This is not what is modeled ingame.
Welcome to <17mm of structural steel
1 Like
Why is this not modeled on the T-90M since it’s fuel tanks are also “external”?
They’re not out of the crew compartment, hence I think it’s wrong to call them external but for the sake of them being fire-explosion proof in game they have been given such classification, as IRL T-90M’s fuel tanks are fire explosion proof due to unique structure compared to other T series.
3 Likes
If this is true then Gaijin should change their model so as not to provide false information.
In the recent Dev post Stona explicitly states they are “external”. It is confusing to call something external if it’s actually internal.
Again, they are called external for the game logic, as all im game internal fuel tanks tend to explode.
The entire material of the T90M’s fuel tank has been changed to the latest anti-peel lining, which doesn’t explode and doesn’t produce debris from shell hits, a Russian patriotic game that can’t be helped.
1 Like
If this is true it is confusing and should be changed to something specific to the fuel tank.
The reason for this is this:
Self sealing fuel tank which also has (iirc the material correctly) alluminium sponge-like filler to not let fire explosion form big and out of the fuel tank.
4 Likes
Is this material exposed to the driver or is there a metal plate between them?
It is covered by electronics, spall liner, the material of the fuel tank itself is self sealing and seems to be rubberized too.
Also tecnically, its not fuel explosion but the gases in the fuel tank exploding.
Since T-72B (we dont know if earlier models do the sams) the fuel is pumped to frontal fuel tanks, meaning only back and center ones will be left empty first.
By game logic all fuel tanks are half full, which goes against what I have just said, so logically frontal fuel tanks in game should not explode but the back one should have the highest chance to explode.
1 Like
This is not modeled ingame. Where is the spall lining between the fuel tank and the crew compartment?
In terms of chance to explode maybe, not for the purpose of stopping spall which is the major issue fuel tanks present.
Russian placement of fuel tanks is given full advantage of this while other tanks with exterior fuel tanks suffer as if there is no fuel tank present to catch spalling.
I do not understand the disparity except in that Russia’s fuel tanks are internal. Now I’m being told its fuel tank is not only external, but still acts as a full spall liner. It seems extremely illogical.
I could be wrong as I do not have image of T-90M’s driver spot on hand in a second, but either way it wouldnt really change much for the lack of spalling from fuel tanks side to begin with.
Again, game logic.
It is game logic that a fuel tanks as a module eats spall too, IRL spall would have energy to penetrate it and then it would be matter of remaining fuel and volume of fuel tank to play a factor in stopping the spall fragments. But thats not modeled.
It changes it very much for the Abrams which has the plate modeled.
Again, in this case it’s not behind a thick plate of steel, which on itself creates spall, the fuel tank of Abrams doesnt create spall, but eats spall from the hull, the steel plate makes some.
It can also catch rounds like 3BM42 that have gone through fuel tank, with fuel tank being able to absorb rounds as well.
Either placing it outside of crew compartment behind a steel plate, or making it self sealing with special filler to help.
It is modeled. Its just modeled as less than 17 mm of structural steel and therefore doesn’t spall. Itd probably 6mm structural steel, same as the carousel armor box, but you would need a model viewer to figure out the exact nature of the fuel tank.
If it was 4mm of armor steel it would spall just fine
1 Like
What was typed here before was related to steel guarding the autoloader, IDK why i thought of kt.
Cant delete my reply for soms reason.
This is modeled and produces spall.
There is no plate between the driver / fuel tank.