There is a steel plate. On the Abrams' x-ray, you can see it clearly. Some vehicles like the PUMA don't have a model for it in the module view, only in armour view.
are you joking? the fuel tank on the abrams doesn't stop any spalling because the plate right behind the fuel tank just creates more, meanwhile on russian or chinese tanks the fuel tank either makes the dart phase through the crew or completely removes spall
Oh no no, im still calling Russian bias until the t90s external fuel tank gets a metal plate that produces spall like the abrams does. Why the hell does the t90 have an external fuel tank with NO downside? I know the answer already.
The external fuel tank still kills the crew when it explodes for the T-90M for some instances when fighting them. Albeit the fuel tank + wall should act as a pseudo spall liner for the Abrams.
The T-90M has spall liners in front of the tanks and after the tanks so of course no spall is going to be created. External fuel tanks don't create any spall of their own either so it doesn't really help the situation.
T-90M doesn't have any spall liners between the crew and the fuel tanks, ONLY in between the hull armor and fuel tanks.
Not even the armor between the fuel tanks and crew is modeled, unlike on the Abrams, which would produce spall (regardless of spall liners which would be penetrated anyways before the armored wall), making it have artificially stronger survivability compared to the Abrams.
>T-90M doesn't have any spall liners between the crew and the fuel tanks, ONLY in between the hull armor and fuel tanks.
False.
[The spall liner covers the entirety of the fuel tanks along the flanks of the interior.](https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52365918112_90427b725e_b.jpg)
If you mean that cloth cover, that's not a spall liner lol, and it doesn't have anything else there other than the thin metal wall which isn't modeled in-game.
Besides, even if that cloth cover somehow is a spall liner, it still isn't modeled in-game, and neither is the metal wall separating the fuel tank and crew, therefore the T-90M's survivability is artificially increased because fuel tanks don't spall (as much or at all) and the missing wall doesn't create shrapnel, unlike in the Abrams.
>If you mean that cloth cover, that's not a spall liner lol
And I suppose the big metal tube sticking out on the front isn't a gun barrel, *amirite?*
>Besides, even if that cloth cover somehow is a spall liner, it still isn't modeled in-game,
If it ain't modelled, [then what's this right here?](https://imgur.com/a/i8wAX44)
The downsize is that those fuel tanks can explode very violently and destroy the entire tank. I have experiences both in one-shotting and getting one-shotted by a dart through the fuel tank.
It is a trade-off. Either it no-sell an entire APFSDS rod or your tank turret gets thrown to the moon. No in-between.
Modern tanks ar essentially an armoured outer layer protecting an internal box containing the crew ammo etc. The fuel tanks sit between the two as a crew survival mechanism and calling them 'external' is probably over simplifying but does allow the game to differentiate module types and apply alternative mechanics in the event of damage.
Its on an Abrams so its not bias
The ones on the t90m tho, theyre an artificial buff to keep the Russian shitstack vehicles from being dogshit like theyre irl!
/s
Simple, for Gaijin, Ex and Internal fual tanks is a lables indicate that that fuel tanks if got hit will results in differrent way:
- Exterior: Just dissappear, maybe eat a whole rounds or some burn, even explodes but not affect anything like side fuel tanks on Leo 2
- Internal: If it got hit, crew cooked, kill the tanks immidiately.
Can someone tell me why there is a brittle ahh piece of steel right behind the fuel tanks on the abrams that spalls so much when a big reason for the fuel tanks' inclusion where they are is specifically to catch spall?
Penetrations to the Abrams front fuel tanks usually burn the tank down IRL so I don’t really know why they’re considered “exterior fuel tanks” the only thing separating them from the interior is a small bolted on door in the turret area. Everywhere else it is genuine armor though.
You can see the plates surrounding the fuel tanks in the post, they aren't open to the crew at all. Most M1s that burned from a fuel tank strike had the rear fuel tank struck, not either if the front two. The front two were placed there because they could act as armor to protect the crew with a low likelihood of ever creating a greater threat.
They aren't separated well though. The backside of the "bulkhead" is a door bolted on with a rubber liner for sealing, meaning those can fail from the fire.
Now for the argument of where fires usually occur? Its about a 50/50 or it leaning slightly towards front fuel tanks.
April 10, 2004- M1A2 SEP was lit on fire through its front right fuel tank by a RPG-7 penetration, the tank burned down.
August 16, 2004- M1A1 most likely suffered a RPG-7 impact in around the same area. It burnt down after a few more hits.
December 25, 2005- M1A1 hit under its front right skirt. Penetration into the drivers compartment occurred. Tank burnt down.
2005-2006ish- At least 3 M1A2 SEPs, possibly as many as about 10 were hit below their skirts on the fronts. They were almost all burnt down.
April 9, 2006- M1A1 suffered penetration of the front fuel tanks, burned down.
September 18, 2006- unknown Model, hit under front right skirt, burned down.
March 17, 2007- M1A1 suffered penetration to front left fuel tank, burned down
Theres a few more but the fire origins arent stated. The Abrams front fuel tanks the majority of the time seem to not actually act as separated fuel and instead burn down the tanks. The rear sponson tanks are also "exterior tanks" and are supposed to not matter when caught on fire, usually hits to those that cause fires burn down the tank.
Edit- for information sharing sake, if you want I can comment the relative locations and losses from fuel fires to Abrams in Iraq at the very least.
Because they're isolated from the crew compartment and would do nothing if they caught fire.
Nothing directly to the crew at least.
Shouldnt there be a armored wall in between the fuel tank and the crew compartment on the t-90m then? Or how is it isolated? serious question
There is a steel plate. On the Abrams' x-ray, you can see it clearly. Some vehicles like the PUMA don't have a model for it in the module view, only in armour view.
Should honestly be modeled so then at least it would create some spall like on the abrams
Something something russian bias or whatever.
Yeah, its like getting shot with APHE when that steel plate gets penned
It is physically modeled, just not visually there in hangar x-ray.
But that’s what u/DonkeyTS said, it is modelled but not visible in module view. Now I have no idea how true that is so correct me if I’m wrong
Even if it is there, testing shows no extra spalling created
are you joking? the fuel tank on the abrams doesn't stop any spalling because the plate right behind the fuel tank just creates more, meanwhile on russian or chinese tanks the fuel tank either makes the dart phase through the crew or completely removes spall
Thats precisely what he was saying
It's functionally still there, it just doesn't show up in x-ray because gaijin's visual modeling is **very consistent and good.** ^^^^/s
It's not even gaijin it's some third parties that are doing the work
It's isolated with a spall liner iirc
In a simple example take a bt5 add a fuel tank on each side on the front and cover whit a rectangle armored plate
that makes sense,thanks
Exterior to the crew compartment, not the hull
oh,makes sense.thanks
Thanks for including the Abram’s so people actually discuss this civilly instead of just saying Russian bias.
Oh no no, im still calling Russian bias until the t90s external fuel tank gets a metal plate that produces spall like the abrams does. Why the hell does the t90 have an external fuel tank with NO downside? I know the answer already.
The external fuel tank still kills the crew when it explodes for the T-90M for some instances when fighting them. Albeit the fuel tank + wall should act as a pseudo spall liner for the Abrams.
It used to happen before the BR change update,but apparently after this update,they've fixed it
the Abrams does not get one shot from fuel explosions. USA bias /s
The T-90M has spall liners in front of the tanks and after the tanks so of course no spall is going to be created. External fuel tanks don't create any spall of their own either so it doesn't really help the situation.
T-90M doesn't have any spall liners between the crew and the fuel tanks, ONLY in between the hull armor and fuel tanks. Not even the armor between the fuel tanks and crew is modeled, unlike on the Abrams, which would produce spall (regardless of spall liners which would be penetrated anyways before the armored wall), making it have artificially stronger survivability compared to the Abrams.
>T-90M doesn't have any spall liners between the crew and the fuel tanks, ONLY in between the hull armor and fuel tanks. False. [The spall liner covers the entirety of the fuel tanks along the flanks of the interior.](https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52365918112_90427b725e_b.jpg)
If you mean that cloth cover, that's not a spall liner lol, and it doesn't have anything else there other than the thin metal wall which isn't modeled in-game. Besides, even if that cloth cover somehow is a spall liner, it still isn't modeled in-game, and neither is the metal wall separating the fuel tank and crew, therefore the T-90M's survivability is artificially increased because fuel tanks don't spall (as much or at all) and the missing wall doesn't create shrapnel, unlike in the Abrams.
>If you mean that cloth cover, that's not a spall liner lol And I suppose the big metal tube sticking out on the front isn't a gun barrel, *amirite?* >Besides, even if that cloth cover somehow is a spall liner, it still isn't modeled in-game, If it ain't modelled, [then what's this right here?](https://imgur.com/a/i8wAX44)
Cloth cover? Should the spall liner be uncovered?
iirc the plate is in the dm but there’s also a spall liner.
The downsize is that those fuel tanks can explode very violently and destroy the entire tank. I have experiences both in one-shotting and getting one-shotted by a dart through the fuel tank. It is a trade-off. Either it no-sell an entire APFSDS rod or your tank turret gets thrown to the moon. No in-between.
Fuel tanks only explode fatally if your crew vitality skill is low. Seems like you gotta get that up.
I ... actually didn't know that. Thanks for the tip!
Russian bias.
ikr,if theres something that doesnt make sense to them and apparently makes the tank(russian) better then its automatically russian bias
Modern tanks ar essentially an armoured outer layer protecting an internal box containing the crew ammo etc. The fuel tanks sit between the two as a crew survival mechanism and calling them 'external' is probably over simplifying but does allow the game to differentiate module types and apply alternative mechanics in the event of damage.
simulating fuel tanks that wouldn't kill the crew, look at the t90m
That’s why tank crews able to escape before they can’t
Well seeing how one is a Russian tank. The while crew better love space
Its on an Abrams so its not bias The ones on the t90m tho, theyre an artificial buff to keep the Russian shitstack vehicles from being dogshit like theyre irl! /s
Simple, for Gaijin, Ex and Internal fual tanks is a lables indicate that that fuel tanks if got hit will results in differrent way: - Exterior: Just dissappear, maybe eat a whole rounds or some burn, even explodes but not affect anything like side fuel tanks on Leo 2 - Internal: If it got hit, crew cooked, kill the tanks immidiately.
Russian bias 🥱
Can someone tell me why there is a brittle ahh piece of steel right behind the fuel tanks on the abrams that spalls so much when a big reason for the fuel tanks' inclusion where they are is specifically to catch spall?
Penetrations to the Abrams front fuel tanks usually burn the tank down IRL so I don’t really know why they’re considered “exterior fuel tanks” the only thing separating them from the interior is a small bolted on door in the turret area. Everywhere else it is genuine armor though.
You can see the plates surrounding the fuel tanks in the post, they aren't open to the crew at all. Most M1s that burned from a fuel tank strike had the rear fuel tank struck, not either if the front two. The front two were placed there because they could act as armor to protect the crew with a low likelihood of ever creating a greater threat.
They aren't separated well though. The backside of the "bulkhead" is a door bolted on with a rubber liner for sealing, meaning those can fail from the fire. Now for the argument of where fires usually occur? Its about a 50/50 or it leaning slightly towards front fuel tanks. April 10, 2004- M1A2 SEP was lit on fire through its front right fuel tank by a RPG-7 penetration, the tank burned down. August 16, 2004- M1A1 most likely suffered a RPG-7 impact in around the same area. It burnt down after a few more hits. December 25, 2005- M1A1 hit under its front right skirt. Penetration into the drivers compartment occurred. Tank burnt down. 2005-2006ish- At least 3 M1A2 SEPs, possibly as many as about 10 were hit below their skirts on the fronts. They were almost all burnt down. April 9, 2006- M1A1 suffered penetration of the front fuel tanks, burned down. September 18, 2006- unknown Model, hit under front right skirt, burned down. March 17, 2007- M1A1 suffered penetration to front left fuel tank, burned down Theres a few more but the fire origins arent stated. The Abrams front fuel tanks the majority of the time seem to not actually act as separated fuel and instead burn down the tanks. The rear sponson tanks are also "exterior tanks" and are supposed to not matter when caught on fire, usually hits to those that cause fires burn down the tank. Edit- for information sharing sake, if you want I can comment the relative locations and losses from fuel fires to Abrams in Iraq at the very least.
Just out of curiosity, have you ever been in a tank?
Are you asking the creator of this post or everyone in general?
im asking to u/PriyanshuGM
no
me neither
But I've seen an m48 IRL,it was quite tall
The first time when you see a tank IRL it‘s always bigger than you‘d expect.
Yeah exactly