I made a bug report and you can read it all on there. If I understand it correctly, at 2 minute and 35 second in the video 1, the guy clearly says that ammo cooking off was HEAT warhead. So yes the blast door does protect against all ammunition type cook off.
IPM1 & M1 Abrams (All variants) - Blowout Panels // Gaijin.net // Issues
on top of that, the guy CLEARLY says that the ammo rack was carrying 24 APFSDS + 10 HEAT round at 5 minutes mark on the video: Testy Balistyczne Opancerzenia Czołgu M1 Abrams - YouTube
Did you read the blue moderator comment above your topic describing why it was locked?
The video is amazing documentation of how it works, they clearly explain pretty much everything, I don’t get how gajin wouldn’t take this as proof
Right - from the declassified M1 Manual / 5-1 AMMUNITION STOWAGE
TM 9-2350-255-10 (1981)
I have double-checked it’s classification - it has been used in previous bug reports also (notably the incorrect reverse speed a while back).
Explosion. Not fire. Explosion.
It says so in THE MANUAL
I submitted the video in my bug report, if they did not accept then then I dont know what’s a good source anymore lmao. Also one more thing to point out - they DETONATES the ammo rack with a shaped charge from OUTSIDE the tank, which can simulate a enemy tank round. They did not just “light it on fire”. There is an actual detonation and the blast door did hold together and kept the crew alive. (wow)
“test does not replicate natural enviroment”
ofc the shaped charge do not fully simulate an enemy tank shot, but I’d say it’s close enough to simulate something like RPG or HEAT rounds
Hello
There’s a difference in the results of similar ammo rack hits between the Abrams and Leopard tanks that can only be seen in test drives. This is because the AI Abrams tank in the test drive has HEAT shells loaded, which can explode when getting hit with a certain chance which can become fatal if there is enough of these in the rack to break the blast bulkhead/door , while the AI Leopard 2 tank has APFSDS ammo loaded, which can only catch fire when getting hit and will never explode. The ammunition of the AI Abrams tank will be adjusted soon to include APFSDS shells for the sake of consistency.
Blowout panels don’t protect from explosions of a large part of the rack. It may be possible to survive a shell or two exploding, but certainly not multiple. They only protect fully from the fire of the ammunition cooking off. This is why the wording in the major changelog could have been misunderstood. What we were trying to say was that a bug that caused ammunition rack explosions with blowout panels to not knock out crew members (when a tank was loaded with HE(AT/SH) shells, meaning there was a chance for an explosion to trigger) was fixed. This was fixed, while blowout panels still do protect from ammunition fire cook offs if the door between the protected area and the fighting compartment wasn’t damaged (as can be seen on the Leopard 2 in a test drive).
It’s also worth noting that if the bulkhead between the fighting compartment and the protected ammunition racks was damaged, it doesn’t provide protection from ammunition cook off fire anymore. Therefore most of the time, only hits from the sides of the turrets can lead to the tank surviving a hit. However, there was also a bug which made the fact of bulkhead penetration sometimes ignored which caused the tanks to survive more often.
Erm, that runs contrary to the information given in the manual (linked above). Explosion gases are mentioned, not fires, not burning. This is an English language publication so they would have used those terms if they actually applied.
…
By way of further explanation - I have read somewhere but need to look up the reference that these blow out panels require a considerably pressure difference to pop. A fire wouldn’t be sufficient to create the overpressure difference to blow them open to the atmosphere. These are after all quite substantial bits of metal that need to be thick enough to provide overhead protection to the ammunition compartment.
The information you have been given and reposted here is incorrect, both from a technical and common-sense point of view.
Yes I did, I wasn’t questioning why, but stating the fact of it being locked so quickly. And the other side of that, if that’s going to be the reason why, a link to the appropriate forum thread should be provided then. I looked up and down the forums before posting, only found this thread. My question was singular in my post, and a simple answer would have been nice. (Not that you are the one that is in a position to make that statement as to why, I am not directing that part towards you.)
That says “hidden by community flags” , not moderators. So it’s hidden until a Forum Moderator handles the flag or you have the option to edit the post before that. You can read more about the forum flag system here: ( Forum Flagging System Explanation )
The flagging system is used by one regular poster in particular to flag everyone’s posts he doesn’t agree with. I would respectfully suggest that is the real problem.
“We think that the US is feeding their tank operators lies.”
If that is the case, and the flags are falsely applied, then that individual will be handled by the Forum Moderators as false flagging is against the rules.
If you have any issues regarding moderation on the forum you can send a private message to one of the Forum Moderators for clarification, i do not handle forum moderation so can only give answerers in general terms and to a level that i believe it to work.
You can find all the teams and the areas they handle listed here: (Who is who and Reporting Procedure). If you don’t get an answer within a few days you can add more moderators from the list to the original message instead of sending a new message (that way you preserve the date of the message and it doesn’t look like a new request), adding one of the moderators to the message every 2-3 days or so until you get an answer.
Please do not to add the seniors until you have tried all other regular moderators, the Seniors likely won’t answer unless they are added and pinged by the regular moderators but if you’ve added all the regular moderators with no answer then you can add the seniors.
"Blowout panels don’t protect from explosions of a large part of the rack. It may be possible to survive a shell or two exploding, but certainly not multiple. They only protect fully from the fire of the ammunition cooking off. "
That isn’t what the manual says. It is also incorrect.
Besides, if one or two shells explode then the others will go as well sympathetically… The internal sleeves they sit in are not blast-proof, else they’d effectively funnel the explosive force into the fighting compartment.
Your source needs to make their mind up. A blow-out panel either allows for the explosion of the contents of the rack or it doesn’t. The public data says that the former is the case.
You can even hear in the video above from the OP, multiple shells bursting inside the ammo rack, and then combined with the video of the fighting compartment, withstanding each one. I don’t understand going to this length to make a change when there are so many other problems with the Abrams, this is the one that gets selected.
So from my testing. The moment you have atleast ONE apfsds round in the blow-out pannel you will not be killed. The moment however your turret is loaded with nothing BUT heat-fs it will explode. I’ve tested it on the M1A2, M1A1, M1A2 SEP, M1A2 SEPV2, Type 90
