YOU STILL AREN’T ASNWERING THE QUESTION OF WHO / WHAT meta is. let alone showing any sources to state any of your points about the abrams. So you’ve lost on every single point. Either show evidence or stop replying to me.
Demanding someone to teach you what is one of the most known companies in the word reaches comical levels of ridiculousness.
I repeat, it works both ways.
Since we know very well that there’s a rare availability on the exact performance of the blow out panels, it is rational to state that they follow the laws of physics like any mechanical contraption, and by doing so, are prone to a percentage of failure, known only by those who did extensive testing. Saying otherwise is believing they don’t follow the laws of physics of this world, thus, making it simply faith, not science.
There’s no logical fallacy to be found here, so the argument holds up.
You on the other hand did not provide any souce proving that they are infallible, while stating that they are. You also did the best to derail the topic from the main theme, the aforementioned % of failure of the mechanical device in question.
Absolutely irrational.
And no, I don’t expect you to understand basic logic.
1 Like
like i said, you aren’t going to answer the question or show proof. welcome to the block list kiddo.
While I’m in your block list, you should enroll in a basic logic class. Thank me later.
The percentage of failure is factual, you like it or not. Bye bye.
1 Like
Also can’t forget the fact that there is a high possibilty that the blast door was open to be reloading when the ammo was hit and detonated…
1 Like
The making of which would be fatal to the crew anyway.
1 Like
Meta was formally know as Facebook until their brand change a few years ago.
Interview with a Soviet Guards tanker about his time in WW2.
He explicitly mentions the US ammo deflagating instead of exploding like Soviet ammo would. If US ammo was that safe in WW2, I don’t see why it would be more dangerous now.
1 Like
ONE ISSUE it doesnt work
1 Like
It appears that at one Heat is fine but as soon as you carry 2 with Apfsds you just blow up.
If you only carry Heat it just dissapears but at somepoint you just blow up (i couldnt be bothered to test the exact ammoload)
It might be an issue of the Blastdoor overloading (at like 4 Heatrounds it kills comander and loader and the Blastdoor dissapears)
Yeah the ammo used is designed to burn, rather than explode.
Abrams operators in Ukraine don’t believe in 100% crew survivability that you guys preach about.
Damn it feels good to be reasonable.
2 Likes
They talk about insufficient armor which make sense as their Abrams didn’t not get advance armor nor advance APS kit that US has in inventory. Also how they operate in the battlefield unlike US.
Sure the crew still can get hit by direct hit to their position in the tank. But the same thing also apply to any others tank really. Especially against top attack where almost all tank have weak armor.
They even said it themselve that They didn’t operate Abrams like US does where they need support from other unit like Infantry , Air , Artillery.
As for HE munition problem (where they said that they need to fire 10 round against building) I belived that they also had DM11 Frag round with their Leopard 2 fleet.
They just need to update Abrams Ballistic computer to be compatible with DM11 and that should solve the problem . Else they would need to import HE-frag 120mm round from other country.
That aside they didn’t complain nor said anythings about Ammo blow out panel at all in the video.
1 Like
10 HEAT, 24 KE rounds were loaded into the rack. after a 2,400 to 3,000 PSI explosion from the test the HEAT “Warhead” didn’t detonate the blast was enough destroy the exterior of the bustle rack. The door continued to do as it was designed and exert the force of the explosion away from the crew. Leaving the tank crew if present in what is determined survivable conditions.
4 Likes
Whilst in the real world, there is a small percentage chance that something can, and will, go wrong.
However, this is a video game, where it is meant to be consistent and is supposed to work as it is intended 100% of the time.
Let’s apply this logic to an autoloader. In real life, there could be any one of numerous systems that fail. Maybe it jams up and must be repaired. There is a chance of failure, so if you argue that it is fine for a game mechanic to have a chance of failure, then surely this should also be applied to an autoloader, yes?
Everything in this game should work 100% of the time in accordance to the evidence that we have of the systems they are based off of. A blowout panel should not malfunction in-game just because it can happen in real life, just as an engine should not fail because it can in real life.
1 Like
More info on this Abrams: supposedly it was one of the last M1A2s in service before the SEP modernization programs and was commanded by First Sergeant Daniel Hendrex. According to testimony, the incident was caused by five AT mines strapped together and detonated under the tank/turret as it was retreating from an engagement. All four crew members survived, and the tank was reportedly burning for up to a week.
The report is unclear on whether the detonation of the mines was concentrated beneath the turret—causing the rear of the tank to blow off—or if it occurred more generally under the vehicle, with the ensuing fire triggering an ammunition detonation later. The former would suggest that an Abrams can survive a full ammo detonation, since the crew survived. However, the latter would indicate that an ammo detonation was fairly catastrophic and did breach one of the protective shutters. The right shutter could have simply been open, blown off by an explosion, or compromised by the fire.
1 Like