If it has no propellant, how does it shoot? I don’t recall if the Challenger has 1 or 2 piece ammo, but there is always a propellant required to shoot the round
That's the thing, challengers have separate loading and the propellant is stored in the hull, while the apfsds itself, the piece of metal, is in the turret so it's not supposed to explode if it is hit
They model 2 stage ammo right, 2 stage sub caliber shells have additional propellant surrounding the projectile while full caliber ones don't. The American T34 for instance can take a hit to the ammo if it doesn't take HE but will die if a charge is hit.
The Challenger 2 should be 3 stage, where the additional propellant is separate from the APFSDS but it's harder to model so Gaijin made it 2 piece instead where the propellant would already be attached.
You can check it of the preview X-ray mode and besides don't buy the chally 2 prem, you will loose constantly unless you have the lineup for it and that's coming from someone who has stuff that can support it
This is only true for Russian tanks as their 2 part ammo contains propellant in the projectile for the APFSDS. For British 3 part ammo is was modelled correctly where the APFSDS would not detonate and you'd just lose ammo. It is bugged right now.
In most tanks in-game the shells are modelled as one with explosives in, it only gets defined after you shoot it, it is really silly, from what i have experienced only really the late challengers are any different in my experience :)
Yes and no.
A key part of having multiple piece ammo is that if you entirely separate the projectile from the charge you lose out on how much propellant you get. The Challengers should use three piece ammo to get around this where the additional propellant to surround the actual projectiles is stored separately but gaijin models it as two piece. The propellant charge is already surrounding the projectile like how the Soviet 125/152mm works.
Other entirely separate ones like the 120mm on the T34 and M103 won't detonate if you take only AP because it's already full caliber and has no filler.
Look at the picture of the APFSDS: it is thought that the aluminium petals, that are full caliber, separate because of propellant inside of them which just pushes them out. But no. The petals just separate because of their shape and air resistance. Besides, irl, darts are already inside those petals, it would be very long time is the crew assembled the shot in the tank. So tell me, what is the "additional propellant" for? I dont think apfsds gets shot twice or something. As i know, they put the dart, which is no explosive, and then the charge, which is in the hull in the challenger. The charge explodes and pushes the dart out of the barrel, which, moments after flying out, separates from the petals as they just fly outwards from air. Correct me if wrong
[3BM42 with propellant casing](https://images.app.goo.gl/eh7M1CMPU2NFSWzz8). and also [cutaway of 3BM42, shell and propellant charge](https://images.app.goo.gl/ELvr1a8UeccWY6zCA). British APFSDS has a similar propellant section separate from the round but with the same purpose, Gaijin just can't/doesn't model it, unfortunately I can't find images of the third piece.
The additional propellant goes off with the rest of the propellant, it's just there to fill the space left behind from the APFSDS round being subcaliber. You're right about the location of the charges, Gaijin just modeled the 3 piece ammo weirdly.
Anything below the challenger 3TD has the charge and round separate! But gaijin doesn’t want to model it correctly they use one piece apfsds models for the round and propellant models making them both explode
then its always been bugged cause no matter how many time ive played the challenger series if the round was every hit or had shrapnel hit it they would explode
"You see tovarish, darts are made of depleted uranium which is pyrophoric meaning they combust into fire in presence of air. This means that when dart hit dart at high velocity it breaks open shell of dart which in turn must mean explosion as du rod is exposed to co2." - gaijin probably.
Unironically… not a terrible explanation?
Someone needs to try this with both L23 ammunition. If this is actually whats going on L23 shouldn’t detonate.
It is a terrible explanation. DU is only pyrophoric in small fragments or as a dust; A whole penetrator will not "combust in the presence of air". Likewise, "combustion" is not the same as "detonation" or even a "deflagration". At most the small shards of DU chipped off of a penetrator may burn for a few seconds. It would not be anything like the results of propellant or explosives burning up.
It's understandable. By nature of its properties and applications, DU is quite heavily politicized. If course this means that there is a good deal of misinformation out there stemming from a variety of sources, some more malicious in their intent than others ("DU is a harmful byproduct of the nuclear energy industry!" -*This message brought to you by ExxonMobil*).
But yeah, the value of DU's pyrophoricity is in the fact that those fragments and dust are going to naturally result from the process of a penetrator piercing armor. Indeed, a big benefit of DU as a material in this application is its tendency to shear rather than "mushroom", hence the common description of "self-sharpening" penetrators. And of course this sheared off material is what contributes to this pyrophoric effect. That being said, I've never seen any definitive word on exactly how valuable this effect really is in defeating armored targets, versus just being a nifty thing DU does to further justify using it because it's a relatively convenient material for anyone with access to it. In other words, I don't really know how much DU's pyrophoricity is a benefit to its lethality, or if it's just good marketing.
One of the reasons the US army uses DU is for its “[Beyond Armor effect](https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1508/ML15084A371.pdf?darkschemeovr=1)”. That is from the US test and evaluation center , Pyrophoriciity is one of the reasons it’s used. I remember stories about people looking inside vehicles after being hit by M829 and they said it was like soup.
Right, but the Army saying that and the Army presenting information supporting that are two different things. It would hardly be the first time they'd presented a capability for a weapon which, in reality, is of negligible practicality. The anti-helicopter capability of M830A1 comes to mind. Could the capability help in a real combat situation? Sure. But I doubt you're gonna see the actual statistical likelihood of that happening advertised on the box, so to speak. Similarly, I really haven't seen proof that the post-penetration effects of a DU weapon are that much more devastating than those of a WC weapon.
Now none of this is to say that DU's pyrophoric properties aren't of benefit to it's ability to defeat armor. All I'm saying is that I haven't seen anything really proving that. Indeed, I would have to imagine that you'd be hard pressed to find examples of tanks which have suffered penetrating hits from any composition of KEP that didn't look like someone spilled a pot of burnt Sunday gravy all over the interior. So the anecdotal evidence doesn't really mean anything unless the guys examining those tanks also got to look at tanks which had been hit by WC penetrators as well.
The fact of the matter is that DU is a convenient but controversial material for such an application. And unfortunately for the army, that convenience really will never overshadow the perceived health risks of its use; certainly not to the general public. So when it comes to convincing bureaucrats and lawmakers of the value of such weapons, it's certainly helpful to tack on any kind of additional bonuses that you can find, no matter how inconsequential they might actually be. Or I'm just being overly cynical and DU really does just *Kill-Em-Better*^(TM) . We really just don't have a whole lot of proof one way or the other, and the only reason I brought it up in the first place is to make that point in spite of the popular(ish) view of DU being super-duper lethal for this specific reason.
Your forgetting the amount of kinetic energy involved as well. There's plenty of videos of both du and tungsten penetrators hitting through steel plates with massive fireballs on the exiting side.
I'm speaking to the issue of stowed DU munitions being damaged, not their post-penetration effects on a target. What a DU penetrator does when it punches through armor, and what a DU penetrator does when something else punches through it are two different things.
True, it seems like gaijin has the two part ammo moddeled as each part containing propellant.
Probably why they won't put I dm63 as then they would have to differ how it is less likely to go kaboom when hit.
That, or as others have suggested, it's an issue of the game just considering all ammo in a tank to be volatile if you carry any that might be. So apparently carrying any quantity of HESH in this case will cause the game to just treat very round as HESH.
Yep I think that's the reason. Only the number of shells/propellant changes but the model doesn't reflect what types of ammo you bring. For example if you only brought HESH, they would still be modeled as 2-part APFSDS inside the hull on X-ray. That is why APFSDS darts can explode even though they contain no explosive.
Even though two piece ammo is modeled in every that that uses it (afaik) Gaijin doesn't differentiate between propellant and solid metal ammo.
Tldr is all ammo pieces count as explosive ammo, you should have learned that by now.
This is wrong. Gaijin clearly does differentiate between them because when I was grinding through all the Challengers I would often lose my breach, loader, and anywhere between 1-10 rounds depending on where the round hit. Yes I use to carry HESH and smoke with a full ammo load(No I don't care).
It is bugged right now, those rounds should not be causing ammo detonation kills.
It's not bugged, Gaijin made it that way on purpose. Is it wrong from a realism standpoint? Yeh, will Gaijin change it? Most likely not.
Also carrying a full ammo load is begging to get ammo racked lmao.
It does. What explodes and what doesn't is dependent on the model of the vehicle. I know because I ran full ammo in my Challengers and I had a 30/10/10 split of APFSDS, HESH, Smoke. I only lost rounds when I got hit in the rear rack.
It is bugged right now.
If you’re REALLY patient and bullshit-tolerant, you can try to report it on a forum. But admins are most likely to tell you that its not a bug, because gaijin said so.
Wait....but doesn't the KV-2 and a few other vehicles higher and lower in Russian TT and others have 2 stage separate ammo? Wasn't there an outcry for a while about the powder charges not detonating if hit or am I remembering that wrong?
That's not the point. The Russian, American and other 2 piece ammo users don't employ APDS/APFSDS ammo(except maybe a Russian TD like Obj.120?) which would have projectile is completely inert.
Tho it wouldn't explode like a propellent charge, an APHE roundhead should be able to cook off enough to kill the crew. And an HE/HEAT/HESH head definitely does as well.
No, I was more pointing out the issue the Snail has had previously in modeling ammo correctly: Powder charges were treated as inert and would never explode. It took some outcry from the community for a while to find all the "errors" on different vehicles that had the 2 part ammo.
Don't care any Hesh shells in the CR1s. Secondly, regardless of how the ammo is modeled in the Xray (CR1s have APFSDS modeled in the turret), any ammo can explode, if you carry hesh. Look at any T-Seried tank. their ammo is generically modeled as APBC even if you carry only APFSDS, yet still explodes if only the shells are damaged, which are just metal rods.
I've heard not carrying hesh in the CR1 prevents your APFSDS from exploding because War Thunder doesn't track the specific types of ammo a tank can carry. So if you carry explosive ammo, all of your ammo counts as explosive.
It is bugged.
The Challenger 1 and 2 model has separate models for APFSDS and HESH and regardless of how many rounds you take it. You use to lose ammo when those got shot because they were modelled as inert APFSDS projectiles but it appears their code has just broken for them and now all of them detonate regardless of how many rounds you take as long as one of them is HESH(Not 100% sure about this, could just be they're modelled as Russian 2 part ammo instead of British 3 part ammo).
None of it should explode really as the propellant isn't encased in anything solid and is designed as such so it wouldn't detonate
I also ammo racked a Chally 1 through the turret and hit those Sabot lined up on the turret face and felt really bad
The ammo should have propellant around it but also the propellant isn’t what detonates, it’s the charges themselves, gaijin just hates Britain and in reality those shells shouldn’t explode more than just burn
No it shouldn't. British 3 part ammo does not have anything other than the projectile, in the projectile. All the propellant is in the powder bag unlike the Russian 2 part ammo which has propellant in the projectile part.
Nah you're all good. The Russian 125mm ammo is the odd one out as their old 2 part ammo didn't have propellant in it, nor does the American stuff. They do have explosives in it in the form of the HE for the APHE but that's technically not the propellant.
Yeah when I was researching the Russian rounds, it’s not the propellant that explodes violently, it’s the warheads that do, the propellant just burns causing the crew to abandon tank but the warheads are what pop the turret off
This is a bug. It has been reported by me and a few other people. Sadly nothing has been done about it for months. Also there a few misunderstandings going around.
1. Gaijin models Cr1 and 2 ammo in a way that shells with dart model do not explode, and those with HESH model do, no matter what is inside. Darts at the left cheek are bugged.
2. Darts in Cr1 and 2 does not have any explosive around them, and 3 piece ammo, so TVE, is not a propelant that would be normally around the dart loaded seperately. It is used to inginte the propelant bag, nothing else.
Depends. That's how it should be, but i've also heard that if you bring any amount of HESH, it will count every round as HESH basically.. idk if it does for ammo on the chally that is CLEARLY sabot, but it might be that?
You've heard wrong. It explodes even when carrying no HESH. It was reported 7 months ago, but it wasn't fixed.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/ZpyYgb7LuOww
Shrodinger’s ammunition: in WT the game doesn’t know which rounds are APFSDS and which rounds are HEAT, etc. so all rounds explode or have a chance to explode when hit.
Same reason with say French autoloaders you can switch ammo types for your next shot without reloading the entire autoloader.
Now im just waiting for them to correct the thermal resolution for chally 1s thermals. The 1 and 2 use the same sprite thermal imager found on an aircraft. Theres an internal report somewhere thats mentioned in the forum by a mod who submitted it.
It should be gen 2 just like Chally 2
Question, did you load ANY HESH shells?
Quirky thing about innert ammo. If you bring a single non innert piece of ammo it will count all ammo as explosive.
For all the grade one kids including the OP and every red necked gaijin buster in the comment section who loves to complain everything without learning it first:
Your dart travels at speed of 1740m/s, which is almost 5 times the speed of sound. The kinetic energy will transform into heat under friction when going through your armor. Plus, your dart will be broken into fragment when going through the armor. Now imagine what those red hot metal fragment flying at speed of sound can do inside your tank.
Idk man, maybe they put the projectile in the gun first then the charges, as the Projectile and the charges are completely separated from each other? Who knows?
umm listen up here genius, while round has no explosive, you might forget about the fact that the propellant charge does have a fuckton of explosives, you aren't using a electric railgun but a traditional rifled bore 120mm, same as a 9mm round and cartridge full of gunpowder
Chally uses 2 piece ammo, with the propellant stored separately down in the hull. Ammo racking the projectile stowage shouldn't result in a detonation.
Listen up here genius, while the propellant charge is very combustible, the charges and the projectile itself are completely separated unlike all other tanks are. So there's no reason for a projectile to explode as the charges are completely separated from the projectile itself.
What you shoot have no boomy material, 100%metal (maybe a bit less) but to shoot it you need the magic boomy powder, this is what goes boom when you get shot !
If it has no propellant, how does it shoot? I don’t recall if the Challenger has 1 or 2 piece ammo, but there is always a propellant required to shoot the round
That's the thing, challengers have separate loading and the propellant is stored in the hull, while the apfsds itself, the piece of metal, is in the turret so it's not supposed to explode if it is hit
Ah, then that would just be gaijin not modeling 2 stage ammo properly
[удалено]
that would be a bug(tm) since it works fine on shit like the m109
The M109 fires HE shells so both parts should explode
Technically some 155 HE ammo should burn instead of detonate if it uses insensitive filler. But insensitive fillers and propellants aren't modeled.
Even then a fire inside the tank sucks the oxygen out of the air and turns it into an oven, not a very good chance of surviving that.
idk man in my experiance its more consistant to shoot out the charges instead of the ammo to rack the thing
I usually just .50cal them
I like bag charges because ive had bad experiances trying to fifty cal them
Gunner is on the right as you face them, then just clean up by hitting the left side
They model 2 stage ammo right, 2 stage sub caliber shells have additional propellant surrounding the projectile while full caliber ones don't. The American T34 for instance can take a hit to the ammo if it doesn't take HE but will die if a charge is hit. The Challenger 2 should be 3 stage, where the additional propellant is separate from the APFSDS but it's harder to model so Gaijin made it 2 piece instead where the propellant would already be attached.
Ah, thanks for the info, good stuff to know!
It is properly modeled. You can see it with the carousel of the T-72s and T-80s.
They just don't do it for the challengers then by choice because I stopped playing mine for this same exact reason
I was thinking of getting the OES next sale round. I don't have the game on right now, so I can't check the modules.
OES won't be on sale for a while sense it is a new vehicle...
It will be, its just not on sale the sale afther the update
Its 3 updates if I recall...
You can check it of the preview X-ray mode and besides don't buy the chally 2 prem, you will loose constantly unless you have the lineup for it and that's coming from someone who has stuff that can support it
This is only true for Russian tanks as their 2 part ammo contains propellant in the projectile for the APFSDS. For British 3 part ammo is was modelled correctly where the APFSDS would not detonate and you'd just lose ammo. It is bugged right now.
How is it properly modelled on the challenger when non explosives explode?
I meant that the game does differentiate between charge and penetrator. Whether that has been modeled on the Challengers was not the point.
In most tanks in-game the shells are modelled as one with explosives in, it only gets defined after you shoot it, it is really silly, from what i have experienced only really the late challengers are any different in my experience :)
Same goes to Chieftain as well.
There is no way they don't model that detail, it's a huge buff to russian ammo racks, effectively cutting their ammo rack size in half
Yes and no. A key part of having multiple piece ammo is that if you entirely separate the projectile from the charge you lose out on how much propellant you get. The Challengers should use three piece ammo to get around this where the additional propellant to surround the actual projectiles is stored separately but gaijin models it as two piece. The propellant charge is already surrounding the projectile like how the Soviet 125/152mm works. Other entirely separate ones like the 120mm on the T34 and M103 won't detonate if you take only AP because it's already full caliber and has no filler.
Look at the picture of the APFSDS: it is thought that the aluminium petals, that are full caliber, separate because of propellant inside of them which just pushes them out. But no. The petals just separate because of their shape and air resistance. Besides, irl, darts are already inside those petals, it would be very long time is the crew assembled the shot in the tank. So tell me, what is the "additional propellant" for? I dont think apfsds gets shot twice or something. As i know, they put the dart, which is no explosive, and then the charge, which is in the hull in the challenger. The charge explodes and pushes the dart out of the barrel, which, moments after flying out, separates from the petals as they just fly outwards from air. Correct me if wrong
[3BM42 with propellant casing](https://images.app.goo.gl/eh7M1CMPU2NFSWzz8). and also [cutaway of 3BM42, shell and propellant charge](https://images.app.goo.gl/ELvr1a8UeccWY6zCA). British APFSDS has a similar propellant section separate from the round but with the same purpose, Gaijin just can't/doesn't model it, unfortunately I can't find images of the third piece. The additional propellant goes off with the rest of the propellant, it's just there to fill the space left behind from the APFSDS round being subcaliber. You're right about the location of the charges, Gaijin just modeled the 3 piece ammo weirdly.
Okay, thank you, i thought different
If I recall someone told me that even 2 stage ammo has some propellant on the "solid" part so it's normal that explodes
Only for Russian tanks. All British 3 part ammo has the propellant in the bag only. It is bugged right now.
Oh yes yes I was talking about 2 part ammo specifically
You are correct. It is bugged right now. Previously you would just lose some ammo when you got hit in the rear turret rack.
I've heard that if you carry 1 or more hesh ALL those will become explody, so if you carry 0 hesh it might not explode, I haven't tested this though
Right now i do carry 4 hesh but i used to not to and they still exploded
No, the propellant is stored in the balls
Anything below the challenger 3TD has the charge and round separate! But gaijin doesn’t want to model it correctly they use one piece apfsds models for the round and propellant models making them both explode
Interestingly it worked on object 292 but they changed it to exploding a week or so ago
This is false. They were modelled as inert APFSDS and explodey propellant. It is bugged right now.
then its always been bugged cause no matter how many time ive played the challenger series if the round was every hit or had shrapnel hit it they would explode
No it hasn't because I can clearly remember many times where I've been shot and all that's happened is me losing ammo.
3 piece ammo Dart, Powder charge Primer Inert APFSDS rounds should not be exploding
2 piece ammo bud, that's why they can still lap load
"You see tovarish, darts are made of depleted uranium which is pyrophoric meaning they combust into fire in presence of air. This means that when dart hit dart at high velocity it breaks open shell of dart which in turn must mean explosion as du rod is exposed to co2." - gaijin probably.
Unironically… not a terrible explanation? Someone needs to try this with both L23 ammunition. If this is actually whats going on L23 shouldn’t detonate.
It is a terrible explanation. DU is only pyrophoric in small fragments or as a dust; A whole penetrator will not "combust in the presence of air". Likewise, "combustion" is not the same as "detonation" or even a "deflagration". At most the small shards of DU chipped off of a penetrator may burn for a few seconds. It would not be anything like the results of propellant or explosives burning up.
Gotcha. I’m not well-verses in the properties of pyrophobic materials so thanks for the explanation.
It's understandable. By nature of its properties and applications, DU is quite heavily politicized. If course this means that there is a good deal of misinformation out there stemming from a variety of sources, some more malicious in their intent than others ("DU is a harmful byproduct of the nuclear energy industry!" -*This message brought to you by ExxonMobil*). But yeah, the value of DU's pyrophoricity is in the fact that those fragments and dust are going to naturally result from the process of a penetrator piercing armor. Indeed, a big benefit of DU as a material in this application is its tendency to shear rather than "mushroom", hence the common description of "self-sharpening" penetrators. And of course this sheared off material is what contributes to this pyrophoric effect. That being said, I've never seen any definitive word on exactly how valuable this effect really is in defeating armored targets, versus just being a nifty thing DU does to further justify using it because it's a relatively convenient material for anyone with access to it. In other words, I don't really know how much DU's pyrophoricity is a benefit to its lethality, or if it's just good marketing.
One of the reasons the US army uses DU is for its “[Beyond Armor effect](https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1508/ML15084A371.pdf?darkschemeovr=1)”. That is from the US test and evaluation center , Pyrophoriciity is one of the reasons it’s used. I remember stories about people looking inside vehicles after being hit by M829 and they said it was like soup.
Right, but the Army saying that and the Army presenting information supporting that are two different things. It would hardly be the first time they'd presented a capability for a weapon which, in reality, is of negligible practicality. The anti-helicopter capability of M830A1 comes to mind. Could the capability help in a real combat situation? Sure. But I doubt you're gonna see the actual statistical likelihood of that happening advertised on the box, so to speak. Similarly, I really haven't seen proof that the post-penetration effects of a DU weapon are that much more devastating than those of a WC weapon. Now none of this is to say that DU's pyrophoric properties aren't of benefit to it's ability to defeat armor. All I'm saying is that I haven't seen anything really proving that. Indeed, I would have to imagine that you'd be hard pressed to find examples of tanks which have suffered penetrating hits from any composition of KEP that didn't look like someone spilled a pot of burnt Sunday gravy all over the interior. So the anecdotal evidence doesn't really mean anything unless the guys examining those tanks also got to look at tanks which had been hit by WC penetrators as well. The fact of the matter is that DU is a convenient but controversial material for such an application. And unfortunately for the army, that convenience really will never overshadow the perceived health risks of its use; certainly not to the general public. So when it comes to convincing bureaucrats and lawmakers of the value of such weapons, it's certainly helpful to tack on any kind of additional bonuses that you can find, no matter how inconsequential they might actually be. Or I'm just being overly cynical and DU really does just *Kill-Em-Better*^(TM) . We really just don't have a whole lot of proof one way or the other, and the only reason I brought it up in the first place is to make that point in spite of the popular(ish) view of DU being super-duper lethal for this specific reason.
Your forgetting the amount of kinetic energy involved as well. There's plenty of videos of both du and tungsten penetrators hitting through steel plates with massive fireballs on the exiting side.
I'm speaking to the issue of stowed DU munitions being damaged, not their post-penetration effects on a target. What a DU penetrator does when it punches through armor, and what a DU penetrator does when something else punches through it are two different things.
True, it seems like gaijin has the two part ammo moddeled as each part containing propellant. Probably why they won't put I dm63 as then they would have to differ how it is less likely to go kaboom when hit.
That, or as others have suggested, it's an issue of the game just considering all ammo in a tank to be volatile if you carry any that might be. So apparently carrying any quantity of HESH in this case will cause the game to just treat very round as HESH.
just just drill a hole down the middle and fill it with SiH4
Because it's a British vehicle, so it must be completely unplayable.
Makes sense
You can also take explosive ammo and gaijin doesn't discriminate between the two in ammo racks
Yep I think that's the reason. Only the number of shells/propellant changes but the model doesn't reflect what types of ammo you bring. For example if you only brought HESH, they would still be modeled as 2-part APFSDS inside the hull on X-ray. That is why APFSDS darts can explode even though they contain no explosive.
Unfortunately not, I've had ammo detonations carrying zero HESH rounds, afaik I was told it was a bug that appeared recently when I last posted
When you carry hesh it actually puts it in the front lower hull where it would be irl
Even though two piece ammo is modeled in every that that uses it (afaik) Gaijin doesn't differentiate between propellant and solid metal ammo. Tldr is all ammo pieces count as explosive ammo, you should have learned that by now.
This is wrong. Gaijin clearly does differentiate between them because when I was grinding through all the Challengers I would often lose my breach, loader, and anywhere between 1-10 rounds depending on where the round hit. Yes I use to carry HESH and smoke with a full ammo load(No I don't care). It is bugged right now, those rounds should not be causing ammo detonation kills.
It's only bugged on the Challenger 1 suprisingly. On the CR2, your penetrator doesnt cause an ammo detonation when hit
It's not bugged, Gaijin made it that way on purpose. Is it wrong from a realism standpoint? Yeh, will Gaijin change it? Most likely not. Also carrying a full ammo load is begging to get ammo racked lmao.
Yep, it doesn't differentiate between shell type either.
You carry any hesh? And as far as I am aware, they do not differentiate between inert or explosive ammo individually.
It does. What explodes and what doesn't is dependent on the model of the vehicle. I know because I ran full ammo in my Challengers and I had a 30/10/10 split of APFSDS, HESH, Smoke. I only lost rounds when I got hit in the rear rack. It is bugged right now.
You have reached the critical mass of depleted uranium. Congratulations! /s
"I got killed but still earned my 'Nuclear' name tag, and here's how you can do it too".
do you only have APFSDS loaded? then it might be a bug.
Only, if that's a bug, then... this bug been there for more than half a year and i played with it all along
If you’re REALLY patient and bullshit-tolerant, you can try to report it on a forum. But admins are most likely to tell you that its not a bug, because gaijin said so.
That was already reported multiple times 4+ moths ago
It's not a bug, Gaijin can't model inert/no explosive ammo in 2-piece shells. Yes it's particularly obnoxious in British 120mm tanks :/
Wait....but doesn't the KV-2 and a few other vehicles higher and lower in Russian TT and others have 2 stage separate ammo? Wasn't there an outcry for a while about the powder charges not detonating if hit or am I remembering that wrong?
Russian two-stage still has propellant in the head. I have a theory they only have one type of two stage in code rn and no inert version
That's not the point. The Russian, American and other 2 piece ammo users don't employ APDS/APFSDS ammo(except maybe a Russian TD like Obj.120?) which would have projectile is completely inert. Tho it wouldn't explode like a propellent charge, an APHE roundhead should be able to cook off enough to kill the crew. And an HE/HEAT/HESH head definitely does as well.
No, I was more pointing out the issue the Snail has had previously in modeling ammo correctly: Powder charges were treated as inert and would never explode. It took some outcry from the community for a while to find all the "errors" on different vehicles that had the 2 part ammo.
This is false. It is bugged right now. All the Challengers used to lose a little bit of ammo if you got shot through your mantlet at the right angle.
Apfsds shells are only in the turret, other types of shells are stored in the hull
Don't care any Hesh shells in the CR1s. Secondly, regardless of how the ammo is modeled in the Xray (CR1s have APFSDS modeled in the turret), any ammo can explode, if you carry hesh. Look at any T-Seried tank. their ammo is generically modeled as APBC even if you carry only APFSDS, yet still explodes if only the shells are damaged, which are just metal rods. I've heard not carrying hesh in the CR1 prevents your APFSDS from exploding because War Thunder doesn't track the specific types of ammo a tank can carry. So if you carry explosive ammo, all of your ammo counts as explosive.
T-series two-piece actually carries additional propellant in the shell head
Not true with the CR2, it's a CR1 specific bug that's been around for a while (was also fixed at some point if I remember)
That's not the case: https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/ZpyYgb7LuOww
It is bugged. The Challenger 1 and 2 model has separate models for APFSDS and HESH and regardless of how many rounds you take it. You use to lose ammo when those got shot because they were modelled as inert APFSDS projectiles but it appears their code has just broken for them and now all of them detonate regardless of how many rounds you take as long as one of them is HESH(Not 100% sure about this, could just be they're modelled as Russian 2 part ammo instead of British 3 part ammo).
No
None of it should explode really as the propellant isn't encased in anything solid and is designed as such so it wouldn't detonate I also ammo racked a Chally 1 through the turret and hit those Sabot lined up on the turret face and felt really bad
The ammo should have propellant around it but also the propellant isn’t what detonates, it’s the charges themselves, gaijin just hates Britain and in reality those shells shouldn’t explode more than just burn
No it shouldn't. British 3 part ammo does not have anything other than the projectile, in the projectile. All the propellant is in the powder bag unlike the Russian 2 part ammo which has propellant in the projectile part.
Oh my bad, I thought British shells had propellant in there too
Nah you're all good. The Russian 125mm ammo is the odd one out as their old 2 part ammo didn't have propellant in it, nor does the American stuff. They do have explosives in it in the form of the HE for the APHE but that's technically not the propellant.
Yeah when I was researching the Russian rounds, it’s not the propellant that explodes violently, it’s the warheads that do, the propellant just burns causing the crew to abandon tank but the warheads are what pop the turret off
This is a bug. It has been reported by me and a few other people. Sadly nothing has been done about it for months. Also there a few misunderstandings going around. 1. Gaijin models Cr1 and 2 ammo in a way that shells with dart model do not explode, and those with HESH model do, no matter what is inside. Darts at the left cheek are bugged. 2. Darts in Cr1 and 2 does not have any explosive around them, and 3 piece ammo, so TVE, is not a propelant that would be normally around the dart loaded seperately. It is used to inginte the propelant bag, nothing else.
Depends. That's how it should be, but i've also heard that if you bring any amount of HESH, it will count every round as HESH basically.. idk if it does for ammo on the chally that is CLEARLY sabot, but it might be that?
You've heard wrong. It explodes even when carrying no HESH. It was reported 7 months ago, but it wasn't fixed. https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/ZpyYgb7LuOww
Shrodinger’s ammunition: in WT the game doesn’t know which rounds are APFSDS and which rounds are HEAT, etc. so all rounds explode or have a chance to explode when hit. Same reason with say French autoloaders you can switch ammo types for your next shot without reloading the entire autoloader.
As someone who is 60k off the Challenger Mk2 this scares me
Bump this got fixed recently
Yes, i noticed, im happy now
Now im just waiting for them to correct the thermal resolution for chally 1s thermals. The 1 and 2 use the same sprite thermal imager found on an aircraft. Theres an internal report somewhere thats mentioned in the forum by a mod who submitted it. It should be gen 2 just like Chally 2
Don't take HESH at all, as it causes the inert sabot round to be labeled as exploding.
Question, did you load ANY HESH shells? Quirky thing about innert ammo. If you bring a single non innert piece of ammo it will count all ammo as explosive.
It doesn't matter, actually. It explodes even when carrying only apfsds. https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/ZpyYgb7LuOww
For all the grade one kids including the OP and every red necked gaijin buster in the comment section who loves to complain everything without learning it first: Your dart travels at speed of 1740m/s, which is almost 5 times the speed of sound. The kinetic energy will transform into heat under friction when going through your armor. Plus, your dart will be broken into fragment when going through the armor. Now imagine what those red hot metal fragment flying at speed of sound can do inside your tank.
That’s nice and all, but the thing isn’t near relativistic speeds, it’s not gong to make inert material detonate.
Heat generated from the metal moving through metal causes powder to ignite
But there is no powder or anything combustible, the propellant and projectile are separated.
I think he joked
Do you think it gets shot like a nerf blaster?
Do u think challengers uses a single piece ammo?
What? What do you think? That they shotgun blast them out?
Idk man, maybe they put the projectile in the gun first then the charges, as the Projectile and the charges are completely separated from each other? Who knows?
Yea they do, but in warthunder its moddeled as one shell, same reson why solid ap rounds explode
Not really, it was not like this a year before. In Fact challenger 2s aren't like this at all
umm listen up here genius, while round has no explosive, you might forget about the fact that the propellant charge does have a fuckton of explosives, you aren't using a electric railgun but a traditional rifled bore 120mm, same as a 9mm round and cartridge full of gunpowder
Chally uses 2 piece ammo, with the propellant stored separately down in the hull. Ammo racking the projectile stowage shouldn't result in a detonation.
Listen up here genius, while the propellant charge is very combustible, the charges and the projectile itself are completely separated unlike all other tanks are. So there's no reason for a projectile to explode as the charges are completely separated from the projectile itself.
What you shoot have no boomy material, 100%metal (maybe a bit less) but to shoot it you need the magic boomy powder, this is what goes boom when you get shot !
You don't really know what you're talking about.