M1A1 & M1A2 tank blow out panels on ammunition stowage
You can hear the shockwave. I cannot believe we have people in 2025 questioning Blow-Out panel legitimacy.
1 Like
The shockwave that you hear is the warhead used to penetrate the tank, on the test you clearly see a deflagration.
I mean, Gaijin does like to take any info from russian documents and sees it as legit
That could be from the impact.
Weirdly, every single bit of footage shows you that ammoracks don’t harm the crew in NATO vehicles when proper safety is followed. It literally does not matter what you call this because it’s always going to be harmless if the bulkhead door is maintained and undamaged.
4 Likes
This isn’t even a political NATO versus Russia thing. This stupid, damn logic affects the T-90M too. Blowout Panels are structurally designed to do ONE job and people are saying that job doesn’t work?
If ammunition getting hit kills the crew when you carry chemical ammunition, how do these MBTs survive in videos? The majority of their loadout IS chemical.
3 Likes
Because the probability of hitting the war head itself pretty low, rdx does not detonate either from a deflagration, as there is not sufficient pressure, tseries of tanks having ammunition all over the place are more prone to detonations, while they are still less likely than deflagration.
Thats why i said that they should differenciate between the propellant and the warhead on the ammoracks.
1 Like
I think we are getting a bit out of topic.
I was asking if safe ammo compartments can withstand HE, HEAT, or similar ammo detonations.
I do not mean APFSDS.
Served on the Leo 2A4, Yes but he served with the Singaporean army and lives in Australia. Don’t think he’s been for military work in Europe
1 Like
My bad didn’t knew that
2 Likes
It a sarcastic joke we all know Gaijin’s incompetent is finest so is nothing surprise that they start doing something dumb and stupid.
Great idea, do you mind creating a bug report or suggestion, I’d be glad to suppoet that.
Neither being struck poses a risk. Physics shows that everything wants to take the path of least resistance. If you have a specific path you want something to follow, you make it weaker. That’s how BLOW OUT PANELS work. They literally BLOW OUT to vent the pressure from a detonation or combustion.
You cannot show a single case of “warheads” detonating a NATO tank through a functioning bustle bulkhead because it does NOT happen.
Not only does NATO ammunition not violently explode because it’s inert, but it’s also covered by blowout panels. All risk is logically negated through physics.
Do you realize that enough explosives can still go though armor even on a open air, there is a reason as why mines works…
4 Likes
That’s why you only put what’s safe inside the bustle. These things are built to withstand their loadout.
If a chemical shell detonating poses a risk to blowout panels, WHY ADD THEM? The majority of shells carried are chemical.
Sorry but 20kg of tnt are not going to be stopped by just 30 mm of steel.
1 Like
That’s not how physics works. The Bustle is not a closed box. Pressure vents rapidly out.
1 Like
Now do you know it made from just stupid steel not some blast proof material?
Detonations have large pressure waves even on open air…
Not only do they assume it’s just steel, which like no tank is made of, but they also assume that tanks that carry mostly HEAT or HE shells cannot survive being struck while carrying them.
2 Likes
How do you think roof HE overpressure works?
the force is redirected lol