Blow-out panel change

Do you have the rating of the blast door? AKA how much explosive can they resist before they breaks?
Because in the case of the abrams they mention that the blow out panels vents the gasses, which only really matters on a deflagration type of explosion not a detonation as it also generate a high pressure shock wave wich it is much more powerfull than the possible pressure build up from the propellant. AS rdx does not detonates from direct heat or flames, it just burns.

Again there is a phisical limit on how much tnt can a 30-40 mm plate support without failling, even on an open air explosion.

2 Likes

even if i do have i need to post classified for it just to win this argument?
but there are lot of stuff and test out there proved it work
which you and Gaijin don’t even have basic prove that theories about
Blast don’t work against explosion to better weight this argument not a single one far as i can see.

https://patents.google.com/patent/US5201556A/en
I’ll let you guys decide on if this is relevant or not since it pertains to the blast door locking mechanism

Your video even highlights the HEAT rounds cooking off and detonating with no effect on the tank and re-iterates such as a benefit of the XM-1 bustle design.

thats the assumption gaijin made yes.

if you have a single heat shell there is a change that any one of the shells you carry be that heath shell causing you damage during ammo hits, pretty stupid change, which nerfs stock heat even more 10/10 gaijin.

Pretty sure if u carry too much HEAT or something pierces ur blast doors you get killed

1 Like

There has been no change to blow-out panels.
Blow-out panels were introduced to the game with HE, HESH, and HEAT explosions still causing crew loss.
That was never once historically reported until a bug occurred then was fixed, and now people are looking for source material to prove our case.

It’s not “Realism” as they claim. I have many issues with Gaijin and the fact that they made Blow-Out panels not do their one job instead of fixing the balance of top tier and bug fixing the top MBTs is ridiculous.

Correct me if there is an older one, but the Merkava Mk4 has had its armor bugged and severely underperforming for nearly 4 years despite its bug report being accepted.

You argue something happens without providing evidence that it happens and you claim you don’t need to show that it happens.

There are videos that state the device can handle an explosion, there are patents that state explosion. Yet there are no written reports or videos of explosions? It’s all just deflags?

Something isn’t adding up here.

Explosion is a vague term, deflagrations and detonations are explosions, i am talking about detonations specifically.

1 Like

the leopard has a second no blow rack in the front next to the driver that killed the tank the entire section off where it was is gone

common problem the bug report system is terrible it fails all modes

1 Like

If you say they are all explosions then they handle both deflags and detonations. Elsewise they would have used “deflaguration” instead of explosion.

Prove then that you have evidence of an abrams blow out panels not handling a detonation.

1 Like

Someone go hit up US Army if they could drop a couple mil on few tests

From the manual of the m1 abrams

3 Likes

Then is ther also the britten test of the m1 abrams

But i dont have the hole doc and i dont know witch amo was in the abrams

1 Like

One thing to note is that was a “development test” during the validation phase where the concepts were being tested, before they were finalized.

(you can read about what the DT 1 test was here)

Thanks