Tanks - Damage improvements

[HaseDesTodes 62]

23 minutes ago, Strike_NOR said:

Either way, there should be some randomization to this effect. I guess it could best be done by varying the turret velocity between 0 m/s and about 5 m/s and some directional randomness. (At low velocities, the turret will just sit on top of the wreck/slightly misaligned - at higher velocities, it will visually leap off to the side, maybe even landing upside down.

i guess it would be cool on the one hand, but i'm afraid more (physics enabled) wrecks randomly flying around could become annoying quite fast

 

and 5 m/s (18 km/h) with arma physics...

i can see ICBTT (inter-continental ballistic tank turrets) coming  :)

 

 

@Asheara

i am currently doing some damage testing and i noticed some thing

getAllHitPointsDamage for a T100 (didn't test anything else yet) gives me

Quote

[["hitera_top_left_1","hitera_top_left_2","hitera_top_right_1","hitera_top_right_2","hithull","hitengine","hitfuel","hitltrack","hitrtrack","hitera_front","hitera_left_1","hitera_left_2","hitera_right_1","hitera_right_2","hitturret","hitgun","hitcomturret","hitcomgun","#light_l","#light_r","#light_l","#light_r"],["era_l_t_1_point","era_l_t_2_point","era_r_t_1_point","era_r_t_2_point","hit_hull_point","hit_engine_point","hit_fuel_point","hit_trackl_point",  -------->""<---------- ,"era_f_point","era_l_1_point","era_l_2_point","era_r_1_point","era_r_2_point","hit_main_turret_point","hit_main_gun_point","hit_com_turret_point","hit_com_gun_point","light_l","light_r","light_l","light_r"],[0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0]]

there is a ' "" ' where a 'hit_trackr_point' is probably supposed to be

[Strike_NOR 898]

7 minutes ago, Night515 said:

@Asheara I suppose it's safe to ask this, are there any plans to give the existing tanks different ammo such as HEAT?

Check the Varsuk and slammer UP ;)

[scavenjer 112]

Just now, Strike_NOR said:

Check the Varsuk and slammer UP ;)

I think he meant new shells, those have been there since the tanks were first added, it'd be nice if the HE on the 120s was MP or if we got frag/canister shot.

Not to mention IMO the Varsuk and Slammer (120) should both get ATGMs as both of them have them IRL.

 

More ammo choices would be nice, I honestly don't want to rely purely on mods for such basic things :/ .

[Strike_NOR 898]

2 minutes ago, scavenjer said:

I think he meant new shells, those have been there since the tanks were first added

Well he specifically asked for HEAT.

 

I can't remember seeing HEAT in the Varsuk or Slammer UP prior to wednesdays update. I know the Kuma and Slammer only have APFSDS and HE now.

 

Besides, the devs have already teased us with some hints of SACLOS so i suspect it's coming.

 

[scavenjer 112]

Just now, Strike_NOR said:

Well he specifically asked for HEAT.

 

I can't remember seeing HEAT in the Varsuk or Slammer UP prior to wednesdays update. I know the Kuma and Slammer only have APFSDS and HE now.

 

Besides, the devs have already teased us with some hints of SACLOS so i suspect it's coming.

 

Both Varsuk (125) and Slammer UP (105) had HEAT, the slammer UP however had HEAT-MP which was much less potent and overall a bit underwhelming compared to full on HE or HEAT

[SzepyCZ 22]

14 minutes ago, scavenjer said:

I honestly don't want to rely purely on mods for such basic things :/ .

 this↑↑

I still remember when BI said that APS cannot be done in arma, yet next day it was already done by modders.

If tanks DLC will be lacking such major content (like in all previous DLCs) as APS, proper HEAT dmg model etc.. , then i certainly wont buy it.

[Strike_NOR 898]

I see. Obviously I have not taken much interest in vanilla A3 tanks ammo until recently. Good thing that has changed.

 

Always felt that HEAT simulation was entirely flawed in vanilla since it apparently doesn't penetrate, but just damages with a sphere of influence from the impact point.

[scavenjer 112]

4 minutes ago, Strike_NOR said:

I see. Obviously I have not taken much interest in vanilla A3 tanks ammo until recently. Good thing that has changed.

 

Always felt that HEAT simulation was entirely flawed in vanilla since it apparently doesn't penetrate, but just damages with a sphere of influence from the impact point.

Yup, good thing BI is surprising us by doing the unexpected :D.

[SuicideKing 233]

1 hour ago, SzepyCZ said:

If tanks DLC will be lacking such major content (like in all previous DLCs) as APS, proper HEAT dmg model etc.. , then i certainly wont buy it.

Meh, couldn't care that much about APS. ERA is good enough.

 

And you'll get these systems for free, because BI is cool like that ;)

[scavenjer 112]

1 minute ago, SuicideKing said:

Meh, couldn't care that much about APS. ERA is good enough.

 

And you'll get these systems for free, because BI is cool like that ;)

TBH, APS is kinda needed in PvP, unfortunately it was kinda confirmed to not be in development though.

[SzepyCZ 22]

10 minutes ago, SuicideKing said:

Meh, couldn't care that much about APS. ERA is good enough.

 

And you'll get these systems for free, because BI is cool like that ;)

in case you dont remember A3 is set in year 2035

[AveryTheKitty 2626]

15 minutes ago, SzepyCZ said:

in case you dont remember A3 is set in year 2035

 

The Arma 3 team has limited resources as they're working on Arma 4, which is the reason why APS probably won't make it into release.

[oukej 2910]

On 2/22/2018 at 9:38 AM, Strike_NOR said:

Because of engine limitations, @oukej explained that the PCML has to scan at an approximate 45 degree down angle for targets to be reliably detected.

This also means the HEAT "projectile" will travel downwards at 45 degrees. Which in turn means the projectile will enter the upper closest side and exit the lower opposite side of the target (where the tracks are) and damage this area. Thats probably why the opposite tracks are destroyed and may very well happen IRL.

1

 

The way it works is slightly different. It's not exactly how NLAW or TOW-2B work IRL. Parent missile itself doesn't scan for targets. It has to have a "locked target". It's a simplification. The submunition is generated in the direction of the parent munition's target. This is triggered only at a certain distance from such target and this distance has to be higher than the overflight vertical offset. As we couldn't rely on catching the precise moment when the missile is exactly on top of the target this margin has to be just big enough to give the simulation enough space for triggering the subammo. (Apparently not big enough looking at the Tempest video :/)

Updated the info on submunitions - https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Arma_3_Weapon_Config_Guidelines#Ammo_changes_on_fly_and_on_hit (any volunteer to add subammo properties to CfgAmmo_Config_Reference ? ;))

Re questions about HEAT ammo - submunitions are a (rather unnecessarily expensive) possibility.

[x3kj 1247]

On 22.2.2018 at 3:41 PM, Strike_NOR said:

Give it a like if you agree, quote and trash me if you don't :)

Too much talking, not enough doing :P

 

I started my own extended damage system (dealing with critical post penetration effects) starting at end of 2016. Featurelist is almost complete, only few things missing and multiplayer validation needs to be done (folks from IF3 team helped with initial testing and MP compatibility). But we were holding off for a long time, waiting for tank dlc. Seems it will have to be reactivated all now. It only works for purpose build vehicles and configs (requires model adjustement), can't just plug and play. Plus ammo damage and vehicle armor needs to be totally rebalanced because of the annoying "damage spilling through armor" from high hit values. I'm not sure if the latter can be avoided now with the component system. Rebalancing is not an issue for me because i have "total freedom" with my total conversion, but for others trying to integrate vanilla and 3rd party stuff it's problematic and mostly impossible. Maybe the rebalancing can be avoided with components now, but i need answers to the very specific questions i posted to be able to determine the effect and implications of new changes on this system @Asheara .

https://pastebin.com/TgivV5qg

 

You can see some of the "critical" effects like fire and ammo explosion in this old video (it's a bit biased towards instant-effects, because i know where the weak points are and the guns dont have dispersion)

1 hour ago, oukej said:

Re questions about HEAT ammo - submunitions are a (rather unnecessarily expensive) possibility.

Unnecessarily expensive because there is a better way to create penetrating jets, or because HEAT damage is intented to be caused differently? I would prefer a simulated jet over a bunch of radius calculations and hit values ...

Talking expensive - can you give a ballpark figure how much more expensive submunition is compared to a regular projectile (assuming a carrier projectile that spawns a single submunition projectile)?

 

[oukej 2910]

28 minutes ago, x3kj said:

Unnecessarily expensive because there is a better way to create penetrating jets, or because HEAT damage is intented to be caused differently? I would prefer a simulated jet over a bunch of radius calculations and hit values ...

Talking expensive - can you give a ballpark figure how much more expensive submunition is compared to a regular projectile (assuming a carrier projectile that spawns a single submunition projectile)?

1

1. Not sure yet. 2. It should be "just" another simulated projectile (+spawn, despawn...).

[Strike_NOR 898]

12 hours ago, x3kj said:

Too much talking, not enough doing :P

 

I started my own extended damage system (dealing with critical post penetration effects) starting at end of 2016. Featurelist is almost complete, only few things missing and multiplayer validation needs to be done (folks from IF3 team helped with initial testing and MP compatibility).

 

That's really impressive x3kj. I mean amazingly impressive! Pretty much every detail I could hope for from a damage model is there. Give me a hint if you need someone to help with testing/statistics etc. The new shots diagnostic tool is proving to be really helpful!

 

 

Speaking of which, I fired up a simple scenario in the Virtual Reality map to test the new armor mechanics. I hope you won't regret adding the shots diag tool @oukej, because here comes the "i know how to make your game better than you" critic (take this with a pinch of salt :D as we say where I come from).

 

 

First of all, there is one major discrepancy in the damage simulation against tanks, that can only be what I call a genuine bug. If the system was designed to work this way intentionally, then I fear the creator was not really sure how to handle damage in a realistic manner, or a compromise was made to make the damage "arcade" or "game-like" (predictable). No hard feelings though, this system has been around for ages in the arma series, but I believe it can be corrected fairly simple.

 

NOTE: For the following examples, I'll use spoilers to minimize the post size. To view the images just open the spoilers.

 

Example 1:

All shots conducted with Slammer UP vs Varsuk. Ammo used: 105mm APFSDS.

 

Note: It appears that the maximum damage a hit will do with 105mm APFSDS vs Varsuk is .1310 (regardless of where it hits, I could never score higher than .1310.).

 

Spoiler

Shot: 

Upper glacis ERA struck, detonating ERA. (0 dmg to vehicle) (Seems legit)

The shot ricochets upwards in a realistic manner and penetrates through the gun barrel (+.1310 dmg to vehicles health)??? (Say whaaat?. In this case, only the gun barrel should be wrecked/damaged (full penetration), but the rest of the vehicle unharmed). 

 

Bounce

Penetration

 

Example 2:

Note: same setup as Example1. Same tank. Vehicle health before shot = 0.6597 (~33% hp).

 

Spoiler

Shot:

Just below the top of the front glacis, the shot enters and goes straight forward. (technically the projectile is now moving through the thickness of the armor itself in the piece of armor that makes the top of the hull.)

The initial penetration deals full damage (.1310). bringing the vehicles dmg from 0.6597 to 0.7908.

For some reason, while still traveling through the same armor plate,  it strikes "something" and deals another full .1310 damage, bringing damage levels to .9218.

Finally, still travelling through the "roof" of the hull, it strikes another "something" and deals the remaining 0.0782 dmg and raises vehicle damage state to 1.0 -> tank explodes. (During this entire path until now, the armor is actually doing its job of containing/reducing projectile velocity (it drops from 1400 speed, to 400 speed), but none of that matters, because the shell still does full damage potential 3 times while passing through the same piece of armor!?!?)

 

First pen, moves trough upper glacis/top hull armor plating.

 

Two pens later, while still traveling on the same path through the upper hull armor, the vehicle is dead. The rest of the projectile path can be ignored, as the vehicle is toast at this point.

 

Example 3:

Note: same setup as Example 1. New tank. Vehicle health previously reduced from direct hit behind, dealing a total of .6898 dmg. 

My idea was to hit a "glancing" strike, along the side of the hull, only hitting the tracks.

 

Spoiler

Shot:

In the rear/left drive wheel of the tracks. The shot penetrates the center of the wheel, scoring two "hits" while passing through that wheel. Both hits deal significant dmg (yet, the shot has not hit anything "vital", just external parts.) The damage state is now .8921.

The projectile continues through the entire length of the tracks without hitting anything, then ricochets off the front drive wheel, dealing the remaining 0.1079 dmg needed to detonate the vehicle.

Again, the projectile failed to hit anything important that would normally destroy a tank. The realistic approach would be that only the left track of the vehicle was damaged/destroyed.

 

upload photo

Shot travels along tracks, yet manages to destroy vehicle.

 

Example 4:

Note: same setup as Example 1. New tank, vehicle in perfect condition prior to shot. Vehicle angled 45 degrees to try and cause ricochets.

 

Spoiler

Shot:

In the left tracks, top part. The shot does not penetrate anything, simply touches the vehicle surface once and ricochets off.

Yet, the shot deals full damage potential of .1310!?!?!? This means that about 7 non-penetrating hits in the track would KILL an MBT. This ricochet phenomenon HAS to be fixed!

upload photo

 

Example 5:

Note: So here I am bored with 105mm APFSDS, and I switch to HEAT-MP. For initial testing, I shoot the front/right/inner ERA panels with HEAT, and get some consistent results, mostly. But then some weirdness happens, and finally I concentrate on shooting the gun barrel of the varsuk. Hilarity ensues:

 

Spoiler

Shot:

All shots conducted with 105 mm HEAT-MP

In the front turret ERA panels. All five shots deal 0 damage consistently, with or without ERA installed

Then I strike the optics tower on the top of the turret, and suddenly the shot deals FULL damage potential (even though technically this kind of shot would only damage the optics, not the entire vehicle!!!)

This does a whopping .2319 damage!!! Only 5 hits like that into the external optics and the tank is dead!

 

 

So now I'm like, well... Let's shoot the barrel, which is so far away from the tanks center mass that it can't possibly transfer damage to the vehicles total health!? right??? no...

 

Hitting the barrel center (a few meters away from anything critical in the tank, which in turn is shielded by it's rugged armor), deals FULL damage potential of 0.2319!

 

So naturally I consistently keep shooting the barrel until the vehicle dmg reaches .9276 and it automatically explodes shortly after that. Each hit to the barrel consistently made the vehicle take .2319 dmg.

 

 

 

Conclusion?

 

More testing has to be done, but... please. Can you consider the following:

 

• Remove the way vehicles receive full damage by ricochets
• Remove the way penetration of "Parts/armor" (armor plates, external things, barrel, tracks, wheels etc) draws from the vehicles global/total health.
• Make the juicy hitpoints (that DO draw health from vehicles global health) inside the tank at sensible locations (ammo rack, engine, fuel).

Can't see how this will possibly break backwards compatibility. It will add more realism, more variation. Also it will allow for higher likelyhood of crew kills and other immobilizing kills.

 

And did I mention it before? Look at HEAT. It's more realistic to have it be a pure projectile than a indirecthit explosion. (If the submunition approach doesnt work out)

 

Thanks! :)

[scavenjer 112]

10 hours ago, Strike_NOR said:

-snip-

Thanks for the extensive testing!
I wonder how you set this up, is there a mission file or something you could share? 

Previously I had to simply eyeball where the shot landed and what happened, but with this kind of setup I think I could do much more precise testing.

 

Something else to try: from my experience hitting the turretring or especially right under the gun will make the shell bounce down into the tank losing majority of it's speed and therefore dealing full damage ... several times.

Another thing worthy of testing: the lower front plate on the Varsuk is especially weak (realistic) but not so much on the kuma or Slammer.

Both the Kuma (MBT revolution) and Slammer (merkava mk4) have composites in the hull and are nearly as tough as their turret front and wouldn't have this lower plate weakness (though the merkava in general is relatively weak in the hull).

The kuma especially has a very weak turret ring which shouldn't really be an issue (same for the lower part of the turret front) though I suspect this is because  of the aforementioned ricochet mechanics.

 

In general I think Strike_NOR nailed it with his conclusions.

[lex__1 422]

Tell me, is it possible to model the destruction of APFSDS when it penetrates obstacles? Create probability of penetration into obstacles for APFSDS depending on:
- Obstacles
- Distance
- Speed APFSDS
- Power APFSDS
Or is it difficult and will not be realized?

 

[pr9inichek 133]

@Asheara and Dev Team thx for this Update.

 

Please check suggestions and issues below:

 

1) Rename some hitpoints

era_l_t_1_point = *hit_era_top_left_1_point

era_l_t_2_point = *hit_era_top_left_2_point

era_r_t_1_point = *hit_era_top_right_1_point

era_r_t_2_point = *hit_era_top_right_2_point

era_f_point = *hit_era_front_point

era_l_1_point = *hit_era_left_1_point

era_l_2_point = *hit_era_left_2_point

era_r_1_point = *hit_era_right_1_point

era_r_2_point = *hit_era_right_2_point

 

2) Destroy any hit = Destroy visual of Hull in vehicle

Example: Fuel is down = Visual Hull is too

Spoiler

 

3) Destroing Commander Gun haven't visual effect...

Spoiler

 

4) Destroing Main Gun haven't block shot from it...

Spoiler

 

5) Destroing ENG haven't block the ability to move

Spoiler

 

6) AI can proper Damaged Gun

Spoiler

 

7) Very bad render for Fire ball :(

Spoiler

 

8) Crew automatic get out when Hull is down

Spoiler

 

 

[scavenjer 112]

Right I did some testing with turret ring shots and lower front plate shots and confirmed my (and other people on this thread) suspicions.
q
As you can see the shell (120mm APFSDS) was shot right under the gun, it hit the gun mantlet, ricocheted down into the (much weaker)hull and then bounced around several times (7) all the while losing velocity and impacting it's hit damage several times onto the tank.

Modern long rod penetrators would not bounce around like a steel bullet in a steel case, they would have either shattered on the armour due to the spaced armour arrays doing their job or would have simply been stopped by the armour (penetration would have been possible but only in a  relatively straight line).

 

My conclusion:

1. a reduction in the angles at which APFSDS could ricochet or deflect needs to be reduced massively (6-8° would be the limit for APFSDS).
2. While applying damage multiple times is an OK way of simulating the damage delt by a penetrating AP round, it would be better if for total destruction you need to hit critical areas such as the ammunition and not have to rely on a shell "bouncing around".
3. A nice way of simulating spalling and fragmenting would be to apply an "indirect hit" from the entry point in a cone shape in line with the direction of travel, this could be something like 10% of the direct hit value for the shell at the impact velocity.
4. Crew and individual modules need to be more susceptible and not attribute to global health as much, if you apply point 3 then for instance a penetrating hit to the turret would kill the gunner or commander (or both) the vast majority of the time and not destroy the vehicle outright unless ammunition was hit.
5. Point 3 should also be applied to HEAT penetrations if possible.

[Yopoman 16]

THANK YOU, SO VERY MUCH BOHEMIA INTERACTIVE DEVELOPERS! I've been waiting for enhanced armored vehicle damage simulation since Operation Flashpoint came out. This is the most exciting new feature added to the simulation in years, thank you so much! 

[Strike_NOR 898]

I'm starting to get the feeling that the purpose of applying damage multiple times as the projectile passes through was to ensure that vehicles blow up after 2-3 penetrations. Strictly for gameplay reasons, and probably because noone was looking at Arma as a tank simulator at the time.

 

The interesting part is that it really looks like ArmA contains all the necessary ingredients to make it a realistic armor simulation, it's just that their potential isn't fully exploited.

 

@scavenjer has pointed out some very good ideas on how to do fix internal damage distribution, and I think we could be on to something here. 

 

What would be the best way of rethinking the damage mechanics, without completely destroying compatibility? Maybe the following points are a solution:

 

Keep the original hitpoint classes, and rather repurpose the hithull class for simulating ammunition storage.

 

Make sure hitting the physical hull (vehicle armor) transfers zero damage to the vehicles health, unless the caliber size or energy is exceptionally high (for instance being clobbered by a non-explosive howitzer shell (150mm ++). Or fictional railgun (insane kinetic energy).

 

Make APFSDS rods and HEAT jets deviate very little when penetrating (only a few degrees) and create a conical shape area (about 2m long/1m wide at the end) where it exits the firegeometry that causes damage based on how much speed the projectile has lost (simulates spalling).

In case if hitting unarmored vehicles, this ensures minimal spall damage, while heavily armored vehicles suffer spalldamage. For each time the projectile exits firegeometry, the speed and power of the projectile suffers greatly (to simulate it shattering along the way). This also reduces the amount of damage subsequent spalling can do.

Also, make certain firegeometry/hitpoints immune or highly resistant to spalling (massive parts, such as the gun, gun breech, armor) and keep hithull (ammo), crew, engine and fuel vulnerable to it.

 

Now afaik, every vehicle would need 1 modification to make this work, which is resizing the hithull firegeometry and hitpoint to match the areas where ammunition is stored. This should be a very straightforward task and is easily understandible for modders.

 

For damage calculations some things would have to change:

 

APFSDS and HEAT jets either penetrate or don't. In the event they don't sparks will fly off (as per now) signifying the round was stopped. This deals 0 damage to vehicles health. In case of penetration, spalling occurs when exiting firegeometry based on speedloss, and the projectile deviates minimally.

 

Ball ammunition or conventional AP shells can and should still ricochet, but should deal 0 damage in this event.

 

Spalling should not be individually generated particles (performance drop, as sometimes witnessed in RHS), but could better be a conical shape. The size/length/damage of the shape could be calculated in numerous ways, but for simplicity, a 2m long, 1m wide cone seems plausible, where the only variable is damage. The damage in real life largely depends on how much energy is transferred from the projectile to the armor, so basing it on speed lost during penetration is a good estimate, and capping it off at a non-lethal speed of maybe 5-10 m/s (in case projectile has 1400 m/s, and happens to penetrate with 10 m/s left, it would result in gargantuan spalling damage, while technically barely making it through the armor).

 

The result should now be that a clean penetration into a vehicle passes more directly through until it either loses momentum or exits the other side. For each internal "wall" it passes through, a spalling field is created based on how much energy is lost through it. Crew, ammo, fuel and engine are susceptible to spall damage, as well as direct damage from the projectile, but NOTHING transfers to the vehicles global health, besides critical parts.

 

I think this will make tank combat way more representative of real life, where the main objective of any tank is to:

 

See the enemy before he sees you.

Make sure the enemy can't reach your weak spots (hull down, use cover).

Coordinate well with your team and crew. 

 

Tanks ARE in fact, sitting ducks on a battlefield. But they are VERY deadly when used correctly.

 

 

[Rak1445 25]

After any sort of damage inflicted, Varsuk's and Mora's (Slammer's?) texture goes darker immediately. This happens even after hitting it once with a MG bullet. I hope this is the correct thread for this 

 

Also, such a shame the texture (of all vehicles) has only three states (new, damaged, destroyed) - after a single hit to the tank from the side, bullet holes appear everywhere... Really immersion breaking. It would be so amazing to see the damaged texture on the actual point of impact (the same for infantry too)!

 

Not to mention actual model changes depending on the damage (like the new ERA, SLAT, net additions that react to damage visually). The Iron Front videogame for example used scripts to achieve highly realistic results - it's a shame Arma 3 hasn't picked it up and improved afterwards. The final result feels much more dynamic and realistic - not just a single healthbar with some sub-elements like turret or track without visual cues.

 

Now, these are just suggestions and I don't expect BIS to achieve this for the upcoming Tank DLC, though hopes and dreams never fade. It would be amazing to see these or similar features in the future though. 

[Damian90 696]

On 23.02.2018 at 2:21 PM, scavenjer said:

Quick thing to note: the Leopard 2 has a hull ammo rack and one in the turret bustle with blow out panels, considering the automatic fire extinguisher system a turret pop like on russian style MBTs is highly unlikely.

Not to mention most hits are to the turret and not the hull anyway, the crew also will move ammo from the hull to the turret during lows in combat.

 

You are very wrong, Leopard 2 is a same deathtrap for it's crew as a T-64, T-72, T-80 or T-90. I have plenty of photos of Leopard 2's after their hull ammo rack started to cook off and turret went fly away. And there is one video showing Leopard 2A4 hit in hull ammo rack, and tank just gets oblitarated. I have even photos of aftermath, the hull was literally disintegrated in to pieces.

 

You are also wrong that fire extuinguishing system is capable to extuinguish ammunition fire. Nothing is capable of do this, propelant charges have their own oxidizers which means that stuff can burn under water.

 

The only real solution to prevent ammo cook off to destroy the tank and kill the crew, is to place ammunition in isolated ammo storage with blow off panels. And the only two tanks, existing today that have this solution are M1 Abrams series, and the new T-14, other vehicles have their entire ammo storage or part of it stored inside crew compartments.

[scavenjer 112]

16 minutes ago, Damian90 said:

 

You are very wrong, Leopard 2 is a same deathtrap for it's crew as a T-64, T-72, T-80 or T-90. I have plenty of photos of Leopard 2's after their hull ammo rack started to cook off and turret went fly away. And there is one video showing Leopard 2A4 hit in hull ammo rack, and tank just gets oblitarated. I have even photos of aftermath, the hull was literally disintegrated in to pieces.

 

You are also wrong that fire extuinguishing system is capable to extuinguish ammunition fire. Nothing is capable of do this, propelant charges have their own oxidizers which means that stuff can burn under water.

 

The only real solution to prevent ammo cook off to destroy the tank and kill the crew, is to place ammunition in isolated ammo storage with blow off panels. And the only two tanks, existing today that have this solution are M1 Abrams series, and the new T-14, other vehicles have their entire ammo storage or part of it stored inside crew compartments.

Uhh? what? Leopard 2 certainly has blow out panels and the only leo 2s destroyed in combat are turkish ones that were not equipped with the system the BW and literally everyone else uses, a wet ammo rack will significantly delay and mitigate cookoff off the ammunition.
It's not at all a deathtrap, in fact it's one of the most protected and crew-safe tanks currently in service.

The new T-14 still has part of the ammo stored in the hull just like all other previous russian MBTs, yeah they do have blow out panels now but there's still a significant chance the ammo in the hull (not in wet ammo racks) will cookoff and cause an explosion.

You can find pictures of pretty much any MBT completely destroyed, plenty of abrams that burned out due to catching fire or getting penetrated through the floor and setting the tank on fire.

That's different than actual ammo cookoffs.

Edit: spoke to several ex-tankers, they confirmed they have blow-out panels on the leopard 2, however all the leopard 2s in Turkish service are 1987 tanks that were modified to always have the blast doors open....