Hi, I’m Seli and I wanted to point out a few things about the game’s realism:
AP ammunition — The game ignores the residual effect of the projectile
The problem is that War Thunder treats armor as a binary threshold: if the projectile has less penetration than the plate thickness, it simply does not penetrate. This ignores the physical reality of the projectile, which does not disappear upon impact.
How it works in reality
The projectile has mass and residual velocity. In real life, a difference of at least ~20 mm of extra armor is needed to stop it completely. A projectile that “should” be stopped with a 1 or 5 mm margin can still penetrate.
Example: The 90 mm T33 APBC round penetrates 65 mm at 60° according to War Thunder. The Panther’s front plate is 80 mm at a 60° angle in the simulation. War Thunder shows no penetration. In a real simulation, the projectile manages to penetrate partially due to its residual mass and inertia.
Watch simulation (T33 vs Panther)
AP ammunition — Progressive velocity loss through armor plates is not modeled correctly
The problem: War Thunder applies the same impact velocity regardless of how many armor layers the projectile has already passed through. It does not model the progressive loss of kinetic energy.
War Thunder: The Jagdtiger’s Pzgr.43 penetrates the Super Pershing’s final layer at the same velocity, regardless of the previous layers it passed through.
Reality: The projectile arrives with very little velocity remaining, but its mass keeps pushing it forward. It also deforms and displaces the armor it strikes.
Watch simulation (Jagdtiger vs Super Pershing)
APHE ammunition — The internal explosion does not work as it does in reality
The problem: War Thunder represents APHE as an AP round that detonates inside the armor with a large blast radius, as if it were a grenade. This dramatically overestimates post-penetration damage.
War Thunder: Upon penetrating, the projectile explodes with a massive fragmentation cone that destroys practically everything inside the tank.
Reality: APHE generates more fragments than a solid AP round, but these follow a limited trajectory from the point of detonation. It is not an omnidirectional explosion.
Watch simulation (APHE behavior)
Composite armor — Composite armor is treated as homogeneous steel
The problem: Gaijin calculates composite armor resistance by summing the layers and applying multipliers to each material, to obtain a rolled steel equivalent. This does not correctly represent how the layers interact with each other.
Leopard 2AV example: The 2AV’s cheeks have an armor package of ~710 mm when adding up the NERA, steel, and air layers. War Thunder translates this to an average of ~330 mm of steel equivalent against the 3BM15, allowing the Soviet round to penetrate easily. In a real simulation, that same sabot barely manages to reach the second NERA layer.
Watch simulation (Leopard 2AV vs 3BM15)
Chieftain vs T-72 Ural example: War Thunder shows no penetration, which seems accurate, but just one degree less of angle and it penetrates. In reality, that extreme angular sensitivity would not exist with real composite armor.
Watch simulation (Chieftain vs T-72 Ural)
APFSDS ammunition — Fin-stabilized darts behave like conventional AP
The problem: War Thunder applies the same ricochet logic to APFSDS as to solid AP projectiles. This is incorrect due to the completely different physical nature of both projectiles.
Watch simulation (APFSDS behavior at extreme angles)
War Thunder: The 3BM42 ricochets at angles above 80°. Example: the Abrams’ glacis (38 mm at 83°) or the Leopard 2A4 (35 mm at 82°) stop it through ricochet.
Reality: An APFSDS round does not ricochet like an AP round. Its axis does not change abruptly: the tip erodes, but the rest of the penetrator continues along its original trajectory. It should keep penetrating even at 83–84°, although with reduced post-penetration damage.
If there are any mistakes you think I made, please let me know, and also tell me what you think about this and how it could be resolved.