As long as you dont keep the ammo over the fire, it wont take damage.
A contained box will heat up faster than an open air flame and a piece of metal above said open air flame.
Both are contained boxes but the ammo one is also smaller and has no vents. Crew compartment would at least have some sort of ventilation which would slow down heating
Why would the Abram’s ammo compartment not have material to mitigate heat if it’s such a major factor on cook off?
Why would you allow a Molotov cocktail to detonate your $24 million piece of hardware?
1 Like
Molotov wouldnt have nearly the heat or fuel needed. But it could kill the engine.
What system would they have for that? Military also doesnt think of everything. A lot of vehicles have design flaws that get overlooked because they deem that it is not enough of a risk to be worth the cost to fix.
Yet an engine fire, which is a diesel fire, same material, has enough heat to cook off ammo in a separated compartment?
Napalm is a cost effective bomb the US used quite heavily. They’ve most assuredly thought of its effect on their armored vehicles as has every other nation.
A bottle of fuel vs a tank of fuel
They didnt think about asymetric warfare. M1 wasnt designed for it which is why they had to make a whole kit for urban combat.
This is quite opposite what I have been told by T-72 crews about the autoloader. It tend to jam by its own without even combat damage.
But I presume that as any other mechanical device when foreign object pass trough it at high speed it would seize functioning.
Over time yes prolonged heat would cook a tank.
I don’t believe 10 seconds is enough time to generate the heat necessary to detonate the ammo.
1 Like
“asymmetric warfare”
We’re not discussing RPG shots in to the side of a tank, we’re talking about engine fires.
Engines will be shot in modern tank combat, why would you design a tank so that this action guarantees ammo detonation?
War thunder is not always a 1:1 for time scaling. Repairs and re arms for example
It doesnt. Just turn the turret a little to get it off the fire.
All ammo is coded in game the same as just ammo there is no difference between tanks
1 Like
Even with crew damage from fire. They die after like 20 sec from an engine fire. A bit fast for irl i think
War Thunder is a video game yes.
In it one should expect some level of balance.
Currently an engine fire in a NATO tank means ammo detonation while in a Russian tank it means nothing.
I do not believe this is representative of reality and I do not believe this is balanced.
1 Like
Have you tried not keeping the ammo over the fire?
1 Like
The ammo is in a completely separate compartment and inside the turret.
I am going to take that as a “no”
The ammo is not “over a fire” it is in a seal container completely separated from the fire.
If you are stating that fire should detonate ammo based on proximity then my position still stands, the Russian ammo carousel should be going off like a fire cracker.
If you believe there should be a disparity between the two then I would like to hear your reasoning for this.
Here