Jump to content


weak Caernarvon?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
21 replies to this topic

MidasTouch #1 Posted Dec 06 2012 - 17:18

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 11919 battles
  • 78
  • Member since:
    03-06-2011
Don't know if this has been asked before but has any one else played this tank and it seems to take critical hit more then you would expect? I seem to have ammo and crew hits more then on other tanks. I am wondering if the devs didn't set up the design just right. Anyway, anyone else encounter this?

Travis

skcuf #2 Posted Dec 06 2012 - 17:23

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 16661 battles
  • 598
  • [-VD-] -VD-
  • Member since:
    04-11-2011
Drive an amx 50 120 and youll encounter more ammo racks than you could have thought. Drive vk4502P ausf. B and you'll see everything go with a single shot. Haven't played the caern before but I've yet to find anything more common than I've listed

Hurk #3 Posted Dec 06 2012 - 17:25

    Major

  • Players
  • 24989 battles
  • 6,902
  • [KGR] KGR
  • Member since:
    09-30-2012
i think the wiki has a critical locations map option. (or at least one of the fan sites does) the crit spots are generally accurate to the real tanks, some are far more vulnerable than others in that regard.

RainbowsWoT #4 Posted Dec 06 2012 - 17:27

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 667 battles
  • 174
  • Member since:
    01-27-2012
If the Caern is like the Centurion, the ammo rack is located in the front of the tank, on the left side.

(also known as the worst possible position)

opticalshadow #5 Posted Dec 06 2012 - 17:30

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 5198 battles
  • 245
  • [TRG] TRG
  • Member since:
    04-21-2011
i think my type 59 was armoed with ammo racks...

hardicon #6 Posted Dec 06 2012 - 17:37

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 30872 battles
  • 5,039
  • [FEL0N] FEL0N
  • Member since:
    07-03-2010
yeah ammorack for the carnivore is in the front.  no idea why anyone would ever think that would be a good place to put a  ammorack.  wacky british designers.  for that reason I try to angle my tank away from the enemy by angling it to the left.  seems whenever i angle it to the right i get racked, angle to the left i never do or rarely.  save your repair kit for the ammorack and get safe stowage, another option is to use a wet ammo rack but by proper angling you can minimize the time you will get racked so you wont need a war.

Dogsoldier6 #7 Posted Dec 06 2012 - 17:38

    Captain

  • Players
  • 33201 battles
  • 1,284
  • [GBEAR] GBEAR
  • Member since:
    11-17-2011

opticalshadow, on Dec 06 2012 - 17:30, said:

i think my type 59 was armoed with ammo racks...

T-44, T-54, T-62A, all which are the same tank family, are nothing but rolling ammo racks waiting to get nailed. Blame the designers of said tanks not the game......

Oh Wet Ammo Racks and Safe Stowage help a ton......................

Dogsoldier6 #8 Posted Dec 06 2012 - 17:42

    Captain

  • Players
  • 33201 battles
  • 1,284
  • [GBEAR] GBEAR
  • Member since:
    11-17-2011
On the lighter side..........................

Psssssst, it IS a secret nerf....... I have connections with the GRU, KGB, and the Illuminati all of which have a direct line to the Devs for WoT.........

I saw the document with your name on it and it clearly stated under action to be taken to secretly nerf all of your tanks in the game....... :Smile_ohmy:

Oh yea, anyone want some nice ocean front property in Idaho? I got a bunch I am willing to let go real cheap  :Smile-hiding:

Good Hunting All :Smile_honoring:

Courier90 #9 Posted Dec 06 2012 - 17:42

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 12371 battles
  • 203
  • [PONYS] PONYS
  • Member since:
    01-09-2012

Dogsoldier6, on Dec 06 2012 - 17:38, said:

T-44, T-54, T-62A, all which are the same tank family, are nothing but rolling ammo racks waiting to get nailed. Blame the designers of said tanks not the game......

Thats because soviet tank designers decided it'd be better to store the ammo in the hull around the turret..... I'm not sure on reasoning but yeah thats what they did..... rolling ammo rack... yep pretty much.

Arctic_fox99 #10 Posted Dec 06 2012 - 17:42

    Captain

  • Players
  • 13192 battles
  • 1,131
  • [ARBOK] ARBOK
  • Member since:
    11-29-2011
Every time my front lower plate gets penned i get ammo racked and god forbid they pen it in the middle, I have a nasty habit of losing both an ammo rack AND my driver, And on a really bad day maybe my engine (and a fire to boot) to top it off.

Now just to add insult to injury with a 100% crew it has the same RoF as my Type with less damage per shot and less armor overall.

Honestly i've seen worse tanks but it really needs ether a damage or an armor buff, having arty splash you do 10 damage and take out 4 crew and 2 mods gets old REALLY damn fast.

tomego #11 Posted Dec 06 2012 - 17:43

    Captain

  • Players
  • 21865 battles
  • 1,135
  • [BULBA] BULBA
  • Member since:
    10-09-2011
I get ammo racked in mine a lot. Often I will get racked, I will hit repair and I will get re-racked. Kind of frustrating how often it happens but I have yet to explode from an ammo rack detonation.

TalonV #12 Posted Dec 06 2012 - 17:50

    Major

  • Players
  • 28177 battles
  • 23,642
  • [BURDY] BURDY
  • Member since:
    10-21-2011
Why do you think i have basically unlocked the comet on the british line and plan to go no further.

Sorry from what i have seen and heard about higher tier brit tanks, they are just not worth the heartache and pain.

oldkye #13 Posted Dec 06 2012 - 17:55

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 5892 battles
  • 971
  • Member since:
    01-31-2011

opticalshadow, on Dec 06 2012 - 17:30, said:

i think my type 59 was armoed with ammo racks...
No type 59 (or T-44 through T-62A) should every be driven without a wet rack, and safe stow *This is a public service announcement*

Brock7142 #14 Posted Dec 06 2012 - 17:55

    Major

  • Players
  • 4950 battles
  • 4,675
  • Member since:
    03-05-2011

Courier90, on Dec 06 2012 - 17:42, said:

Thats because soviet tank designers decided it'd be better to store the ammo in the around the turret..... I'm not sure on reasoning but yeah thats what they did..... rolling ammo rack... yep pretty much.

No different than making the entire back gate for the BMP a massive fuel tank. (It's not thick because it's pure armor, it's thick because its a ridiculously huge fuel tank in the worse possible location)

Or the AAV having fuel tanks lining locations that are heavily bad, and so close to ammunition...............

Or the location of the ammunition in the Abrams.......Or where the 20mm shells are stored in the Bradley.

Tank Designers focus on convenience of operation. cost of production, and ease of training the crew.

oldkye #15 Posted Dec 06 2012 - 18:00

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 5892 battles
  • 971
  • Member since:
    01-31-2011

Brock7142, on Dec 06 2012 - 17:55, said:

No different than making the entire back gate for the BMP a massive fuel tank. (It's not thick because it's pure armor, it's thick because its a ridiculously huge fuel tank in the worse possible location)

Or the AAV having fuel tanks lining locations that are heavily bad, and so close to ammunition...............

Or the location of the ammunition in the Abrams.......Or where the 20mm shells are stored in the Bradley.

Tank Designers focus on convenience of operation. cost of production, and ease of training the crew.
At least with the Abrams they separated the crew and designed it to blow out away from the tank when hit lol basically saying "were not going to put it in a better spot but we know it's there" hehe

_Pestilence_ #16 Posted Dec 06 2012 - 18:02

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 13241 battles
  • 307
  • Member since:
    03-27-2011
I've heard the caern is a horrible tank from other players. But idk a lot of players have different play styles.

Eschaton #17 Posted Dec 06 2012 - 18:05

    Captain

  • Players
  • 2333 battles
  • 1,283
  • Member since:
    05-13-2012

hardicon, on Dec 06 2012 - 17:37, said:

yeah ammorack for the carnivore is in the front.  no idea why anyone would ever think that would be a good place to put a  ammorack.  wacky british designers.  for that reason I try to angle my tank away from the enemy by angling it to the left.  seems whenever i angle it to the right i get racked, angle to the left i never do or rarely.  save your repair kit for the ammorack and get safe stowage, another option is to use a wet ammo rack but by proper angling you can minimize the time you will get racked so you wont need a war.

If you ever did electrical work on an older British car, it wouldn't surprise you. It still wouldn't make sense, but it wouldn't be a surprise.

oldkye #18 Posted Dec 06 2012 - 18:07

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 5892 battles
  • 971
  • Member since:
    01-31-2011

Shrapnel10, on Dec 06 2012 - 18:02, said:

I've heard the caern is a horrible tank from other players. But idk a lot of players have different play styles.
It's alot like driving the tiger accurate high pen gun horrible armor the difference is you trade ammo rack for being set on fire.  However people are still good in the tiger I've killed a M103 one on one with a tiger close range tracking him then disabling his turret then set him on fire lol.

Courier90 #19 Posted Dec 06 2012 - 18:32

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 12371 battles
  • 203
  • [PONYS] PONYS
  • Member since:
    01-09-2012

Brock7142, on Dec 06 2012 - 17:55, said:

No different than making the entire back gate for the BMP a massive fuel tank. (It's not thick because it's pure armor, it's thick because its a ridiculously huge fuel tank in the worse possible location)

Or the AAV having fuel tanks lining locations that are heavily bad, and so close to ammunition...............

Or the location of the ammunition in the Abrams.......Or where the 20mm shells are stored in the Bradley.

Tank Designers focus on convenience of operation. cost of production, and ease of training the crew.

Exactly.... its the convenience of things..... Russian tanks and really all other military builds always focused on the quantity.... very large very large quantity of items. Some of them being very good. But in regards to tanks..... well.... some things maybe should've been rethought. Aka ur BMP example with the large gas tanks.... thousands of those APCs but all of them have that very large weak spot.

BlackVoid #20 Posted Dec 06 2012 - 18:55

    Staff sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 29983 battles
  • 295
  • Member since:
    11-04-2010
You do know that every AFV is designed for specific role and OpFor based on the previous experience?

The reason majority of tanks after WW2 have thin armor and have ammo rack in the hull is that they were supposed to move fast from cover to cover into hull down position and engage other tanks at 1.5-2 km range. Hull is usually protected. You drive up to the hill with only commanders cupola sticking out. Commander designates the target, range. Drive up, shoot to kill, back out.

Also ammo rack rarely brews up on its own, it happens in majority of cases after the fire started. Fire usually starts when a shell goes through the tank and showers inside with drops of hot metal and sparks. It even happens with bounces or partial penetrations.

That's why tanks have Kevlar liner and tankers wear anti flash gloves and hoods. Also when APCR bounces, the energy involved is so great, insides of the tank are flashed with bright light through the periscopes.  Anyone outside the tank will be burned to cinders. If tankers carry their kit attached to the turret, that starts fires.

So wet ammo rack is a container which prevents fire from reaching ammo. Russian decision to keep some of the ammo in the fuel tank is in fact "wet" ammo rack. Fuel protects the ammo. Of course if it is a direct hit it's over anyways.

Also ammo stowage is separated on ready (turret) and general (hull).  You can load on average every 5s from ready ammo stowage. And then you have to withdraw and replenish it. Or rate of fire drops.

And of course if you don't face tanks but EIDs, then ammo stowage in the hull is bad.  But tanks were never designed with counter-insurgency in mind. All of them were supposed to face Soviets in Europe.

And having fuel tank on the back of BMP was due to requirement to keep it as small as possible. Compare it to M113 or M2. If you think about it, any frontal hit kills the engine, but not the crew or dismounts. And doesn't start fires. Of course armor on BMP1 is so thin that kinetic penetrator usually goes through it like paper and with 2K temperatures involved everything inside just melts.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users