(Stares at other comments) …Right, Stowage and storage mean different things. (Cradles head) I’ve been on Tumblr too long, I thought the Zero Double U Zero was invading.

@T72B
Not just gasoline, but kerosene because those engines were actual airplane star engines.

shermans also got a reputation for fires because some of them had gasoline engines

@ÜberReaktor
Fun fact: the claims about the M4 tank blowing up easily were significantly exaggerated. Early M4 tanks did have ammo racks in the sides of the hull, which did make it possible for a penetrating hit to the side to ignite the ammo –the Panzer IV actually had similar ammo rack placement and consequently ignited just as frequently– but the majority of Shermans were refitted with “wet stowage” which eliminated the side mounted racks and interspersed fire extinguishers into the main floor stowage rack, cutting ammunition fires by 3/4.

@T72B
Oh, so the autoloader’s the reason.
Interesting.
And yeah, you right about ammo stowage in the fighting/crew compartment.
Before the russian T-Series it was the american M4-series being infamous for blowing up once they got ‘barely dinged’ (hence nicknames like Ronson or Tommy cooker.)

Anyway, I was merely joking about how Tenkpone might continue her sentence.

@ÜberReaktor
the shells are under the turret because of the autoloading system used on the gun. plus it is only a new feature of modern afv that shells are not stored in the fighting compartment

Which leads to new problem:
Shell from outside tends to set off shells inside which is all right under turret for some reason.
That happen and turret try to become second MIR space station.

I feel like this became hilarious in hindsight.

@Chopsticks

That’s what… he said?

Artist name checks out.

At least the front doesn’t fall off.

@Background Pony #4766  
Who are you quoting?

>only two pictures with t72 tag on derpi  
those are rookie numbers

this is the voice of a lost mare ♥

Soviet armor impenetrable, it just fall off.