… you were saying?
“Head on”
Plus, that could still damage it due to the force the round exerts on the barrel, and it would destroy it if it were APFSDS.
You auto-win by killing the enemy lol
A tank with perfect armor would be OP. Shooting barrels means that no one tank can be 100% useless in a match, except for .50cal only tanks.
1 Like
Even if large gun barrels are, technically, this vulnerable to damage in real life, in my opinion this is one of those cases where it would actually benefit the game to be less realistic.
There’s loads of unrealistic features in WT for the sake of gameplay, shooting barrels being one of them.
That’s PRECISELY why we need to force realistic gunner sights. Armor is one of the worst things for a tank to specialize in right now because it’s so trivial to just shove a round through their hull machinegun, detonate an APHE shell in a cupola, or hit any small weakpoint even if it is grapefruit sized. Lowering the BR of the armored tank to the point where it would be 100% reliable would be unfair.
The way to make armor matter again is to remove the point and click gameplay and force players to compensate for parallax when shooting. Then the grapefruit sized weakpoint like a hull machinegun isn’t a huge problem for the tank and it will be able to more reliably depend on its armor in combat. The skilled can still exploit those weakpoints to defeat the tanks. It just takes more skill than pointing straight at the weakpoint.
6 Likes
Please let me know how many times you have been killed through a machine gun port. As an Italian player (who was stuck with HEATFS and/or only being able to aim for weakspots for a while), I don’t remember a single time where shooting the machine gun port did anything more than kill the machine gunner.
This is also not consistent.
This is a lot more difficult than it seems, especially in tanks without stabilizers.
Dude if you’re relying on armor then you’re doing something wrong. The best armor is simply don’t get shot.
I’m playing with true scope and grass on sight since years now, it will be fair to play versus other player with same handicap as me…
I mean, I’ll appreciate this.
3 Likes
Honestly yeah this should have been a thing along time ago.
For one it would actually force people to get creative with bush placement instead of driving around with a solid wall of bush in front of them.
Two it would make it incredibly hard if not impossible to pull stupid through certain pieces of cover/buildings (like some of the gaps between the shipping containers on cargoport).
Overall it would be a good change.
2 Likes
On the topic of barrel shooting: one of the reasons it’s so easy to do in this game is because the game conflates the aiming speed of a power traverse with accuracy of manual aiming (at least for older tanks).
IRL you used the speedy power traverse to swing the turret approximately where the target is, and then, unless it’s at point blanc range, you would need to finish adjusting azimuth and elevation using manual handcracks, which would take prohibitively long to aim at a specific part of a target, unless they were unaware of you and you could take your time with it.
A light tank (of normal caliber) should be able to frontally pen ANY tanks’ weakspots at its BR.
I know, it still applies. Most light tanks can be killed by literally any MG in the game.
I’ve never had that happen, regardless of how close I was, unless the turret ring of the non-light tank was damaged (so artificially slowed).
The M18 shouldn’t be classified as a light tank…
It is physically possible to break a barrel frontally (and helps with game balance to be able to do so). Most tank engagements IRL don’t happen at <400m, so I don’t know why IRL engagements must be the model for the game for just barrel breaking.
Why?
Or hit a weakspot (which exist on tanks) or their barrel (which can be damaged IRL).
It’s partially skill and partially just dumb luck because of how inconsistent they are.
Denting a barrel even slightly should make it fully inoperable.
To add to this, a non-damaged barrel with a 76mm APC round (from a medium tank):
A barely-damaged barrel from a 76mm APHE round (from a light tank:
A non-damaged barrel from a 40mm AP-T round (from an SPAA, but more-or-less a light tank):
A non-damaged barrel from a 90mm APHE round (from a tank destroyer):
But with the same 90mm round, only a slightly different position:
As you can see, barrel damage is already not consistent.
You guys know that You can play SB where it is normal?
Nothing like that will happen. If we are going to do that then force cocpit view for planes.
1 Like
Not an equivalent. Tank optics in barrel would be as if players could choose to have all their bullets spawn from the aircraft’s gunsight.
4 Likes
But talking gameplay-wise it is an equivalent.
No. Equivalent to forcing cockpit view would be forcing interior views (or commander’s hatch) for tanks.
3 Likes
Not really.
It would be the same as forcing aircraft to use cocpit view anytime they want to use weapons.
I am in heavy support of this, but they need to make sure that the laser rangefinder eliminates parallax even at close range. Right now, when I try to use the cam thru gunner optic, even when I lase a target, it doesn’t fix the parallax at close range.
This is nightmare when you’re in an Abrams where your whole hull and neck is a weakspot, but you kinda need pixel aim against Russian tanks and German tanks (the window for Russian’s LFP is not that big since a bit too low = it goes thru the floor instead of bouncing inside and hitting the ammo and too high = no pen).