I mentioned the Freccia explicitly because before, hitting those ammo belts would detonate the vehicle, despite them being external, so they made that change the same time they made the change with the BMPTS exposed ammo belts detonating the vehicle.
I also said Freccia, because I didn’t remember which explicit variant, I just know it was done to a Freccia
The OWS 30, has an unmanned turret, and has the loaded belt solely contained in the Turret not in the hull.
Where the 25mm armed variant has a layout similar to the Bradley where the loaded belt is stowed low in the hull under the turret to decrease the chance it is hit.
Because most other Vehicles have guns that use a proper Dual Feed system (even if it’s not represented or modeled in game), unlike the 2A42 that needs duplicated chambers with disparate chutes.
Yes they changed the behaviour of the Freccia OWSs belts in January but the change has nothing to do with the separation of the belts. The belts were separated before, the behaviour was just coded incorrectly.
Then maybe I misremembered something–regardless I’m mainly saying the changes with the BMPTs ammo was done at the same time with the Freccia.
One was done on Jan 20th and the other on Jan 16th but what does that have to do with anything? They are completely different changes with completely different purposes for completely different vehicles
My point was the changes done were to not have both vehicles explode because of exposed ammo belts, regardless of how they were orientated.
Given the inconsistenty on how people think autocannon ammunition being struck should behave.
But for one vehicle it actually makes sense and for the other its pure pampering?
There is no inconsistency for how these things work in the game.
Ammo belt separated from crew → no kill
Ammo belt not separated → kill
I wouldn’t call it pampering, I was more leaning towards consistency, if that makes any sense. Exposed ammo belts aren’t going to magically chain detonate all the way inside a vehicle, especially for something like AP 30mms, or even HE 30ms, because that insuniates they must have some really strong explosive force to pull that off every single time (they don’t) and if they did, it would merk light vehicles like the Freccia (if that was the logic).
Ofc its pampering lol because no matter what you say, exposed ammo belts lead to a chain detonation on every other vehicle in the game with a similar ammo layout to the BMPT. Only the BMPT got a belt thats magically separated after getting pummeled on the dev precisely due to the belts not being separate back then.
Respectfully if you could name me some to jog my memory in-case I am missing some vehicles-- though I can’t reccall any vehicles that have “exposed” ammo belts that are physically outside the vehicle leading in.
Only ones that I can think right off the bat are gun based spaa on a similar setup like the Gepard.
Sure. From the top of my head: The Marder A1/A3, the BTR or if you want something very similar to the BMPT then look at the chinese QN506.
The Marder and BTRs amo technically leads away into a more “singular” chain. But the fact they’re light tanks, and already have a lot of empty space, which people really love to complain about-- hence the addition of modules. I don’t think that’d really matter much or be implemented in their sake.
But the QN506 I Definetely can give the sentiment for since it’s already on a tank chassis, and the ammo is physically separated by a barrier, coupled with the fact their belts lead into 2 separate single chains.
but of course since the q506 is utter dogwater and not a popular vehicle… probably won’t be looked at
So does the BMPT? Just with the difference that its 2 chains instead of one.
It doesnt need to be looked at. Its behaviour is consistent with the behaviour of belts in the rest of the game. A hit to the exposed part destroys the entire belt but doesnt kill the crew, because its separated via armor from the crew.
The BMPT does not have a separation like that.
You’re playing a Russian game by the way. If you’re not happy, just stop playing it
Its obvious it wouldn’t, it’s a T-72 hull and the warhead at this distance isnt enough to kill anyone inside lol. The only danger is for anyone outside the vehicle, but it turns out the crew is inside of it…
It doesn’t have that kind of separation, but if you compare how the QN506 and BMPTS belts are laidout, I’d have much more reason to believe that the QN506 belts could instantly detonate everything, because the ammo belts aren’t confined to a small space and are completely open where the main ammo is.
The BMPTS upper most belts are self contained outside the vehicle and aren’t in a shape that would be plausable for “shrapnel” to set off the main ammo stowage. Pretty sure there’s pictures inside that only show the main middle part of the ammo belt being the actual exposed part to the crew. The X-ray doesn’t do much justice in that of course
Yes thats a cool explanation and all but your believes and what you think is “plausible” doesnt matter when we have already an established way how belts behave in game. So either get some actual proof that the BMPTs belts are completely different to any other ammo belt or get Gaijin to give an explanation why the BMPT gets treated differently. Until either of that happens its just blatant pampering from Gaijin to make yet another painfully mid russian vehicle better than it should be.
The simple counter is for you to provide a source that shows 40mm crew hatches can withstand a catastrophic detonation of four large ATGMs above them.
Because that is in effect what you are arguing.
The top of armour of tanks being the weakest point (both due to physically thinner armour and the additional weaknesses of perforations for crew hatches, optics, etc) is not unique to the BMPT.
Yet, for some strange reason - certain people appear to think that the laws of physics should only apply to certain vehicles and not others.
“Established” doesn’t mean it should operate that way. And granted that most vehicles with these kind of ammo belts are light vehicles and not Heavy AFVs, these principles will very likely be interchangable, since dealing with light vehicles is completely different than dealing with a heavy AFV. And it absolutely does matter, given that the playerbase will pick and choose when something is or isn’t plausible at their own discretion.
For example, complaining about the 2a42 not having dispersion (it does now) but then they are shocked when they find the 2a72 cannon does (because these 30s on the bmds are mounted on a stable barrel but low and behold.) They don’t know that all autocannons have a level of dispersion, regardless of the fire rate and aren’t laser accurate.
The 2a42 cannon was an absolute nothing burger until after the BMPT showed up. Nobody cared before then, because the BMP-2M was a tin can, now put it on a tank chassis and then they care about realism.
Here’s a picture why not
if you look at the top most section, you can see in the diagram that there is something separating the top most portion of the ammo.
And this picture, I’m sure everybody has seen this. From his point of view in the commanders seat, you can see that there is a sleeve covering the mid-section slightly and that there is visible “roofing” that shows no visable exposure of the top section of the ammo belts.
All of which would be true if the ammo belts didn’t need to move upwards out of the hull to feed into the guns. Do they get there wirelessly, by Bluetooth?
Unless russia somehow invented wireless wifi ammo belts, chain detonation is still a thing, so whatever separation you try to point at does not really matter.
