Yes you’ve stated you don’t know how thermodynamics works and that you believe Russian vents blow the heat away.
Do you have a reason as to why you believe this disparity should exist?
Something that is based off reality or maybe a reason alongside game balance?
So you would like to go on record that you do not believe that heat raises or that a lower thermal mass heats up quicker?
Heat rises to the air, there is air between the area you’re talking about.
It isn’t going to heat up a turret like that.
Not in this reality, but in this game it does.
That is illogical and inbalanced.
That’s the opposite of what every interview I’ve heard with T-72 crews and official test documentation about the reliability of the T-72’s autoloader. In fact here is official CIA test documentation that contradicts your statement:
(page 17 talks about the autoloader)
Now there are circumstances would be believable if said T-72 was very old and had a lack of maintenance (but idk at this point in time so if you want to clarify you can) then I could see the autoloader being unreliable but tbf all tanks would be unreliable if they lacked maintenance and were old.
But back to the original point at hand. T-72’s autoloader critical mechanism that pushes the round into the breach is much larger and not behind the ammo however, the critical mechanism is still quite small and would still be a moot point as it sits between the gunner and the commander. Any hit to the autoloader would 100% kill the commander and gunner.
Edit:
Here is an interview with a syrian tank commander as well who states the autoloader is reliable.
how about you put out the fire with your fpe?
How about Gaijin doesn’t hardcode bias so I can defend them when someone says Russian tanks are coded to be better than NATO tanks
well if you dont put out the fire on a russian tanks you also die so no bias there
Yes except you die from the fire, not ammo detonation.
sure, if you reach the auto ignition temp of the ammo the crew is long death… pretty sure that even being russian ammo it is well over 100ºC…
Yes that’s my point. It’s asinine that it happens in US tanks at all.
If the fire was that hot the crew would have been gone long before the AMMO
It does not… the volume of air is nowhere even close.
The enclosed case of the Russian tank versus the sealed crew compartment of an Abrams tank and the sealed turret and ammo compartment which is separated by 3 feet of air.
You’re telling me this would cook off faster than the Russian tin can?
Unserious.
the 3 feet of air that is engulf on fire…
not to mention that you also have some large fuel tanks that will also take a lot of energy to heat up, not to mention that the combustion inside of the engine would be quite bad, and stil that “tin can” is several times larger than the ammo bay
3 feet of air which isn’t on fire, it’s just over the fire.
There’s armor there that would need to heat up, then the air inside the ammo compartment would need to heat up. Then the cased shell the ammo is in would need to heat up.
Unserious.
Blast panels do not protect the ammo against cookoff - they protect the crew against ammo explosions of all varieties.
You realize that steel heats up faster than air right?
Perhaps by weight, but certainly not by volume!
in both cases the fire has to go trough steel
Irrelevant to the statement of supposed fact!
Perhaps you meant to say something else?
true, my bad, still the volume of air is much larger on the crew compartment than the one on the bustle, air inside of it will heat up faster, also the fuel tanks are behind of the fire wall so it will privide more isolation on the crew compartment as only a small amount of the fire wall is actually exposed.
Also in the case of the Abrams the fire wall is much thicker than the base of the ammo rack