I mean look around, EVERYTHING is getting blown up by ATGM’s. Leo’s and Challengers too.
We’ve broken this down just a few days ago. The report itself was a huge nothing burger. The guy is basically complaining that the TOW-2B isn’t strong enough, when the angles of the charges vs most ERA equiped Russian tanks makes a crew kill much more likely than an ammo kill. He wants an ammo kill when he isn’t getting one. Depending on the flight angle, the missile may be detonating over part of the hull, and depending on the side, may be detonating above the fuel tank where some tanks but shells that aren’t in the carousel.
If the bug report was worded something like: “I’ve notice that the carousel seems to behave the way wet/protected storage shells do. Is there a chance the carousel has been coded improperly?”. Instead he complains about not getting the 2A, and now being able to fight ERA equipped MBT’s the way he wants to.
Shoot for the fueltanks, because the well used to be new updates, Russian Fueltanks Explode 90% of the time, even though diesle is very hard to set aflame, but oh well, i guess the russians got their time to suffer
This is completely working as intended. No matter the Everests of information you will ever provide Gaijin and their power crazed russian moderators in the bug reporting website, they will not change CASELESS ammunition burn rates to high 90s which is where it should be. And im sure the “wet stowage parameter” was applied to the carousel rounds as well as the ones stuffed in the internal diesel tanks, which is probably the case considering gaijins hilarious mismanagement with Russian/Soviet vehicles protection statistics.
Either way it’s stupid that any tank can eat a direct hit to the ammo. Ammo should have 100% chance to explode when hit, it’s not realistic but at least it’d be consistent.
They should all burn too if its case-less ammunition. Thats the point. Cased ammuniton w brass should probably not burn unless penetrated by large spall.
The only time caseless ammuniton shouldnt burn is probably with the new nato ammo thats designed to not burn when hit for example like Dm63 or 73 or what ever.
I have no bias.
And the british charges in glycol should have reduced burn chance, like wet stowage should provide. Except in cases where its stowed dry.
All of the japanese tanks had their ammo directly hit by a 75mm shell, and the entire rack disappeared instead of blowing up.
It is a game bug, and ammo disappearing happens with 100s of vehicles.
It happens, when the tank has either:
a, 2 piece ammo
b, ammo modelled in bulks, instead of individually modelled shells
It never happens with tanks that use single piece ammo that is modelled individually (except blowout panels on MBTs, but it is how it should work).
If you have a counterexample, please provide it.
It is reducing the chance of shrapnel igniting it. A direct hit into the charge will blow the tank up.
Im saying ammo should not disappear when hit. It should explode with a very high success rate ~90%. Only in select cases should this burn chance be reduced.
The ammo shouldnt explode, as its electricaly fired and is extremely stable (similar to all modern ammo), like C4, although a hard enough hit through all the armor could cause it to “shock” and detonate. Most of the videos of exploding T-80’s isn’t an ammo cookoff, it’s actually the hydraulic fluid of the autoloader catching fire and burning every flammable thing in the tank, with a possibility of an ammo cookoff.
I think it’s a common knowledge of everyone to know modern ammo is electrically fired dude. Yes, the autoloader for T-72/T-90 is electric, and T-64/T-80 is hydraulic. I feel, not even being that interested in Russian equipment, and me knowing this, but not you, doesn’t make sense.
