[mantara32]

I got the impression from the force of the barrel explosion and the recoil of the tank that the first grenade was fired out of the barrel along with the shell, which is why the first attempt failed. A simple case of poor timing.

It seems the second grenade managed to make it down the barrel while the breach was open and landed inside the tank cockpit while the occupants were loading another round. Obviously the occupants would have had barely any time to remove the grenade and would have died instantly in the explosion inside the tank.

[Cerebral222]

He's got balls, no doubt about that.

[cusco]

I think the tank was occupied, otherwise the FSA dude wouldn't have taken the low ground as cover, back to the tank ?

[Broadjumper]

Originally Posted by mantara32 ↗

I got the impression from the force of the barrel explosion and the recoil of the tank that the first grenade was fired out of the barrel along with the shell, which is why the first attempt failed. A simple case of poor timing.

It seems the second grenade managed to make it down the barrel while the breach was open and landed inside the tank cockpit while the occupants were loading another round. Obviously the occupants would have had barely any time to remove the grenade and would have died instantly in the explosion inside the tank.

Here's the thing about Russian tanks, they use multi-part munitions, so instead of a fully enclosed shell, they use a separate warhead and propellant charge encased in a cellulose (paper) container so the whole charge burns and doesn't need to be ejected like a rifle shell. So if the guy threw a frag even a couple feet down the barrel, it's conceivable that the explosion would have detonated a freshly loaded propellant charge resulting in the catastrophic turret explosion & fire. A very lucky man indeed.

[mantara32]

Originally Posted by Broadjumper ↗

Here's the thing about Russian tanks, they use multi-part munitions, so instead of a fully enclosed shell, they use a separate warhead and propellant charge encased in a cellulose (paper) container so the whole charge burns and doesn't need to be ejected like a rifle shell. So if the guy threw a frag even a couple feet down the barrel, it's conceivable that the explosion would have detonated a freshly loaded propellant charge resulting in the catastrophic turret explosion & fire. A very lucky man indeed.

That makes perfect sense. Thanks for that insight.

I'm still convinced though that the first grenade was fired out of the barrel along with the first warhead since the timing was too close and too short for the grenade to have had any immediate impact. Either the grenade left the barrel with the warhead and exploded in mid air or it exploded simultaneously with the ejection of the warhead itself.

[FuuKwon]

BALLS that is all.

[retrocube]

The type of shell loaded by the tank would also affect the final outcome. If the tank was being deployed for antipersonnel use, it is likely to have loaded HE rather than armor piercing rounds. There is about a 40 sec delay since the last firing, so the next round should already be in the chamber.

I would guess the effect seems to be just the round in the gun detonating. An entire ammo rack explosion would rip the turret off.

If we look closely, the tank's barrel is perpendicular to the body. The only sights on the tank would be the gunner's or from the commander's cupola. In either case, tank view angle downwards is pretty bad and it is highly likely an individual can sneak to those ranges undetected. A single armor unit is easy prey.

[Pie]

Bet he snackbared like a twat after that.

[pragmatist]

Fucking funny at the end, looked like he had just scored the FA cup winner at Wembley

[chainsawgutsfuck]

that is THE baddest mother fucker alive. provided there was the enemy in that tank.