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
Local army has 40+ years experience operating T-72 and those tank were even manufactured here, so there is quite strong local knowledge background about T-72.
I questioned crews myself in several occasions. It was a while ago but what stuck in my memory was:
tendency to load gunners arm
problem with selecting ammo type, when the auto loader does not know which round is where
possibly loading empty ammo slot
Anyhow this is a bit pointless since everything is 100% reliable in WT.
Question is why the auto loaders cannot be damaged as any other module we have in tank or why should they remain functional when they are damaged?
Not nearly the same thing. It is a critical component, occupying significant portion of the tanks interiors, not some void.
Besides human loaders are modeled, can be wounded or killed and it affects the tank.
Their machine counterpart is not modeled, cannot be damaged or disabled at all.
Because its pointless for most tanks with autoloaders and maybe because the devs see having a 40 second repair with a decrease in short term survivability being worse than just having a slower reload and a decrease in long term survivability. Also because you have to draw the line somewhere. Irl any penetrating hit will most likely damage something important, like hydraulic lines, batteries, or control devices in any tank.
The T-72 has a shield for both the gunner and commander meaning if the shield is pulled out for the autoloader to eat the gunners arm he has to reach over the shield, over a metal bar that’s always there and behind the breach so this is highly unlikely. I call bs on the autoloader eating a gunners arm being commonplace in T-72 vehicles.
What? This is never a problem I have ever heard and no ex T-72 tanker ever mentions this.
Even if the autoloader malfunctioned the commander and gunner had a manual control to be able to choose an individual shell in the autoloader:
And even then it is extremally unlikely they would have to do so as to input the position of each type of round in the autoloader the commander has to input it manually into the ZU-172 memory unit so human error is the only factor that would cause it to malfunction (if it was properly maintained). Same source as above.
The only way this could possibly happen is the same reason as above, human error.
Yes I understand that that it is in every auto loader player hearth to not have such weakness accurately modeled.
But to be fair the Human loaders shall be invincible?
But I would rather have autoloaders modeled, is so significant part that it would be like having engines without damage model.
There seems to be no such barrier on many photos of the interior. Admittedly could be removed on discretion of a crew.
Perhaps read your own source?
However, the constant pressure wears out both the magnetic ring and the electrical contact over time as the disc rotates, leading to a loss in the ability to record and read data, and the conductive metallic dust produced by the rubbing of the contact on the ring surfaces can contaminate other parts of the unit, causing reading errors. Such errors could prevent the autoloader from accepting new ammunition when loading it, or cause the autoloader to lose track of where ammunition is stored or even to “forget” when to stop rotating the carousel if it is already in motion, so that it rotates indefinitely.
Apparently, one of the most common source of autoloader malfunctions is the memory unit.
This is pretty much in line what I heard. Or don’t you agree that reading error can cause loading wrong bin, either empty or different projectile then desired ?
The tradeoffs are significant. Generally non autoloading tanks have faster reloads with higher survivability due to needing an extra crewmember to load. A 40 second repair for a tank without a human loader is bullocks not to mention EVERYYTHING (well mostly everything) inside a tank is critical. Any penetrating hit should cause a repair. For example, gaijin doesn’t model batteries. If the driver was hit in a T-72 side on it would 100% damage or destroy the batteries which is bad as many things in the tank is electrical (same source as below about battery placement).
And even on top of that, a hit to most tank’s with an autoloader would either always destroy the ammunition or kill the crew making the addition of it to the game pointless and redundant for the majority of vehicles. The only tanks this would affect would be the Japanese top tanks and Leclerc due to them having blowout panels so only they need it to be modelled otherwise its a waste of processing power.
31:41 shows that the gunner has a shield he can pull out as well as he states that the commander has a shield as well. So to get your arm eaten you have to reach over the shield to do so and even if the shield is down the breech has a metal bar you have to reach across. Of course he does state it can be removed which I assume many crews would do. Removal of the shield is possible of course but it is called a safety device by the ex german tanker, and its generally seen as pretty stupid to remove a safety device.
In fact if you look at the photo closely you can see that it is still there (the handle gives it away):
That’s why I said ‘with proper maintenance’. The same source also states
it is possible to either replace the electrical contacts on the hard disc, or replace the entire memory unit. This is an easy task that can be done in the field as long as a spare memory unit is available, as the replacement of the unit only requires that the old one has its electrical cable unplugged. which is undoubtedly part of proper maintenance.
Yes it happens. Proper maintenance (such as having a maintenance schedule and checking parts that are more likely to wear faster) would prevent this from being an issue in the field. However thank you for the interesting fact about the T-72 autoloader.
How is having autoloader decrese od long term survability?
I would take solid 6.5 reload no matter what over 6.4 that you have to pay extra for or even 6sec reaload that again pay extra or grind grind grind…
With autoloader you dont have to worry about fire since putting it out wont stop your reload, no loader? no problem reload stays. I would say having not to deal with longer reload is clear increase in long term survability
That tradeoff also includes the much larger vehicle profile due to standing loader. Not sure why you mention batteries when the electrical power is not modeled on any of the vehicles. This is about discrepancy between:
vehicles where loading can be temporarily disabled and permanently lowered by killing a crew
vehicles where the loading cannot be affected in any way
If the ammo always blow up when hit it might be redundant, but we know how it is.
This is not how the maintenance usually works, specially for electric sensor equipment. There are probably very little machines where the sensors are replaced periodically just in case, not even in aviation. And it is usually difficult to determine if the sensor deteriorate, even more so if it has discreet output. So like most on condition parts it works till it doesn’t.
But I’ll surely rise that question next time I bump into tank guys.
Then maybe instead of asking for autoloaders to be modelled to fix another problem that shouldn’t even be a problem in the first place, gaijin should just fix the original problem of ammo not exploding.
You test sensors periodically in aviation to see if they function properly. When you test them is based on the known life of the part either through testing or experience which can be found in the manual. This is part of basic maintenance and the same can most likely be said for a part that is known to fail on a tank.
That would be really interesting and I look forward to what they have to say.
Edit: Ok so I don’t have any electrical licenses but some quick google search shows that testing prox and contact switches for integrity is quite simple all you need is a multimeter to measure voltage flow. If it degrades you replace it.
Would make game more complex and in my eyes more interesting, having more systems simulated. For exaple damage to optics should also have some effect.
Not really, it is more complicated. There are very little life limited parts in AC related to electrical systems a most of them would be batteris and generators but probably all switches are on condition.
Surely there are periodic inspections but but most of them are related to analog I/O sensors. You dont really do periodic resistance checks on discrete I/O sensors.
In therory yes, in practice you’ll start looking for sensor/switch problem when some abnormal behavoiur ie malfunction is detected.
Also my ipression is that the memory unit works like primitive harddrive so checking its functionality would not be that simple.
But in practice would only affect a handful of vehicles making it imo a waste of time. At that point just go play some other game that does. Warthunder isn’t a sim, it only takes certain aspects of reality.
I think you misunderstood me which tbf I wasn’t all that clear. What I meant was that tests and checking on the switches is affected by the age and flight hours of the aircraft, which you find by figuring how long a part lasts on average either through testing or experience. No point in replacing a part on the aircraft if it barely has any flight hours and the part doesn’t degrade on its own.
Depends on how often it malfunctions. The CIA report I linked earlier states that it can do up to 3,000 loading cycles without issue so it seems pretty damn reliable. Maybe after a certain number of operation hours checking of the switches becomes a necessity but at this point I am just guessing. If the CIA report is right then I can see not having it as preventative maintenance.
Its not the memory unit that was the main issue mentioned in the previous source, it was a specific part of it, the discs.
So it would not be a much work, for quite a few vehiles the damage model can be copypasted (T-seris)
Well thanks for recommendation, but I like the SIM mode in WT.
And I’m telling you Its not like that. You test a switch when you replace one or you test periodically swithes which are not normally used like in emergency systems. So you dont really test switches like WoW etc because they are tested every flight.
Yes the discs where the shell type codes are magneticaly stored. So checking functionality or servicing of such LRU is more likely a workshop thing.
And a lot of other vehicles it can’t (Category:Ground vehicles with autoloader - War Thunder Wiki). Its very much a legitimate waste of time to model it on every tank especially since it won’t affect the majority. Again its not an issue (for the majority of tanks) that autoloaders aren’t modelled.
Even gear must be tested every once in a while (based on cycles) which includes switches (on the gear that is). What I am saying is something like that should be implemented for the T-72 to prevent (or minimize) these issues with some sort of time or maybe autoloader cycle based limit were testing more frequently and more in depth becomes required.
Still maintenance though. Specialized maintenance but still maintenance.
It would have wider impact, those drivnig autoloder vehicles as well as those shooting at autoloader vehicle, so almost everybody.
I dont really see reason why the damage model should not be more accurate, if we have such detail like damage model for tank radiators. But I understand that some might dislike that part of their tank would not be invincible anymore :)
That is the problem with the swiches or electrical components in general you can test them but it does not mean they won’t fail during next flight. How is it done in older vehicles like T-72 where those component does not have any IBIT, I intend to find out.
As for the AC maintenence I have my fair share of work experience, and we can continue in PM if you wish.