Russian ammo carousel doesn't explode from engine fire but turret stowed ammo in NATO tanks detonates

if anything russian tanks should shoot a round every 3-4s because of the time it takes the carousel to spin

The carousel spinning doesn’t load the shell, that’s an entirely different piece of equipment.

IRL the reload time is more like 10 seconds because you need to prepare the gun to fire new types of AMMO, but Gaijin artificially buffs reload times in game across the board for a more engaging environment.

again, the only reason irl time is 10s because any time they want different ammo the carousel has to spin, no sane player is gonna take more than 2 types of shells, which means all the apfsds is next to each other, therefore no need to spin the carousel

I’m not advocating for realistic reload times I’m just discounting the notion that the reload rate should equal the carousel spin time because that ignores the mechanism loading the shell in to the launcher itself.

I would say no. To disable 95 percent of autoloaders you have to go through ammo first which means only vehicles without blow out panels would be affected (off the top of my head that would by the two Type 90s, two Type 10s, and three Leclercs).

I mean it could. We could go flow blown out model everything like battery and hydraulic lines but honestly game would be hell then. Any penetrating hit would cause a 40 sec repair. Not that I don’t see what your saying but the vehicles it would impact would be very low and it wouldn’t be the T series.

But then if we are gonna model every mechanical part then we should model human limitations such as crew skills degrading over time especially for the loader. Honestly I don’t want any of this. Warthunder is based on some parts of reality and leaves out others to make the game fun first and foremost.

Yeah I know how AC maintenance works I work in the industry as well (although my experience is on the lower end). Nothing is infallible. I do concede that I did not know that the T-72 had such problems with its autoloader, and merely thought that some preventative maintenance would minimize such problems. You were right however I don’t think it is a common issue. (Read CIA report I linked earlier for why I think this).

We could but I think this discussion doesn’t have much place to go after this. Obviously we both have different idea on were the game should go. I did thoroughly enjoy talking with you though and wish you the best man.


1 Like

Engine fire not ammo detonation from direct shot impact

You should probably pay attention to diagrams like these:

I don’t know how the crew fatigue is related to damage model, but surely more accurate modeling would not hurt anybody.
They could also model lap-loading ( second round within 2-3s ) with crew fatigue :)

In cases like this when the T-80 absolutely deserved to die but insted it just have wounded crew a few shells less it would at least force the autoloader repair:

Also the 40s repair is not mandatory value is it ? I can imagine that carousel autoloaders would be able to load shell from alligned casete when damqaged (simulating stuck carousel) so they could fire one more shot before repair.

nvm its 7. something seconds, also this is the t72 mechanism

iwas talking about t80

OK “russian tanks” = T-80 good to know…

Anyhow this should be the loader from T-80:

Still bit more then “3-4s” and quite close to in game 6.5s


Or just make it so ammo explodes consistently? That guy would of died 100% if ammo exploded. I noticed when I hit ammo with solid shot, spall that would of killed the crew instead only turns them red before the animation of exploding ammo turns them black in the kill cam, so I think there is some jank going on across the entire damage model when ammo doesn’t explode when it should.
Plus ammo not exploding is a problem on every vehicle as well.

I have more examples as well.
Please note: Ammo not exploding does benefit soviet tanks more than NATO tanks at top tier due to it being easier to access on soviet tanks.

What you are asking for is quite complex. Gaijin damage models work in direct hit = destroyed. Some serious coding would be required to separate fatal and non fatal components (but would still affect the reload if directly hit) and its just not worth it because it wouldn’t solve the issue of soviet tanks returning fire when they should of died. The majority of cases when the ammo doesn’t explode on a soviet tank, the attacker is immediately destroyed in a single shot.

Just fix the main issue and everyone would be able to go along with their lives instead of some weird compromise.

1 Like

Blowout panels explode if you have HESH or HEAT. No idea how realistic it is, but that’s how it’s always been

Unrealistic but not the specific problem.

Direct hit with ammo sure, slow burning fire in a completely separate compartment when it doesn’t detonate Russian ammo no.

Extremely unrealistic. I assume gaijin just has them made that way for “balance”.

Standard M1A1/A2 load is majority not APFSDS, and the blowout panels are rated to have that entire load burn. The composition of explosives in the exploding shells (HEATFS, HESH, AMAP) should also be stable enough to handle direct impacts from degraded penetrators, HEAT jets and fire for extended periods.

IMO you are still mixing two different things, one of them is not exploding ammo which is clearly Gaijins design choice, and not simulating damage on major mechanical component on certain model of vehicles.

By your logic we would need not to simulate any system located next to ammo because hit to that area would blow a whole thing.

Also two scenarios to consider:

  • Automatic ready rack might be temporarily empty, therefore cannot be destroyed by ammo exp on some vehicles
  • low volatile cartridges has already been developed (and fielded?) IRL, so what then when the cartridges realistically stop exploding ?

It is ? Not see much difference between that and be ale to fire round in chamber when the ammo storage vents out its content through blow out panels.
Anyhow it was just example, other options like crew can still load gun manually when the auto loader is fried.
I don’t know what the majority of the cases are, but I don’t propose this to stop Russian tanks to shoot back, but to settle the discrepancy between machine loading and human loading.

1 Like

DM63 since 2005, and DM11 since 2019, yes.

Other projectiles of this kind are;

  • Israeli M338 with home-developed LOVA propellant.
  • American M829A4 APFSDS with German developed SCBD propellant (they also use DM11 HE-FS).

Yes but you stated previously that this would be a nerf to soviet tanks. It would not.

For scenario one
-No soviet tanker takes more ammo than they would need as the mechanized ready rack is massive (22 rounds on the T-72, 28 for the T-80 not counting the round in the breach). Plus if the ammo rack is empty the massive reload de buff is there to compensate and if you shot a soviet tank with no ammo the spall with kill the crew (if they finally fix the thin armor not spalling). A 40+ repair on top of being already dead is redundant.

For scenario two
-Gaijin doesn’t model that simply because no ammo in game (to my knowledge) is like that.

Yes. Nothing like it has been implemented in the game ever plus soviet tanks being able to still retaliate would solve zero issues except now they have to wait 40 seconds to be able to kill another tank. You will still be dead.

Redundant as well as the T-72/T-80 autoloader takes a minute to manually load (which is basically never in this game). If you really want to model autoloaders just make them get destroyed in one hit but as I previously said its redundant.

If you want to model autoloaders so bad than human loaders should tire after 3 to 5 shots with the reload steadily decreasing the more you fire and more dramatically with time, electronic systems should be modelled, hydraulics, etc since those are all critical as well. However warthunder is game taking parts of reality to have a fun time. Modelling all of it wouldn’t be fun especially when modelling only one system but not the downsides of others. Currently as it stands an autoloader decreases survivability while giving a steady reload but can’t be destroyed and human loaders increase survivability with a faster reload but can be incapacitated. The tradeoffs seem quite balanced as it is rn.

AND STILL modeling autoloaders doesn’t solve ammo not exploding which if modelled would deal away with the issues with autoloaders (except the handful with blowout panels).

Qu’elle suprise.

Really quick:

Good, that make things easy. And I did not said anything about nerf btw.

I did not talked about T-72 or T-80, If you look at AMX-13 or AGS or M1128 you’ll understand.

Maybe not yet but sooner or later it will.

Except every tank with blowout panels has this “feature”

I find it very interesting that you claim that it would not be nerf, it does not change anything, even call it redundant, yet you strongly opposing it. Even proposing counter nerf to human loaders.
Sound bit you are contradicting yourself.

Anyhow since I was not talking explicitly about soviet vehicles but about auto loaders in general here is one example, where non of your arguments apply:
What happens if you hit that part of the vehicle from a side ? Yeap big fat nothing. Somehow there is no ammo, so not even 100% ammo det. chance would not change anything. No repair timer either.

IRL that part of the turret is occupied by autoloader:

What do you mean by somehow? A round would only be there in the reloading process, that would be like detonating a round while it is in the loader’s hand.