I wonder how the fact that an M1 can literally explode would factor into it’s safety rating.
Mythbusters episode 143.
Any vehicle powered by an internal combustion engine can explode.
The exploding bits have armor between them and the crew.
Well, except the loader, presumably.
T64 would get a poor safety rating. It’s autoloader would on occasion attempt to load the gunners leg into the breech.
I don’t think the NTHSA or NCAP ratings have a category for that.
It’s only true in the sense of high-school simplified physics.
A tank crashing into a “regular” object (i.e., car, wall) at 45mph feels basically nothing.
a tank crashing into a truly indeformable, unmovable, undestructible object is different than two tank crashing headlong at the same speed, they abosorb a lot of th energy, move and deform and lose mass. Not 90mph but they are different in real-world physics.
Anecdote time!
My Dad was in WWII, US Infantry (69th Division, northern Europe). He once witnessed two Sherman tanks drive into each other at right angles at an intersection (they didn’t see each other coming). He said the sound of the crash was amazing. I don’t know if anyone was hurt, though.
I am amused by the idea of a tank equipped with airbags.
FIRE! poof Damn it, not again!
The ammo is behind an armored door. It slides open just long enough to get a round and then it slides closed. You can lock it open but it is normally closed.
All undoubtedly true, but I was addressing the simple misconception regarding two objects colliding head-on having an impact equal to the sum of their velocities.
I disagree. The two situations are basically identical.
A tank moving at 45 mph that subsequently crashes into an immovable wall (like the side of a mountain or a cliff, for example) is essentially the same physical situation as a tank moving at 45 mph that subsequently collides head-on into another tank moving at the same speed in the opposite direction.
In both cases, a given tank goes from 45 mph to zero, and thus has the same change in momentum in both cases.
Also, in both cases, the tanks can each crumple up and deform in a similar fashion. The wall is unaffected in the first case, but so what?
The situation that is truly different (i.e. less severe) is a tank moving at 45 mph that runs head-on into a stationary tank.
CHP: Step out of the tank. Now!
Nut: No, officer, you drop you weapon. Now!
Well, yeah, but at some point the loader will actually be holding a round or one will be… chambered, or whatever you call a tank shell that’s ready to be fired.
When you hold a round in your lap to cut down on the time it takes to reload it is unimaginatively called lap loading. Lap loading is dangerous and against regualtions. As a tank commander I would be pissed if my loader was doing that. A round in the breech is very safe. Surrounded by a huge hunk of steel and in a mechanism designed to funnel all the force out of the turret. And the turret has a very good fire suppression system.
Damn. A thread right in my wheelhouse, and I miss most of it.
Most MBTs have so many different ways to cut, scrape, burn, crush, maim, spindle, fold, and mutilate it own crew before it even sees combat that it’s not even funny. In the U.S. Armed Forces, any dangerous system has comprehensive safety guidlines, policies, and step-by-step procedures to prevent injury.
As RyJae points out, you can’t fix a stupid driver short of whuppin’ his ass when he climbs out of the driver’s compartment.
Almost every injury from an M-1 I’ve seen has been operator error; taking shortcuts on safety procedures, failing to utilize safety guards and barriers, failing to stay or keep errant body parts on the proper side of safety guards and barriers, stuff like that.
If the “star rating” system could be negative, AFVs and MBTs in particular would earn them.
I was wondering where the hell you were. You got the rest.
Spindle?
Ooo! Ooo! Can we maybe work a treadmill into the test, too…?