You think every tank that got hit in ammo rack need to tossing turret taking it crew lives in the process like Russian tanks does or something?
If you look carefully, you can see them running away on the right if the tank.
Then every single American crewman over the last 40 years has been lucky because that is an upgraded model from 40 years ago. The Ukrainians operate the M1A1SA, the same as Iraq, seen in this video (again). Between the M1A1 (1985) and M1A1SA(2008), no safety changes to the bustle occurred. The SA (Situational Awareness) upgrade had many enhancements, but none of which strengthened the bulkhead door.
Def not, I know the blasr door can withstand something but your whole ammo cooking is something else
I take it back, it looks like at least 12 shells exploded
I agree IRL you’re right. I just think you’re underestimating how much warhead explosion is a key mechanic in all modes of WT to keep player lives short.
Aerial bombs shouldn’t explode when shot, chaining up to kill the bomber that drop them either, but they do. Shell rooms in battleships (as opposed to magazines) shouldn’t explode on penetration. But they do. Torpedoes (except Japanese oxygen filled ones) shouldn’t explode when struck, destroying destroyers. But they do.
Gaijin just likes explosions (detonations of warheads, not propellant). They’re just saying sympathetic warhead detonations (which irl are super rare if not impossible) would defeat any blowout panel arrangement, so that’s why they changed it. You’re fighting the Gaijin Rule of Cool here more than anything.
more like rule of incompetent.
2 Likes
T-series has cool explosions, that should be enough for ground battles
It would be great if Gaijin stated their sources since they want at least 3 official sources for anything to just be passed to the devs as suggestion :-/
I think you just have to accept you live in Gaijin world, where insensitive explosives chain detonate a lot. It’s just a different set of physics because it’s a game and they figure players like explodey things.
So many of the little tricks we use (like minimal ammo in tanks or ships, shooting at naval mines if you see them on a deck, etc.) are based on this already. Only carrying darts is just the newest one.
There is a difference if they hit the propellant or the warhead, even in russian tanks you can clearely see this.
This cook off have the same mechanics as the cook off seen on the abrams test, on the other hand a detonation from he or hit chain reacting whould be far more violent than this, like on this example, this is an actual detonation of the war heads the fist was a cook off of the propellants, which none of the examples that you have showed are examples of detonations, but deflagrations
Again nothing really stops nato roudns in game from detonating as they dont have insensitive explosives, and as i shared before, these rounds can detonate.
1 Like
first to all that picture leopard 2a4 was hit in the hull ammo happen decades ago and still not prove that blast door didn’t work because it was not hit at blast door at the first place and not a single document around here or from Gaijin that prove that blow out panel didn’t work when explosion occur all theories here without prove.
It does proves that these rounds can detonate, which is the point, none of the rounds in game uses insensitive explosives rather comp A or B, which is the same used on this leopards from decades ago, only iirc dm 11 would have insensitive explosives.
1 Like
round can be detonated or not It doesn’t prove that blow out panel didn’t against such event and also no evident to back it up
lot of Abrams also has been ammoracked around the world up to Ukraine yet not a single Abrams send turret flying because ammorack hit.
Russian tank on the other hand send turret flying after detonation because the pressure has nowhere to go the best-case scenario for them is fire coming out of the crew hatch (not pretty as well)
So, I see not a single evident prove that blast door didn’t work in case of explosion.
The Russian tank send turret fly off as the result of pressure have nowhere to go out when it builds up
that why blow out panel came in to releases the pressure that build up in case of ammunition hit
That picture of Leopard tore itself apart after hull ammo has hit probaly the same as Russian tanks due to nowhere release the pressure.
That leopard tank was bombed in that image.
Again having a blow out panel would not reduce the penetration from the explosion effect, even onpen air explosion have this effect, which is why HE rounds can infact penetrate armor, in fact if it was not a detonation the turre would’ve just flew up while the hull remained intact
1 Like
it does been proved around the world that not a single Abrams tore itself or turret after ammo rack has hit
and no evident document or test ever state that “blow out panel don’t work when chemical round explode” not a single one.
like it even matters? there is a bug that plagues the game that if you have apfds loaded and you get ammoraccked it reloads very slowly to heatfs so you are dead 95% of the time
Show us video proof of an abrams ammunition detonation scenario.
If you know the difference between deflaguration and detonation show us.
I want to see an abrams ammunition detonation that you say can happen.
"A detonation is an explosion where the flame speed is greater than the speed of sound.
Detonations are louder and often more destructive than deflagrations. While deflagration occurs when a fuel and oxidizer (typically air) mix, a detonation doesn’t always need an external oxidizer. Explosives that detonate are referred to as high explosives and have a detonation speed in the range of 2,000–8,200 m/sec (4,500–18,000 mph). High explosives are typically designed to cause destruction—often for demolition, mining, or warfare."
"A deflagration is an explosion where the flame speed is lower than the speed of sound, which is approximately equal to 335 m/sec (750 mph).
Explosives that deflagrate are known as low explosives. The actual speed of the explosion can vary from 1–350 m/s (2–780 mph). Peak pressures produced by low explosives are orders of magnitude lower than those produced by high explosives, and the damage inflicted by low explosives can vary greatly depending on the fuel and confinement. For example, if black powder is ignited outside of containment, it just fizzles, but when it is confined, it creates an explosion that can propel bullets.
In addition to the black powder example, examples of deflagrations involving low explosives include the ignition of propane gas for a cooking grill and fuel powering of a combustion engine in a car."
It isnt really that hard, just by looking at if there is and shock wave or not is more than enough to differenciate them, btw all the videos of the large flames on the abrams tanks are clearly from a propellant, and there is a visible delay form the hit they burn far more slowly than on a detonation.
A video of this happening is unnecesary as we know that they don’t use insensitive explosive, and as such there is allways a probability of a detonation, but it is that a probability.
2 Likes
so no prove or evident then so even you have no evident about blast door not working.