Great, well now they can remove the insane fuel detonation debuff
Fuel detonation is on all tanks in WT, and an intended feature.
If they complicate fuel tanks they’ll change that.
It’s not. Engine bay fuel tanks, and the frontal fuel tanks on the Abrams, do not detonate. Low tier (below 7.7) fuel tanks do not detonate and/or WW2 ammo does not cause them to detonate, hard to say which. Fuel tanks marked as external do not detonate EXCEPT those on the T-90M. Of the current top tier roster, only the Leclerc, Type 10, and all Soviet/Russian tanks have the “fuel detonated” kill state.
They do detonate.
The armor that surrounds the tank prevents the explosion from entering the crew compartment.
T-34, Sherman, KV-1, etc all detonate.
I’ve never seen that happen in hundreds of games in those vehicles, what ammo type typically causes the explosion?
All?
I’ve fired APCR and APCBC.
Fuel explodes in low tier its just a rare dice roll. Preferably explode aphe inside it which is tricky itself because of limited size of fuel tank
welp irl as many people mention “Most case” Gunner aim at the center of the target not certain weakspot . Thus they might not hit ammunition inside target.
But in this game player can aim for ammuniton or any part of the target they want with super accurate FCS (LRF) . So ammo getting direct hit are more common things in WT
Gaijin did decrease “ammo burning change” before (again this apply to any nation not just Soviet) many gameplay footage people post did show AP , APFSDS rod or HEAT jet making direct contact with ammunition be it warhead or propellant and just make ammunition turn black and dispear or just damage it (yellow,orange,red) while passing through.
For example
Welp i’ll be glad to see if they did fix “ammo not burning” when getting a direct hit [not just Soviet] . (Not going to get my hope up though)
2 Likes
Ammo is likely but not guaranteed to detonate upon destruction. IIRC the complaints specifically towards the Soviets was that their ammo is considered to be in wet storage which reduces the likelyhood of them detonating, and that small plates around the ammo compartments tend to soak up a lot of spall without producing any
To clarify. irl Ammo hit would mostly result in propellant catching fire and start burning.(hence I use term burning) Since propellant part are usaully occupied over 50-80% of entire ammo/round dimension. And are very easy to ignite or catch fire than high exprosive warhead.
The wet storage doesn’t completely stop ammo from burning. But it does slow down the burning process (which does increase the time that crew need to bail out of vehicles) and help catch spalling from hitting ammo. Armor plate around the ammo compartments also doesn’t stop ammo from burning. It there to help protect spalling from reaching ammo.
What people complain are the case where we see AP/APFSDS rod / HEAT jet making direct hit with ammo but ammo just turn black and dispear or just damage it (yellow,orange,red) while AP/APFSDS/HEAT passing through entire compartment…
3 Likes
it should be enough to know that Gaijin takes verified and credible armor bug reports and submits them as “suggestions”
Credible Abrams bugs, still ignored 6mo+:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/xK4GPBS59dUL
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/b4ogshUDi1jN
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/hn6WHPVB7r3K
I suggest they model tanks armor accurately and balance from that.
2 Likes
It also lends them the freedom to balance…which they are not.
1 Like
It’s not just relating to Armor layout either.
Take these two reports about the FIM-92 as well.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/LbD7XSmoaAJc
Which presents evidence that the POST seeker equipt missiles (MIM-72G / FIM-92B and later missiles) should also have access to the Contrast Seeker lock on range extension mechanic(Its functionally identical to missiles that have received the mechanic; it just works in the UV-A band instead of the Visual or IR).
and
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/yUohrEMuQLna
Which entirely dispels the claims and assumptions put forward about Western Systems by the erroneous MANPADS “article” they published, and details how they actually work and why they are different to the Igla and Redeye(FIM-43) / Strela-2 at a functional level.
4 Likes
their is no problem here
IRL that t90a would have that Shtora-1 activated and you would not be able to fire tows or similar atmgs at it unlike in this game. There is real proof of that you can see the syrian videos.
Shtora only works against the most basic ATGMs which use a simple IR flare to let the FCS know where the missiles is. When the Tow got upgraded to the Tow-2 a xenon flare got added, as well as the regular IR flare pulsing in an encoded way which defeats Shtora. Milan 3 also got a similar upgrade, though I don’t know if it is in game. Simply thinking that Shtora should defeat all atgms is completely wrong, as it is heavily dependant on the missile having an unencoded IR flare, as Shtora has no effect on any other form of guidence.
3 Likes
To the context there are no mention about ATGM in my post you reply to.
But beside that it still depend on ATGM guided system. MCLOS , Radar guided , Laser guided , Beam riding ATGM won’t be affect by Shtora-1
Some have been upgraded to counter solf-kill APS like TOW-2.
M220A2 system also has alternative guided system which they use to guided ATGM via Thermal to be able to operating while in heavy dust, smoke, or fog.
1 Like
Just wanted to hop back in and remind everyone that Gaijin has no credible way to know how modern NATO MBT armor works. They also still use the DeMarre formula which creates bullets nothing like they are in real life. Finally, they can’t know either (in regards to NATO anyway) as those countries practice effective Information Security.
Modern MBT’s in this game only look like they do in real life. In regards to performance it’s just a bunch of flimsy estimates based on old, and incredibly limited information. In short, they are not close to accurate representations of the vehicles.
Gaijin saying anything otherwise is just hubris.
2 Likes
This just in!
An online video game that only has access to publicly available sources, only uses publicly available sources!
More at 11.
3 Likes
They don’t really need to know exactly how things function though, or have access to the actual numbers to produce something that somewhat representative of actual performance.
Take the XM-815 (XM-1) as a baseline for example (since it is known what was used as its threat simulator / surrogate and the composition of the various arrays have been established)
As long as the representative threat at the expected distances does not penetrate things are fine, the actual numbers and mechanics beyond that aren’t as significant, would they be nice to know sure but aren’t entirely necessary.
Also things like the STANAG Level 6 protection requirements and testing procedures are known so otherwise provide a Baseline level of performance, yes the mechanics and technology behind the various arrays in question have obviously improved over time, and there remains the physical signs of changes to armor arrays that are of course unknowable (e.g. the reason as to why the depth of certain arrays changed) but reasonable estimations can be made.
Also things like the fact that crash development of say M829A5 / BM-71 (etc.), or the move to a larger caliber, or massive overhauls to the Array sizes haven’t occurred means that at least it isn’t directly apparent that the evaluation of captured T-90 / M1 variants etc. have not had unexpected results and that the respective sides are at least confidant that whatever mechanical advantages that they have hasn’t degraded sufficiently to cause an immediate response.
Though it would be interesting to see if the T-14 or its follow ons change schema in future based on whatever is learned form the M1s
I don’t doubt that it is, but its not like the MoD / DoD is going to publicly release evaluations of their FME processes, or evaluations of their opponents armor or properly explain how things work, all we can do is see what their public response is to said stimuli.
Though some of the captured M1A1-SAs are on display so a closer look may be possible, though won’t really help with determining much about the later variants of Heavy / Export armor, since they may well have been modified before being sent to Ukraine, though with the obvious use of K-1 / -5 and ARAT tiles Something that uses CE has them concerned (probably the 9M133(M) or a similar system) with the existing array coverage.
I’m pretty sure that they have some stuff from various collections / museums / vendors that isn’t directly available to the public, though is probably not classified.