Yep
I appreciate the infodump on the propellant. Its very interesting.
However propellant is never suppose to explode, that leads to catastrophic failures.
Its always suppose to burn. To ramp up the pressure.
But you cant convince ANYONE here, that ammunition from 60 years ago is more advanced and stable in terms of reduced preignition chance than ammunition from 20-30 years ago, or even now.
Current events however do show many burn outs. And a significant amount of explosions. And afaik the carousel motors are at the bottom of the tank. Below the carousel. Its just hard for me to believe that a system that is relatively small, like a hydraulic motor and a few lines are the biggest cause to blame for burn outs/explosions. When the shear amount of ammunition that is stored unprotected is present in the vehicles.
It is true that the ammunition is stored very low in the vehicle, which does help, but not from top attack atgms. A Ukrainian commander mentioned not taking any more ammo other than in the carousel to reduce burn chance.
There are hydraulic lines on all 28 ammo loaders, and all around the carousel, the only ones that store in the bottom are the T-72/T-90 autoloaders, and at that point, it doesn’t matter because it’s electric, I didn’t say it’s impossible for a burn out, it does happen, but is unlikely, and requires very specific circumstances for it to fully go off. I don’t know if you know how hydraulics work, I figure you do, but maybe you don’t. Hydraulics have to be always connected, therefore, there are many hoses on the outside of the carousel, and there is a spall shield, like the other guy said, around 7 to 10mm in width. Yet again, bringing you to the exception of, it is very very specific circumstances, and like in the Ukraine war, they are mostly using drones, they hit from the top, and do a similar thing. There’s too many factors for it to realistically be modeled in the game, because it’s too much to compute.
I do understand hydraulics, however i forgot that each arm in the carousel has to have atleast 2 lines.
An upper with T shaped interchanges and a bottom with a similar system afaik. I’m just saying, T-80 in specific, it can explode, the ammo is definitely able to cook, like you said, with the current show in the east, the tanks crews in the T-64/T-80 crews are more scared of the hydraulic fluid than the ammo, because the hydraulic burn would be a much slower and painful death than an ammo burn, where you would almost instantly, faster than your brain can process, be completely, I guess incinerated, by the fire ball. It’s just like I said, in game, it’s not able to fully be 100% perfect and accurate because of the processing power required. If it was, I believe (with some other game mods) it would be the worlds best armored vehicle training simulator.
If you hit a singular piece of ammo, and instead it being one just disappearing (which what usually happens if you hit just one) theres lot disappearing it means entire branch of ammo that has just disappeared is modeled as one module, thus it has same chance of exploding as one ammo which is rare.
Old tanks have this problem.
Its bigger hitbox but worse chance of actually doing anything.
2 Likes
Usually it hit in the middle of the rack, so it hit multiple pieces.
On tanks that have individually modelled single piece ammo, even if you critically damage one piece, the tank will blow up.
I’ve seen the 0.15 “ammo” detonation chance from datamines bandied around this thread a couple of times. It should be clarified that this 0.15 chance does not refer to ammo detonation. (IE: shell going kaboom to make all other ammo go kaboom)
It refers to the probability a tank will experience a catastrophic detonation that renders it a smoldering crater, not a burned out hulk. It is literally the chance the vehicle has to go “poof” and cease existing after dying to ammo/fuel detonation.
In roughly 300 tanks destroyed, all with 0.15 detonationprob, only 48 were recorded as catastrophic detonations where the burned out hulk was not present. That’s more or less consistent with what datamine shows.
1 Like
ammo detonation is one thing there also spalling that Russian tanks seem to have less spall than the other hell i don’t know if it not handheld for Russian mains when what i should call?
and God forbid L27A1 and DM53 can’t have anti era tip for some reason.
The percieved reduction in spall is due to volumetric interaction and internal plating overperforming (or spall/fragmentation underperforming).
Basically every time you shoot a BVM in the side, their ERA shaves a big chunk of penetration off your dart, and usually you hit more than one plate, again shaving off penetration. Lower residual penetration results in reduced spall (can be seen by comparing C76A1 vs DM63 (105) against a T-80 driver weak area). Then the internal carousel plating eats many fragments from the side armor while not making any of its own. So you end up with 120mm DM53 making damage like 84mm APDS.
The internal plating shouldn’t eat so much fragmentation. Realistically, if a dart has already expended a ton of energy piercing ERA and hull side armor, then this internal plate would act as a shotgun to generate even more spall.
2 Likes
the reduced spall is due to the armour around the carousel, it is more noticeable on the t80 as it extends upwards unlike on the t72s, and since it is thin structural steel doesn’t generate secondary shatters it eats the spall
There is also an issue, that not only soviet/russian tanks have the 0.15% chance, but everything except the Merkava, and Abrams i think.
In a thread i have all tanks listed that have a different chance (so every that that’s det. prob is not 15%).
Yeah, especially 4S24U bags. Those have the tendency to eat all energy of your round, and leave little to nothing to give spall… Which doesn’t help when there’s the aforementioned spall liners and plates.
I always aim as low as possible. It usually misses everything and hits the bottom part of the autoloader
ERA offers little to no protection against EFP effects. Literally gaijin caved to whiners when the TOW 2B was added.
Just because there is a hole in the blow out door, does not mean its not going to work. The majority of the pressure is still going to follow the most obvious path of least resistance.
Yeah, while the other majority will kill the crew. Flame and gas shot going out od the hole will be like spraying inside of a tank with flamethrower.
Plus IRL blowout panels are not a guaranteed save, as well as if door is open its death for the crew, which doesnt seem to be modeled in game.
Don’t worry. Gaijin will fix it when they decide that russia needs a nerf.
That means never.
1 Like
Errrm - that’s not how physics works.
Any energetic combustion will find the path of least resistance and naturally the vast majority of that energy will follow it.
Otherwise not a single jet engine, rocket motor, internal combustion engine, reaction engine or anything else that harnesses combustion to generate motion or momentum would work…
Your posts are usually fairly balanced and rational but come on…
1 Like
the keyword is vast.
I have always seen two points about this: it either doesnt save crew if penetrated or theres high chance of getting crew hurt or killed due to the same hole, but not the entiriety of crew.
Spoiler
Compare it to like throwing a plate that still does have weight or going through a hole, making it only bigger in process, which is easier?
And I am admiring that on topic of blowout panels I take the majority’s choice that makes some sense to me. If I am wrong though I apologize furtherhand.
Meanwhile legitimate tests: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1LPBoYxdGR2g7yEmUO6l9gbwuqlZOH2AW/view?usp=drive_link
1 Like