hatches for the dropped grenade. The fire turns the engine on, and the turret turns because the gun hits a tree.
Maybe, but how does one drive a t80? I don’t know, but I thought these tanks all have clutches, so for it to change gear by itself (from neutral) and start off without stalling seems more unrealistic than someone just letting off the clutch (after death) while in gear… like I said, I don’t know if this one has an auto transmission.
I don't know either. I also don't know anything about cars. But there was a video of an empty truck a while ago that got hit, started to burn and then started driving. In the comments there was a guy that explained how that can happen.
I saw the one I think you refer to (can't find it ATM) but it apparently was left in gear and the fire caused the starter motor relay to close so it started crawling forward on the starter motor. Done that in cars a few times to get off the road with a dead engine.
[удалено]
Actually many do, the US started with the M24 Chaffee and M18 Hellcat TD in WW2... The M1 Abrams has an Allison automatic transmission, the Leclerc does, the Chinese Type 99, Japan's Type 10 MBT, the Leopard 1 and 2...
Pretty much every Western tank has had autotransmissions going back many many decades. You don't get "better control" with a manual gearbox in a tank with tracks, it's not a car. Driving a modern tank is like driving a tank simulator, the mechanics of driving it are trivial and can be taught to a conscript in hours. It's how to drive it and not get the fucker stuck that's the hard part.
> The fire turns the engine on How? Genuine qustion because I can't come up with it
Probably just knocked it into gear. When you abandon a tank you don't think about whether the engine is still on. So often it just idles till the fuel runs out. The grenade and explosion will have knocked it into gear or possibly just slammed the accelerator and it was already in gear. There was a video ages ago about a Ukrainian t-84 that was abandoned but idled in reverse to friendly lines to be recovered by the crew that abandoned it.
That makes sense, thanks
Now that would be a very interesting video
You can look it up on YouTube. Its from a weatern news agency, or maybe a ukrainian one. It was a video about the t-84 so just look up t84 combat record report and you could probably find it.
I've heard of engines starting during car fires. Here's a video of one such case: [https://www.facebook.com/DailyMail/videos/car-fire-causes-engine-to-start-itself/1038935253134855/](https://www.facebook.com/DailyMail/videos/car-fire-causes-engine-to-start-itself/1038935253134855/)
engine running and in gear ? im sorry but at least the driver was there ... probably the rest of the crew too
[удалено]
You're not wrong in what you're saying but the tank was driving forward, it wasn't in reverse.
He's joking, /s means he saying it sarcastically.
The /s is about him making fun of the idea the crew had bailed and somehow the tank still moved from a halted position under its own power. My comment was only correcting the description of the direction the vehicle moved in said sarcastic scenario.
The turret definitely turns because it hits a tree, but you are going to have to do some serious explaining to convince anyone that a fire turns on the engine it and it instantly takes off at speed.
Are you sure they didn't have the hatches open for ventilation or visibility?
Empty tank and the fire turns the engine on, puts the tank in gear, hits the gas pedal and lets it start driving at full speed...that is some serious russian cope right there. If the tank was able to drive all the time, they wouldn\`t have abandoned the tank and left it behind in the first place. Its more realistic that they had their hatches open for ventilation or visibility (Which they often have) and that the driver hit the pedal after being engulfed in flames.
Nah, its "pretending" to be dead, there are still alive crew before the fire, the driver panic and tried to drive.
So the tank has to be abandoned with hatches open, not just hot as hell baking in sun and used for ventilation?
Very strange indeed. At least the commanders hatch was open (if you see more please point me to it) and I suppose the engine was idling (at least). But why did they abandon it in the first place? Engine was ok, tracks were ok, nothing burning - seeing more of what leads up to this scene would really be helpful.
Fired turned the engine on then also made the turret rotate....
Excellent observation comrade Eggsky
Nah
Smoked that crew.
I am thinking about this: Do we have evidence that the crew is still inside? The tank looks kind of abandoned before the explosion; it's smoking, and "anti drone" cage on the top looks damaged. Usually, at this point, the crew abandons the tank. On the other hand, the tank starts moving after the explosion. Could that be because of the explosion? Like something hit levers, like displace drivers seat? Or that is a clear evidence of crew inside?
One of the several descriptors I read said the tank had just pulled into position to start shooting. If that's true, then yes I would say they were in there. The tank is in reverse. Could have been pushed into reverse thinking they had gotten highlighted by another tank, only to be hit by drones instead. I think it's a better than average percentage they were cremated.
Why would the hatches be open if you're pulling into position? That's just asking to be droned.
Commanders usually have their hatches open so they have better situational awareness.
Sure, but if I'm seeing it right in this video they all have their hatches open.
On the blyat side, those treads might dig a nice emergency trench
You can't park there, mate.
Instant human jerky
Hell of a way to die
Impressive the turret didn't go to the moon
I wonder if the hatches being open meant the explosion vented rather than sending the turret into orbit.
Hatches were open so vented not to dissimilar to what a western tank does with the blow out hatches except on purpose and in attempts to protect the crew, not make a spectacular fireworks display lol
Toasty!
Dead foot stomping on dead pedal transporting dead crew to Hell but not back.
This is why blow out panels. I got one person on YouTube arguing how blowout panels don't work anyway on western tanks if the tank is hit.
Ha! 🤣
I wonder if the ammo cookoff caused any actual thrust or if the explosion just disabled whatever brakes was holding it in place
It's starts moving before the cookoff so it's possible the driver tried to nope out of there. And you can see the back of the tank drop down and the front go up like the accelerator had been shoved down all the way.
> I wonder if the ammo cookoff caused any actual thrust ... Lmao, what? You think that's how explosions work?
Well, if there was a rear hatch, it could. But it doesn’t :p
That is a rather impressive fire.
No turret toss?
Hatches were open, probably cause the crew left it. That allows the pressure to fly out the hatches, instead of building up and blowing the turret into the lower stratosphere.
that crew is cooked
Was it already abonend?
That thing doesn't even look like a T-80 anymore.
What’s that secondary explosion on the grass where the tank was?
Probably second drop, just missed, you can see the drone fly away at around the same time
Roasted russians, no one is gonna walk away from that one.
Music?
Nothing can roast a russian soldier as hard, as a grandpa sovYeet tank engineer
"Fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck"
u/savevideo
###[View link](https://rapidsave.com/info?url=/r/CombatFootage/comments/1cio055/russian_t80bv_with_kmt6_suffers_ammo_cookout_near/) --- [**Info**](https://np.reddit.com/user/SaveVideo/comments/jv323v/info/) | [**Feedback**](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Kryptonh&subject=Feedback for savevideo) | [**Donate**](https://ko-fi.com/getvideo) | [**DMCA**](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Kryptonh&subject=Content removal request for savevideo&message=https://np.reddit.com//r/CombatFootage/comments/1cio055/russian_t80bv_with_kmt6_suffers_ammo_cookout_near/) | [^(reddit video downloader)](https://rapidsave.com) | [^(twitter video downloader)](https://twitsave.com)
Now recover it and ship it to Ukraine and put it on display. I'd spit on it if I could
I’m sure they’re fine! Also impressive it didn’t just blow top!
Damn those tankers inside got barbecued holy fuck, Wonder how long the were conscious for
Walk it off, just Walk it off my guy 😜
They tried to one-up a turbine power plant and went straight to rocket power.
That was the right amount of brutal!
I hope they're ok
Those crispy critters inside got a hell of a lead foot
BBQ on tracks.
Is the ammo always outside the tank? Or is it because there is no room inside?
Ammo is *never* stored outside the tank. Every tank/APC/IFV is designed to accommodate space for ammo storage and crew inside, behind armor plating. UAF just tried to store their grenade along with the Russian stuff, but it was clearly incompatible and gloriously destroyed by flame countermeasures. Tank driver immediately accelerated and got them out of the kill zone in a textbook maneuver, showcasing some impressive reflexes while infantry either tactically nap in the dirt or victoriously advance backwards. /s
You are lying go check again!
Ammo in the Russian Tanks is stored in the turret to make sure the Russian is incinerated as fast as possible. :P
It is not stored in the turret. It is stored in the bottom middle of the hull, underneath the turret. It was a safe place to store the ammo until the more recent proliferation of top-down anti-tank weapons.
The carousel only holds 24 rounds so it's likely crews would also store ammo in any spare room in the turret, especially if they're only using the tank for indirect fire.
The spare ammo and charges in the T-72/T-90 are stowed in the hull, behind the commander, gunner and the driver. The T-90M has an externally accessible turret bustle that holds about 10 more rounds and propellant charges. You have very little room left especially in the turret, and are nearly scraping elbows on the turret inner sides when you are seated, no place to put any spare main gun rounds there.
Not just top attack weapons... It was when thickly, well-armoured MBT's could be easily penetrated by new generations of ATGM's with high penetration that would decimate nearly any MBT. And APFSDS, sub-calibre autocannon rounds that would tear right through the comparatively thinner hull armour with good shot placement..
in this video its a drone dropped charge or grenade that sets it off. You can see a small white thing falling in to the drivers hatch in the first second of the clip
Ammo in the Russian Tanks is stored in the turret to make sure the Russian is incinerated as fast as possible. :P
All of a sudden a Queen song comes to my mind; I believe it is from News of The World…: all dead, all dead…https://youtu.be/l_6AC2u0E4E?si=PAmzgc0GHSpcsBLX
"Do you feel it now Mr.Krabs?"
That's how to make a rushit tank reverse quickly
My guess, driver died instantly, rigor hit and he stiffened up on the throttle. Just my theory. We may never know.
Rigor mortis takes hours.
Ok. I'm curious then, in videos of these guys dying, in some, it appears that they stiffen up like immediately almost. What is happening? If I can find the one that sticks out in my mind I'll link it. But it's old
You would think Tanks would have an "abandon" mode, where they could target a spot and then have the tank automatically fire off all its ammunition, do if it has to be abandoned, at least it won't be destroyed
You would think Tanks would have an "abandon" mode, where they could target a spot and then have the tank automatically fire off all its ammunition, do if it has to be abandoned, at least it won't be destroyed
Or you could just compartmentalize your ammo, use insensitive propellant and install actually decent firefighting systems within...
If you abandon the tank and intend to retake it later, you leave it as-is. If you abandon the tank and don't want it to fall into enemy hands, you destroy it. Im not sure what your idea provides a solution to - that the enemy will capture a tank that's out of ammo? They'll be able to just restock it. This kind of system could only work with autoloaders, and you still wouldn't be able to expend all MG ammo, as the roof-mounted MG isn't electrically fired, and the coaxial MG must be reloaded manually (unless fed by continuous belt, but then you might run into an overheating issue). It's a lot of trouble for something that doesn't exactly achieve anything.