I do wonder what the line is with dev server reports because I had a very extensive report about sabot pedals last year after they first dropped on dev with numerous sources about petals, how far they’d travel and all that jazz and it was passed as a suggestion followed by toning down of the petals.
Should that not have also been told to go to the forums?
Unless its because I had 15 attachments on it from a million sources.
Well, there is always the hope that they keep increasing the level of realism and model the charges separately (two part ammo) as being as reactive as they are IRL and so ensure an ammo rack if they get damaged.
That’s the thing the penetrator isn’t what is being relied on to take out the module(s), but abusing the way the secondary fragmentation (is erroneously set up) to cause a cascade event to to take out the modules in question is the issue.
That’s what makes it a poor shot.
I’d agree, but it has an increasingly outsized impact on the likelihood that it occurs, especially for tanks that are already considered glass cannons it’s not really needed to make them worse, especially considering none of the outstanding accepted bugs relating to module placement or (missing) armor layout were implemented with this revision to the laoyout.
Unless you’re a brit main (so solid shot and early APDS) whether you realise it or not you’re reliant on the post pen damage from spalling so this is very normal. a hefty amount of the damage from real life tank penetrations are from spall shrapnel rather than the initial penetrator too.
Unconventional killshots arent poor shots. When I play Tiger 1 I bounce shells off sherman drive sprockets to one shot Jumbos to flex on them, unconventional but still a kill.
I can guarantee you the Abrams and Leo 2 will keep their place in the meta with these changes. Challenger and ariete still suck in comparison.
I wouldn’t be suprised if that deceiver-named known reporter manager denied the bug and claimed that it is a ‘game convention’
If they’re moving into this narrative of conventions to do inaccurate, non-realistic changes to only penalize gameplay, sadly this game’s days are numbered.
can i be honest?
every internal module that was made for tanks only generated more weaknesses and at the same time it caused more spall to occur inside the tanks once they are penetrated.
did you guys really expected that it would be different for the leopards and the abrams? i think it would have been easier to ask for community collaboration to add something that is historically wrong (spall liners for Abrams) than to have asked for modeled interiors… at least the “historically wrong spall liners” for the abrams would give a better survivability…
Are you sure?
to be honest I’m not sure, but from what I could see it’s not 100% whether the abrams has spall liners or not, that’s why I put it like “this”, but my point was, even if it’s “historically wrong”, it would be better to try asking the community to help to implement this anyway than asking for the interior modules because:
The problem is how gaijin implement it, in real life they only go kaput when hit, not creating more spall or cripple the entire tank like the turret basket in devs server
in real life the abrams turret basket in particular provide protection to a certain degree, when it is hit it does not cripple the function of turret traverse in this case. But ingame it just cripple the entire tank while creating more spall, which it should NOT.
The way gaijin implement things are horrendous or questionable at best, tho this occurs mostly on non-russian tank, which is “what a suprise” moment
why? It makes sense to me that a rod flying at mach jesus if it penetrates the tank it would already cause spall and if it continues passing through the tank and ends up hitting the turret basket it would also generate more spall since that thing is made of metals right? (btw, i agree that it shouldnt cripple the ENTIRE tank, but for sure the turret basket would generate more spall)
but the turret basket being one with the turret ring isn’t something for all vehicles in wt that have the turret basket modeled? even if its wrong, it should be expected to come similar to other vehicles that already have that…thats why i said that it should be better to add the supposed “historically wrong spall liners” for the abrams than having another weaknesses that causes more spall
Thin sheets of metal do not generate spall; turret baskets are thin sheets of aluminum. This is even modelled in War Thunder already.
i’m going to take your word for it because tbh i don’t know how it works lol I’m just assuming it would also generate more shrapnel since it’s made of metal
Just shoot the autoloader cassette of a T series tank, they are under 8mm of thickness and do not produce additional spall.
would it be like shooting a bmp or something like that? the metal so thin that it cannot produce spall when hit by sabot rounds?
you are kinda uneducated on the turret basket thing but in short, there are certain amount armor thickness that when hit do not generate more spall, it is because its too thin to deformed or break the round apart to generate what you call “spall”
The turret basket material act like thin spall liner but is not a spall liner, it is because it act like it, direct hit on the turret basket will not create more spall but prevent from creating spalling simply because there isnt enough thickness to make the round falls apart
A round going at Mach Jesus will turn into jelly, and thin metal sheet isnt gonna make a temporarily jelly shape like object deformed and “spall”
An example of this is take a needle and punch a hole in a paper, the needle still keep it shape
Now force that needle into a wall and see it deformed trying to poke a hole in a wall
Apfsds going at mach Jesus, turns jelly-like object, go through a 1-20mm thick alluminum will keep it shape without further damage
Same Apfsds going at mach Jesus, turns jelly-like object, when hit at a 500mm RHA equivalent walls will deformed its way to penetrate through
i see i see, well, the only thing left is to convince gaijin that the turret basket doesnt generate more spall then.
another question, if the turret basket doesn’t provide any “protection” like a spall liner then the turret basket would also be useless against the first “wave” of spall generated by sabot penetration, right?
It should have some effect on the light weight & low velocity (lower energy) class of spalling fragments that are generated.
maybe, maybe not, because spalling in the game is super janky so in scenarios like shoot abrams front plate with dm33 the turret basket would catch the spall, but not the projectile itself
sometimes the spall go through, sometimes it doesnt, its super inconsistence
that seems complicated to model D:
cause the devs will be like (or this turret basket will stop everything or it wont stop nothing) lol
but what about idk, a shot from the side/neck/lfp with a 3bm60 or even faster/better rounds? would still stop the fragmentation?
Depend on where you place the shot in those area, because of how gaijin code/model the things it super hard to determine
dead on 0 degree side shot 3bm60 would spall because side armor is thick enough to generate spall but there would be a certain amount of spall that would be catch by the turret basket
