Has the blow-out panel change been reverted yet? I can’t find a lot about this anywhere only a pachnote.
What change?
The bug in the patch note? That should be fixed now.
No, the change about blow-out panels not protecting your crew from ammo explosion when you carry HE, HESH, HEAT or anything explosive
Why would it? /gen
I don’t know, maybe it’s because that’s what blow-out panels are for?
6 Likes
iirc Blow out panels only protect you from the fire, not the explosion itself.
Also that change specifically fixes a bug where the blow out panel still protects against fire despite being broken.
I don’t think you know how blow-out panels work?
They ofc can’t withstand an explosion in a sealed container.
The top of the ammo compartment is weaker than the blow-out door for a reason, when an explosion happends, the force is redirected to the weakest part, the top, this is just physics, once the explosion is done, then the door just protects from the fire.
9 Likes
Then you explain what I said, it protects from fire.
The change you showed fixes a bug where the tank can survive the fire despite having a broken bulkhead, which protects against the fire.
That was the only note I found about the blow-out panel change. I’m asking if they doubled down on the high chance of damage if your ammo explodes.
My bad, I included the wrong image, and it looks like the right one disappeared from my clipboard, sorry about that
1 Like
I play the Type 90 / Type 10 a lot and I haven’t noticed anything different, what else did they change?
I mean seen how tank remains after an actual ammo detonation not just a deflagration of the propellant i doubt that a bulkhead can withstand an detonation like this, that being said they should differenciate between the warhead and the propellant on rounds, and apply the the rgn on the warhead itself
1 Like
From what I know, it looks like Gaijin decided that blow-out panels can’t withstand some explosions and made it more of a gamble
1 Like
Maybe the blow-out door was open? Other ammo was hit?
The door doesn’t have to withstand the explosion, it just has to be stronger than the weakest part, the top.
Is it only with any HE round (HEAT, HESH, etc.) like you said or for all shell types? I’ve been using APFSDS on the Type 90/10 and haven’t died once, is it a gamble with HEAT?
^ Which is significant because the Type 90s always get hit in the Ammo
There’s a lot higher chance if you carry explosive rounds, APFSDS have very little chance to kill you
2 Likes
This was a detonation of the hull ammo, not on the safety rack
2 Likes
… so you showed an ammo explosion in a sealed container that is doing everything to keep things in and bad things out… the tank will ofc explode too, the force of the explosion has the weakest point in the interior, where it will go
When the ammo in this blow-out compartment explodes, they force is pushing the weakest side, the top, once the top is out, the only thing the door has to withstand is the high temps
There is a large difference between a detonation and a deflagration, on a detonation you will have a shockwave anyways even if it’s not confined, and this shockwave can detonate rdx base explosives, on a deflagration this doesnt happens as there is not a hi pressure wave, probably the best examples of this are the tseries as we have more examples of this two tipes of explosion, but it aslo happens with leopards, look how rhe hull is mainly intact, as there just was a pressure build up form the deflagration of the propellant, so just the turret was ejected, while in the first images the ammo detonated, completely destroying the hull.
1 Like
This is not true whatsoever. Every single tank crewman you will ever speak to, the footage of tests themselves, and every document shows that the blowout panel is to BLOW OUT.
The structural engineering of a blow-out panel is to intentionally make a point of weakness so that the cookoff vents through that location and not the crew compartment. HEAT and HE shells do not change this and have never done so in tests.
All blowout-related damage was due to faults in maintenance or damage dealt to the blowout doors themselves.
That image clearly shows the front ammorack detonating, not the bustle. You can literally see the missing front half of the hull in the photo.
Turret-related damage from a bustle cookoff is near non-existent, while the hull was catastrophic.
The image you shared does not show a Bustle detonation. Bustle Detonations of Leopards do not Turret Toss. It is physically impossible for 15 shells stored in a bustle to toss a 30-ish ton turret. This is not a blow-out failure.
5 Likes
The first image was a Leo and this one is some T series varient?