Jump to content

Don't like hullbreak? Watch this video.


Bring back hullbreak.

I don't think I need to say much. If it had been a king tiger it would have been dead. If it had been a T34 it would have been dead. If it had been an IS-2 it would have been dead. But because light tanks need to be completely brainless and handheld..... well you'll see in the vid.

BR-540B.thumb.jpg.fbd7a7d4bdbf04885463b6

OF-540.thumb.jpg.3e59bf89692c37d48a70f77

 

Edited by watch_your_fire
  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 5
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes HE is currently broken it should hullbreak I agree with this being a issue. Nose fuse HE should be able to hullbreak lighter vehicles with ease, but as of late this does not seem to be the case as of late, regardless of the filler of the nose fused HE. HESH and HEAT currently hullbreak as they should where as nose fused HE does not for some reason.

 

However, sinking round after round into the transmission wont kill the tank if the transmissions keeps eating the rounds and spall. Shooting the transmission over and over again wont kill the crew any more efficiently than would the first time you shot it. 

 

All you had to do was move 12 feet up and shoot it again above the transmission to kill the other two crew. All of your spall was getting eaten by the transmission and engine because it was directly between your round and the crew.

 

And lastly, no, I don't want KE hullbreak to come back, its not fun at all. Now should nose fuse HE get it's ability to hullbreak back? Yes, I don't know why it does not hullbreak in the first place.

  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to bring in some "real life" issues - this report on how British 76mm HESH (as used by Scorpion CVR(T) and Saladin a/c) performs is interesting - half of it is about damage done to a lightly armoured a/c - admittedly with a base fuze....   but still... 3 hits on reinforced plated - each of them smashed straight through the original and added plating just by kinetic energy:

 

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/AD0348021.pdf

 

image.thumb.png.fac04431b83a0c6b758f90ef

image.thumb.png.0d4358bf13ed936080280c9f

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dedushka_1963 said:

You were targeting the most sloped part of the hull. What's wrong with you?

 

Was trying to get the shell to fuse. The HE definitely should have killed it, 5kg of explosives on tissue paper thin armor

2 hours ago, Lolman345 said:

All you had to do was move 12 feet up and shoot it again above the transmission to kill the other two crew

The video doesn't show the enemy M47 to my right, trust me I would have liked to simply drive over the T92 and save myself the ammo but I couldn't in this case

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Phah.

See this thread:
 

 

Aside from taking 1 month to just reply and close the thread, they also are saying, that its NORMAL for LIGHT VEHICLE, to not get hullbroken by 50kg ATGM, with 7.5kg of explosive mass. Thats 2  times more mass than the OF-540, and 50% explosive mass. Actually, they are saying, that the hullbreak is removed.

While the thread was done before the change to kinetic rounds and hullbreak.

Hit turret - no hullbreak.
Hit hull and engine - no hullbreak.

Some vehicles are utterly broken.
I hit an Class 3P today, in the front, with the same ATGM - it broke.

Go figure.

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If anything all this highlights is the persistent issue of transmissions and engines often being black holes that completely eat rounds entirely. This problem doesn't isn't exclusive to light tanks. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Next time try to hit the turret with the HE and it should go down into the crew compartment . (BTW, im not trying to say that this sh#t was fine, it should have been hull broken with the HE, but HE is considered kinetic since the patch I heard) 

  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if it has to do with the nature of Tandem ATGM. Since it is a small explosion impacting armor surface to trigger ERA, followed by a big one not actually touching the actual armor plates. If so, possible a coding issue that cause inconsistencies?

 

I am playing M551 lately with Shillelagh missiles, 3.6KG of explosives, and consistently hull break TAM, RAD, Centauro, ZSU, Geppard, Object 120 and any other light skinned vehicle. Only one that give me trouble was Class 3P front hull with a 50/50 chance.

 

Maybe try using the regular ATGM on Shturm-S and see if it is more consistent?

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 13/01/2021 at 12:27, AssaultPlazma said:

If anything all this highlights is the persistent issue of transmissions and engines often being black holes that completely eat rounds entirely. This problem doesn't isn't exclusive to light tanks. 

For what its worth, many vehicles did place them up front for this explicit reason. EG the merkavas have it up front to absorb incoming fire and spall.

 

In the case of a engine block it makes sense given these things are sometimes a few tons of solid cast steel in the form of a engine block so I'd expect it to absorb some fire.

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Lolman345 said:

For what its worth, many vehicles did place them up front for this explicit reason. EG the merkavas have it up front to absorb incoming fire and spall.

 

In the case of a engine block it makes sense given these things are sometimes a few tons of solid cast steel in the form of a engine block so I'd expect it to absorb some fire.

Well, i think we can all agree that after 2 hits with a 152mm AP shell the engine points/ankers would be completely broken and the engine would fall down lmao.

  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lolman345 said:

For what its worth, many vehicles did place them up front for this explicit reason. EG the merkavas have it up front to absorb incoming fire and spall.

 

In the case of a engine block it makes sense given these things are sometimes a few tons of solid cast steel in the form of a engine block so I'd expect it to absorb some fire.

I'm pretty sure this is false. Last I remember early tanks only had front mounted transmission simply because with it close to the driver it made shifting otherwise stiff gears alot easier. In the case of the Merkava, the engine is in front merely to open up the backside to have the escape door. So if the tank is disabled they crew can simply run out the back as opposed to having to having to open up hatches and climb out only to likely be coaxed anyway. Not to mention the rear door means their wingman drive drive and pick up stricken crew members. 

 

I've seen little to no evidence that suggest that engine blocks/transmissions in anyway way provide protection against penetrations. Neither is armored to protect against tank rounds. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, AssaultPlazma said:

I've seen little to no evidence that suggest that engine blocks/transmissions in anyway way provide protection against penetrations. Neither is armored to protect against tank rounds. 

Of course they do. Might not be a lot for their physical size but you have to have an engine and transmission anyway, placing that in front of the Merkava is protecting the much more valuable crew inside for the price of a disabled tank. Anything a projectile needs to go through will increase protection even by a little bit.. Even an air gap increases protection through spaced armor or even just distance for KE projectiles.

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 14/01/2021 at 21:17, DavidDeFrog said:

I wonder if it has to do with the nature of Tandem ATGM. Since it is a small explosion impacting armor surface to trigger ERA, followed by a big one not actually touching the actual armor plates. If so, possible a coding issue that cause inconsistencies?

 

I am playing M551 lately with Shillelagh missiles, 3.6KG of explosives, and consistently hull break TAM, RAD, Centauro, ZSU, Geppard, Object 120 and any other light skinned vehicle. Only one that give me trouble was Class 3P front hull with a 50/50 chance.

 

Maybe try using the regular ATGM on Shturm-S and see if it is more consistent?

I have had the same success of hullbreaking an Rad with the proxy fuse ATGM, which does not trigger below certain altitude.

In fact, the Class 3 cannot be hullbroken by 125mm HE. but can from an tandem ATGM.
What is the difference between Class 3 and a Radkampwagen 90, where one hullbreaks from ATGMs, the other one does not?

Not much if you ask me, but Gaijin thinks differently.

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 15/01/2021 at 07:24, Foxtrot_Ace said:

I think any fullbore AP shell should hullbreak above 105mm caliber so stuff like this doesnt happen. It's infuriating hitting an EBR with a 122 only for it to kill a few crew members.

 

Basictly yes, should be. But the shot needs a critical hit to hullbreak, not just the track ou the wheel. 

 

 

On 14/01/2021 at 20:15, BeriY_ said:

Well, i think we can all agree that after 2 hits with a 152mm AP shell the engine points/ankers would be completely broken and the engine would fall down lmao.

I've wost : 155mm x 4 on a Bmp-1, put in black the hull, but doesn't matter. Of course, I got a simple shot from the grenade by the Bmp-1 :
 



Or like this one :
 

 

Edited by Whisky_077
  • Thanks 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Untill they can properly model hullbreak it needs to be gone and it should be removed for heat as well.

 

 

 

This is what you get with kinetic hullbreak, and it's like this now with heat. That's why it needs to be removed until they can rework it.

If anything there could be a seperation between low & high tier tanks. Because high tier certainly don't need hullbreak where light tanks are just worse than mbts.

  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 2
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DramaticPooP said:

Because high tier certainly don't need hullbreak where light tanks are just worse than mbts.

Good joke. Tell that to BMPs, Rads, and Strykers that take 3+ hits to kill while the average Leopard or T-64 can be dispatched with a single hit

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, watch_your_fire said:

Good joke. Tell that to BMPs, Rads, and Strykers that take 3+ hits to kill while the average Leopard or T-64 can be dispatched with a single hit

 

And even if they do absorb a hit once in a blue moon, BMP's LULZ is still complete trash to real tanks. 

 

-5 stryker OMEGAlulz

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, watch_your_fire said:

Good joke. Tell that to BMPs, Rads, and Strykers that take 3+ hits to kill while the average Leopard or T-64 can be dispatched with a single hit

I hate BMP's but I rarely have to shoot twice on them. Last time I remember having to do that was with M82 APCBC in which the engine/transmission had a nasty habit of eating the round and not hullbreaking. Problem with BMP's is their tendency to cause random troll bounces when they most certainly should not be. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, watch_your_fire said:

Good joke. Tell that to BMPs, Rads, and Strykers that take 3+ hits to kill while the average Leopard or T-64 can be dispatched with a single hit

You belong to the comedium club.

The BMPs are 90% of the time, 1 shot killed. It has crew of 3, where the gunner and commander are next to each other. Unless you shoot with APFSDS the UFP (and bounce from it), you will most certainly kill the BMP from any direction with 1 hit. As long as you dont hit the empty rear compartment.
The Striker dies as well pretty fast.
Hit it with ATGM in the hull - dead due to hullbreak.

Hit it with APFSDS  from the side, in the center - it dies.
Now... try doing the same with the Class 3 from the front. Its whack-a-mole basically.

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, CodyBlues said:

Why didn’t you try HE on the track?

I thought HE on the hull would work better. As someone pointed out, Gaijin apparently disabled hullbreak for HE and now only HEAT can do it, I obviously didn't get the memo

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...