Ever seen a Machinegun blow up a tank ? Well, now you can !

[Jishmael]

This is insanely cool. Also the info on the "saving throw" is really useful. It explains why my Canadian Paratroopers sometimes seem kinda invincible.

[Michael Emrys]

Fair enough. So the soldier is actually weaving and sprinting and ducking and other terrain is in the way as well.

And you could also consider that some of the "hits" are actually just passing though the fabric of a sleeve or trouser leg without touching, or only grazing, flesh. Same for helmets. Then there is the "New Testament in the pocket that stopped a bullet" save (not applicable to Soviet soldiers).

Michael

[mjkerner]

And you could also consider that some of the "hits" are actually just passing though the fabric of a sleeve or trouser leg without touching, or only grazing, flesh. Same for helmets. Then there is the "New Testament in the pocket that stopped a bullet" save (not applicable to Soviet soldiers).

Michael

Or belt buckle, letters from home packet, locket with girlfriend's picture.

[Andrew Kulin]

Dare we assume that c3k was in charge of the Russian forces? Sounds like his luck recalling his experiences in the CMMG AAR with Bil.

[Michael Emrys]

Or belt buckle, letters from home packet, locket with girlfriend's picture.

Don't forget the engraved cigarette lighter in the pocket.

Michael

[sburke]

all I know is I now have even more incentive to button up.

[Lt Belenko]

This is why we can't have nice things, you always leave the door opened.

[IntruderPl]

Sadly I'm not so enthiusiastic about T34 blowing up from MG bullet hits.

Don't think that tanks have interiors modelled in a way to calculate bullets bouncing inside.

Also I really dubt that 7,92 bullet would have energy to penetrate tank shell to ignite an explosion. Expecially after bouncing inside. It would just simply get smashed and blobbed. Blobs of steel nor lead wouldn't penetrate tank round shell.

I think it might be a bug you try to put into CM advantage list.

Take a look by yourselves. Do they really look so fragile to be petetrated by a deformated steel or lead of <8mm bullet?

http://www.russianmilitary.co.uk/sparessale/T-34-shell-01.JPG\

http://www.bocn.co.uk/vbforum/attachments/Panzermuseum_23.jpg

[c3k]

^^^

Soviet WWII era tanks stowed their ammo...on the floor. Significantly, what ignites is not the "shell", it's the propellant (in most ammo fires). It only takes one, then the rest go. If you'd like, I'm a pretty good shot. You hold a WWII tank round, at arm's length. I'll go about 100 yards away and shoot the brass propellant case with my buddy's K98k. We'll film it and post the youtube link here.

Safe ammo stowage is all about protecting the propellant.

Ken

[IntruderPl]

^^^It only takes one, then the rest go. If you'd like, I'm a pretty good shot. Ken

Well, yes but I'm pretty sure a ricochet from a metal interior would have no chance to penetrate and ignite explosives of a tank's shell. It's all about kinetic energy. After first bounce the bullet would become a blob that has no ability to get through a metal casing.

As a matter of fact I dubdt even a direct shot from 100-300m wouldn't. Thats why you use .50 as anti material weapon to discharge stuff like unexploded tank. mortar rounds etc.

[YankeeDog]

Bear in mind we're talking about a tank that had already taken damage. So for all we know, there were flammable fluids such as transmission fluid, etc. about the fighting compartment. A ruptured (but undetonated) shell casing with propellant spilled out is also a possibility. And one or more of the the MG round(s) that ricocheted into the fighting compartment could have been a tracer with a nice, hot ember of phosphorous on the tail end.

All in all, I think it's a very unlikely event. But not impossible. And this is the first time in nearly 8 years of playing CMx2 games that I have seen of a tank ignited from MG fire in CMx2, so I think it's pretty safe to say this is an appropriately rare thing.

[A Canadian Cat]

Well, yes but I'm pretty sure a ricochet from a metal interior would have no chance to penetrate and ignite explosives of a tank's shell. It's all about kinetic energy. After first bounce the bullet would become a blob that has no ability to get through a metal casing.

It is the copper part not the shell part that is in danger of being ruptured. I have personally never seen a T34 shell casing but I have seen a modern 105 round casing. Given a small hammer or butt of a screw driver and a nail I could put a hole in with no special effort. So a ricochet - no problem at all. That copper casing does not need to be thick since it fits snugly in the breach it does not need to withstand the propellant explosion during firing - that is the breach's job.

As a matter of fact I dubdt even a direct shot from 100-300m wouldn't.

I am certain that a direct shot would do the trick.

Thats why you use .50 as anti material weapon to discharge stuff like unexploded tank. mortar rounds etc.

Yeah but it that case it is the much thicker projectile that you need to make sure goes off.

I think this is a case of CM turning copper into explody stuff

[Battlefront.com]

There is another possibility... delayed cook off. I'll never forget in CMSF Beta when I was testing a scenario I made for final release. I was moving a couple of squads by a burning T-62 that I had knocked out quite a bit earlier in the battle. As I was moving my guys by i the damned thing exploded, taking out the bulk of my platoon (wounded mostly). Doh!

So it could just be a coincidence that the MG fire happened at the same time that CM determined that tank should go kerplewy.

Steve

[c3k]

Well, yes but I'm pretty sure a ricochet from a metal interior would have no chance to penetrate and ignite explosives of a tank's shell. It's all about kinetic energy. After first bounce the bullet would become a blob that has no ability to get through a metal casing.

As a matter of fact I dubdt even a direct shot from 100-300m wouldn't. Thats why you use .50 as anti material weapon to discharge stuff like unexploded tank. mortar rounds etc.

Tell you what, we'll modify the experiment. We'll put an angled piece of steel near by, and I'll ricochet the shot into the shell that you're holding.

The brass is meant to be flexible in the chamber and gets "fire formed" by the pressure to create a tight seal. If you've got a mil surplus store nearby, they should have some old brass around. It doesn't take much to puncture.

Hot bullets, or hot bullet fragments, or burning fluids, etc., will cook 'em off. The Sherman eventually got wet stowage to douse the first one and prevent the chain reaction which was so prevalent in earlier models. (The M1 Abrams is interesting in that it vents the cook off through blow off panels. It's not an explosion, it's more of a rocket exhaust type of reaction. Most unconstrained propellant works the same way: rocket plume.)

Back to the T34: the ENTIRE floor was lined with shells. The guys WALKED on them. No turret basket. Just shells...

A benefit was that they were down low. Sponson and turret stowage is frequently hit by penetrations. Not so much on the floor.

[Michael Emrys]

There is another possibility... delayed cook off. I'll never forget in CMSF Beta when I was testing a scenario I made for final release. I was moving a couple of squads by a burning T-62 that I had knocked out quite a bit earlier in the battle. As I was moving my guys by i the damned thing exploded, taking out the bulk of my platoon (wounded mostly). Doh!

So it could just be a coincidence that the MG fire happened at the same time that CM determined that tank should go kerplewy.

Same thing happened to me the very first time I played the BN demo. One of my Shermans took a hit and the crew exited and beat feet to the rear as the tank burned gently. A turn or two later I was moving a squad past it when it exploded violently, taking out a big part of the squad and putting the rest into a severely traumatized state that lasted for the rest of the engagement. ISTR that there was even an additional minor cook off after the first big one. Although I can't recall ever seeing multiple cook offs again, I was impressed to see it modeled even while I was pissed at losing both the tank and the squad early in the game.

Michael

[Baneman]

...Back to the T34: the ENTIRE floor was lined with shells. The guys WALKED on them. No turret basket. Just shells...

A benefit was that they were down low. Sponson and turret stowage is frequently hit by penetrations. Not so much on the floor.

Bad for mines I guess. Swings and roundabouts.

There is another possibility... delayed cook off. I'll never forget in CMSF Beta when I was testing a scenario I made for final release. I was moving a couple of squads by a burning T-62 that I had knocked out quite a bit earlier in the battle. As I was moving my guys by i the damned thing exploded, taking out the bulk of my platoon (wounded mostly). Doh!

So it could just be a coincidence that the MG fire happened at the same time that CM determined that tank should go kerplewy.

Steve

Tank was definitely KO for a couple of turns before the bang and not burning, hence I ruled out the delayed cook-off - which is still also a cool feature of CM2.

Either way, it's still the most excellent outlier I've ever seen

[sburke]

Although I can't recall ever seeing multiple cook offs again, I was impressed to see it modeled even while I was pissed at losing both the tank and the squad early in the game.

Michael

I actually see those quite a bit. Enough so that I don't send troops anywhere near a burning tank even if I have seen it cook off already.

[stikkypixie]

I remember that bug in cmsf that would cause brew off to continue indefinitely. burning tanks would blow up all scenario long. good times :-D

[mjkerner]

I actually see those quite a bit. Enough so that I don't send troops anywhere near a burning tank even if I have seen it cook off already.

Yeah, me too. It's not that unusual.

[acrashb]

Also I really dubt that 7,92 bullet would have energy to penetrate tank shell to ignite an explosion.

To add to what has been said, when a bullet strikes something and bounces, there are two basic outcomes: either it fragments and spatters, or it deflects (aka "ricochet"s).

Spatter is nasty (I still have a small piece of brass embedded in my cheek) but will not cut much other than skin, plastic, and cardboard (even a thin sheet of plywood will stop it for a few rounds).

Deflections maintain almost all the energy that the bullet had before impact. A deflected bullet will not travel far, because it it no longer aerodynamic, but at short range is quite dangerous.

And, at least some 7.92 was AP (steel core).

So a deflection need only penetrate the thin brass casing of a shell - or it could strike the primer of the shell, which would cause an enthusiastic release of high-temperature, flaming propellant. Neither of these things are a serious issue with safety cartridges (rifle / pistol rounds) - but perhaps the propellant in tank shells is more dangerous (I don't know). It is certainly present in greater quantity!

[Fizou]

I actually see those quite a bit. Enough so that I don't send troops anywhere near a burning tank even if I have seen it cook off already.

I remember multiple cook offs from CMSF with fondness even though it really hurt me a few times. After that no one goes near a burning tank if I can help it.

Thinking of it, I cant recall multiple cook offs in CMx2 ww2. Are they still in or are there only one cook off and thats it (Im guessing that would be more realistic that when things cook off, everything goes in one big explosion)?

[c3k]

No one's mentioned the tracer round effect. Depending on how the belt was loaded, the 7.92 round that entered the T34 hatch might've been a tracer.

[Fizou]

No one's mentioned the tracer round effect. Depending on how the belt was loaded, the 7.92 round that entered the T34 hatch might've been a tracer.

Its been mentioned already..

And one or more of the the MG round(s) that ricocheted into the fighting compartment could have been a tracer with a nice, hot ember of phosphorous on the tail end.

[Bulletpoint]

My guess would be that the game tracks the rounds until they pass the armour (in one way or another), at which point there's a roll made on a damage table.

Probably that roll does not take into account the type of ammunition, as it might be assumed that any round that defeats the armour will be sufficient to cause damage. This one being an exception..

[acrashb]

We have been told before that residual energy is accounted for. So a penetration by a 20mm will have less effect than a penetration by a 76mm. But this wasn't a penetration as such, according to the hit label - it was a ricochet into an opening (the hatch).