Are Secondary Explosions Still in the Game?

[Peter Panzer]

I recently concluded a scenario with a burning T-72MV on the field for 75+ turns with nary a sizzle or pop. Likewise, I am presently in the midst of another game where a Spartan CVR has been peacefully alight for 35+ turns.

So, I put together a test with 10 burning IFV/AFV's with "Supply" set to "Full" and observed them for 25 turns. Nothing. Next, I set up the same test with 16 MBT's. Again, no cook-offs.

I recall a recent patch "toned down" what I considered to be a fantastic detail. In my experience, "secondaries" are now non-existant. All that ordnance, fuel and concentrated body odor in a confined space and not even a sputter or spark?

Is anyone else experiencing this rarity?

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Stuff certainly cooks off in my game.

I understand it depends on what they are carrying. A vehicle with little to no ammo is going to see less cooking off then some vehicle loaded to the brim with ammo.

In those tests, are those re-deaded vehicles set alight in the editor? That might not actually work.

btw

I think the nerf applied mainly to burning vehicles continually having massive explosions. There were occasions that it really got out of hand.

[Peter Panzer]

Stuff certainly cooks off in my game.

Glad to hear it. Hopefully it's the OPFOR AFV's that are doing the popping.

I understand it depends on what they are carrying.

Yes, that is also my understanding. That's why I set "Supply" to "Full" in my tests so as to get all of those ILAWS, 120mm HEAT rounds, and LASM's to warm up.

In those tests, are those re-deaded vehicles set alight in the editor? That might not actually work.

Yes. So, I guess the question becomes, when is a burning, ammo laden vehicle not a burning, ammo laden vehicle? Do they have to be killed in-game for secondaries to occur?

[Apocal]

Is anyone else experiencing this rarity?

Not me. Thanks to the nuclear stockpile aboard a Bradley cooking off, I managed to lose half a platoon in under two minutes.

[Wengart]

I see cook offs very rarely, if ever. Although my general policy with the Syrians is if its on a body it can be picked up. So I end up taking everything that is not nailed down out of my BMP's.

[Dietrich]

Is anyone else experiencing this rarity?

Is any of these not-cooking-off vehicles the victim of a Javelin or some other weapon which created a huge explosion when it knocked out the vehicle? If yes, then any ammo which would have later cooked off may have already been detonated by the knock-out strike.

The test with already-burning AFVs and IFVs may have been inadvertently misleading. I've never seen a cook-off from a 'placed' brewed-up vehicle, and thus I'm inclined to reason that already-on-map brewed-up vehicles have already experienced their share of cook-offs before the scenarios begins.

In view of both the danger of cook-offs and the loss of ATMs and small-arms ammo resultant from losing IFVs (especially AAVs), I've established the SOP of giving rifle squads extra ATMs and doling out ATMs to machine-gun squads and such, both so most every unit has its own AT weapon and to leave as little as possible in IFVs in case they are knocked out and brew up.

[Peter Panzer]

I think Elmar and Dietrich are onto something...

Bearing their thoughts in mind regarding burning vehicles placed on the field via the editor and those generated by OPFOR weapons in-game, I conducted my quick test again.

Two "fully supplied" FV510's (WRAP2), hit by ATGMs, suffered "catastrophic" kills and began burning. Within 12 turns there were two secondary detonations as a result - perfect! Maybe I just haven't been getting enough of my AFV's blown to hell to create a reliable sample in the scenarios I've played.

I am still at a loss to explain the T-72MV from my first post, which commenced to impersonate the Olympic Torch without lingering consequences for 75+ turns. It was destroyed by a USMC Javelin Team, so maybe Dietrich is also right about the ammo detonating during the initial penetration from large caliber/top-attack weapons.

In any event, thanks to everyone for sharing your experiences!

[Ryujin]

I think that it's certainly possible for all the ammo to be detonated from the initial hit or other such conditions to occur. Without more visual damage indicators we don't know if the T-72 is burning with a little hole in the hull or if it's turret was blown several hundred feet in the air and the hull is a melted pile of scrap. We just see it on fire.

I also think that PCs tend to cook off more due to the ammo being more scattered (ATMs and such aren't in the same area as main weapon ammo, so everything cooking off at once is less likely).

[Apocal]

I also think that PCs tend to cook off more due to the ammo being more scattered (ATMs and such aren't in the same area as main weapon ammo, so everything cooking off at once is less likely).

The T72's carousel is notorious for having no survivability whatsoever. AIUI, it's also the leading cause for the short-range, high-altitude turret flight made famous during the Gulf War. If they simulated the carousel's actual... "features" then it's likely T72s are less likely to have secondary explosions because everything blew up with the first hit.

[Ryujin]

The T72's carousel is notorious for having no survivability whatsoever. AIUI, it's also the leading cause for the short-range, high-altitude turret flight made famous during the Gulf War. If they simulated the carousel's actual... "features" then it's likely T72s are less likely to have secondary explosions because everything blew up with the first hit.

I think the T-72 uses propellant bags and combine that with pyrophoric DU KE rounds and you get flying turrets.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

I seem to recall a discussion here reaching the conclusion that the Russian designs were very much focused on keeping the nasty out, but that very little provision was made for when something nasty got past the armour. Such as ammunition storage in the crew compartment, unlike western tanks who like to separate the ammo from the crew to varying degrees..

[Apocal]

I think the T-72 uses propellant bags and combine that with pyrophoric DU KE rounds and you get flying turrets.

Propellant bags?! Charges man, encased. The Russians have a different set of priorities with their tank design, but they aren't complete idiots. Trying to find a good interior picture of the T72's carousel arrangement, but the jist of it is men and gun are in turret, in the hull below are projos and charges and there isn't near enough seperation between the two.

[Apocal]

Actually, I was wrong, the carousel setup itself is safe, it's just the Russians store additional rounds inside the crew compartment of the T72, so any penetration is likely to lead to entertaining YouTube footage. At least according to Vasiliy Fofanov's Russian armor site.

I'm told this is the official ammunition layout, but this isn't from VF's site. I almost want to take back what I said earlier about the Russian's not being idiots. Seriously squatting on their own powder keg right there.

[Battlefront.com]

Setting things to burn in the Editor assumes they have already done whatever cooking off might have happened. If you think about it, that's the right way to do it. Otherwise the assumption would be that all of those vehicles were hit just prior to the first nano-second of the game. Far better to assume they were burning for an hour or more beforehand since that would be the far more common case.

Steve

[MikeyD]

About T72 'unsafe' stowage, same goes for the Challenger 2, and both vehicle burn/cook off much more readily than an Abrams.

I recall someone once mentioning that as the vehicle cooks off in the game the AI is literally counting down the rounds as they explode. So if you've got a fully bombed-up Challenger 2 it'll go for awhile, if you've got a Warrior stocked full of LAWs, small arms and 30 cal they's go for quite awhile too. A T62 with all of its ammo expended, not so much.