I calculated Russian bias. Shocking results. Please Read

Hydrostatic shock from a tank penetrator passing through a full diesel tank should basically pop the thing open and spill the fuel all over the crew. Fast bullets slow down super fast in water, and that energy has to go somewhere.

Water and Diesel don’t compress. Container eats the shock of the liquid trying to get out of the way. Container fails, the fuel within is now outside the fuel tank. Fuel is now nicely mixed with air and ready to burn from any tiny spark or highly heated item.

Perhaps this is the origin of the fuel detonations that plague many tanks in game. It’s not the fuel tank itself going boom, it’s the aerosolized fuel catching fire in the crew compartment after the fuel tank was split open. Damage model would just claim fuel tank detonation to simplify things.

2 Likes

Diesel isn’t that flammable thought. With the amount of fuel explosions they t series tanks get I’m beggining to think they are running on hydrazine instead of diesel in game

Containers opened by hydrostatic shock tend to spread things out in a pretty fine mist, I’d wager the sudden fuel air mixture becomes very good for combustion.

Even if the liquid fuel is too inert to be lit on fire, spraying it all over the inside of a tank is bound to be detrimental to the crew. The longer they stay buttoned up in that tank covered in fuel, the higher the probability of a significant fire inside the crew compartment. Any fire that reaches the carousel will very quickly ignite the ammo within.

Bro is a total Chad Hero wish you coulda met him he was Freeboi too

2 Likes

yes, through liquid maybe, but I was talking about a 6mm carroussel plating, not a fuel tank, so what is the point exactly ?

I agree spalling shouldn’t cut straight through a fuel tank, but that’s not what was discussed here.

And because of “square cubed law” They will have on average more mass for a given surface area.

Which means as far as drag is concerned it should decelerate less compared to a smaller projectile of the same density.

Afaik the only way Warthunder “”“implements”“” “Spall liners” Is that they do not account for very small shrapnels in their shrapnel calculation.

Which i guess does what a spall liner would do. Is that a spall liner tho? No, its reducing the work needed to be done on a penetrating hit. Aka, good programming

Your earlier reply…

You doubted him, I added a video simulation about it, and then you questioned me next. How is this not part of the discussion?

Oh so when he says Russia bad suddenly we all like TEC now and his takes are no longer bad, got it.

1 Like

Hello, currently I’m playing in RB with BR8.3 and I’m fighting against T55AM1 and Object 279… It’s horrible!!! These are entirely OP mounts… When I fight against Russia and China, I lose all my games… Frankly it’s a video game, we’re here to have fun, not to pursue the chauvinism of a frustrated nation that lives in a memory of its supposedly glorious past…

3 Likes

No you miss understood something, you have only fun if you play russian tanks past 8.3 like 8.7 to enjoy the bias and ru propaganda showing off how “great” LOL russia is.

1 Like

Depends on the fuel tank size…

Those posts date back to early september, the discussion has kinda moved on since then, and i was specifically talking about the “plate” part of his message.

But yes, my opinion on the matter of fuel tanks has evolved since then. the 6mm carroussel though ? nope.

There wouldn’t be that much “russia bias” messages if the BVM had the same post damage model as say a t-90A.
Should the 6mm plating help ? yes, against very, very small fragments, most likely. Is it too efficient ? well if we follow some simple logic, yes.

The other problem is the UFP. A t-80 bvm is not a problem when i cut it in half with a hot-3 for example, as it should also be for MBT’s if other nations had their APFSDS correctly modelled.

You can’t even spell and your broken grammar places you in a functionally illiterate category. Makes it difficult to accept any argument you offer seriously.

Not sure where the discussion moved to; couldn’t find the topic. But the problem is definitely here, and not just on BR7+.
I am playing Germans at BR5-6. At many times, my 88-mm shells from Tiger E bounced from T-34-85 sides into the blue sky. How a 88-mm shell not penetrate 45-mm side armor?
But today it was even worse. In Panther F (76 mm gun, penetration of 192 mm at 10 m) I shot a rear of T-34 turret at the point blank distance. The turret armor there is 53 mm, and the impact angle is 8 degrees… the shell didn’t penetrate! Not just ricocheted - didn’t penetrate! I’m reloading the gun - and see that the penetration indicator is red.
HOW THE HECK PANTHER CAN"T PENETRATE 52 MM ARMOR???
OK, loading Pz40/42 APCR round with penetration of 228 mm. Only now the crosshair is green, and the shell finally goes through!
If this is not a Russian bias - then please tell me what it is.

Volumetric.
I’ve shot the side of a Panther point blank at a 90 degree angle → Non penetration

1 Like

8.7 Soviets have the worst APFSDS for the BR.

2 Likes

1 Like

Your post was already disproved:

2 Likes

yeah but china wins so im happy

The russbots get a bit shirty when you point out that War Thunder might be over-armouring their favourite turret launchers a teensy bit.

Ignore the rambling muppet - he kind of floats around crayoning over every thread.

2 Likes

Calling others to be rambling muppets while using words like russbots just make you look hilarious.

1 Like