But a carousel made of 30 mm aluminum can’t stop shrapnel from triggering an ammo explosion either.
1 Like
In your example, the tank is destroyed, because commander and gunner are dead.
My personal screenshot is just to show that the shot he placed is entirely above the ammo storage.
Nothing more.
His shot was above the storage, and in-between both turret crew members.
Either way, he should’ve aimed lower.
2 Likes
I don’t know about you, but I think I at least try to formulate good arguments when I disagree. I think that’s what you’re starting to notice.
No? I formulate my own arguments, not some LLM.
There’s no reason to comment on something I agree with since there’s already a feature for that exact purpose – the ‘heart’ button.
If I disagree with something, I will respond to it with a reason.
I only reply to comments I agree with if I have something else to add.
Alvis put it well here:
Ok, so do you agree with the premise that, ideally, all vehicles of the same BR should strive to have similar capabilities, performance, and viability?
Yes, I did add that part to my post as well.
I think that should be resolved, but all other instances of ‘Russian autoloader bias’ is just false.
But that is kinda the problem. The carousel protects the ammo from all spall while not creating any itself when hit making a direct hit with your dart on the ammo necessary. That makes the autoloader tanks more survivable than they should be against hits to the carousel
2 Likes
I think vehicles that are similar to each other should have their BRs set around that fact.
HSTVL for example is primarily a recon vehicle.
The fact that it’s the 2nd or 3rd best light tank in the game is just another bonus on top of that.
That might be your opinion, but it doesn’t change the fact that Russian autoloaders are still modeled with unrealistic protection values in game. In real life, a 30 mm aluminum carousel cover offers almost no real fragmentation protection — yet in War Thunder, it behaves like a solid barrier that magically prevents ammunition detonation from spalling or overpressure.
So calling it “false” isn’t accurate. The bias isn’t about the existence of the autoloader, but about how its vulnerability is represented in comparison to NATO tanks — which often have their ready racks explode from much smaller hits, while Russian carousel systems stay untouched under the same conditions.
So would you say the hellcat, for example, is generally worse than the Tiger E, and so you should expect to get less kills with it than with the Tiger E, or the BMD-4 compared to the T-64B?
Again, I agree with that being something they need to address. I can’t say, however, that there’s some special feature of Russian autoloaders that stops ammo from detonating, unlike what this person is saying:
It is false when it truly isn’t any feature of Russian autloader ammo where they do not explode when hit… other than when it magically disappears (but that is a feature of all tanks for some reason – especially SPAAs).
So while I agree with you here,
You are not getting the point I’m addressing.
You’re missing the point yourself — no one is claiming that Russian autoloaders magically prevent ammo explosions because of a special feature in real life. The issue is how the damage modeling treats them in-game.
In War Thunder, Russian autoloaders consistently absorb fragments and overpressure effects that would destroy NATO ready racks instantly. The problem isn’t the physical design of the autoloader, it’s the difference in how Gaijin’s damage model interprets hits.
If you compare post-penetration behavior in the damage viewer, you’ll see that spall from an equivalent penetration on a Leopard or Abrams will pass straight through the hull floor or turret wall and ignite ammo racks. On T-72s or T-80s, that same spall conveniently stops right before the carousel — as if the thin 30 mm aluminum cover were a spall liner. That’s the bias being pointed out.
So yes, nobody says it’s a deliberate in-universe feature. But the result is that Russian tanks enjoy an unintentional protection advantage due to modeling inconsistencies — which is still bias, just not one that’s openly acknowledged.
1 Like
I’m pretty sure that’s what he’s claiming here:
I would expect to get more frags than HSTVL but at least slightly less than Tiger E.
I think youre kinda talking past each other here. I dont think anyone is implying that Gaijin has a literal “if-hit = dont explode” feature on the autoloaders. But since the terrible damage model of the autoloaders is there since their implementation, the prevention of ammo explosions seems like a “feature” added by Gaijin.
We probably are talking past each other, though I think I made it clear with what I’m seeing.
I can’t say this enough: I 100% agree with him in terms of the need to remove the autoloader acting as a spall liner, but I’m pointing out that there are people that genuinely believe that Russian ammo do not explode because of a hidden feature.
It sure seems like it.
Nobody says ‘that it is a deliberately installed feature on the first hit’ when it comes to autoloaders consistently absorbing fragments every time. Either this is what he actually thinks, or is grossly overexaggerating, and I’d say it’s probably the former considering how persistent he is when people say that he missed the ammo (fully implying that he thought he directly hit it).
Or, even worse, he thinks blacking out the ammo compartment (autoloader) should result in ammo detonation (which is also wrong).
(Fuel tank probably ate the shrapnel of these ones… I swear half of the inconsistencies in this game are caused by fuel tanks)
I have no clue how I can express this any clearer.
1 Like
So should we move up the Hellcat to 6.3 since it’s overperforming as a light tank?
Shouldn’t the Hellcat be used pimarily as a recon vehicle too?
I really want to show some documents that can prove T80BVM’s reload time is only 7.5s-8s, but it’s from Russian documents, so it might be quickly NAB and ban my account due to “top secret doc” Lmao, Till now I still doesn’t no idea how could Gaijin get to know T64s reload time is 6s
should be fine as long as there is a reason to think they are declassifed