Concept : Armor degradation?

This is a new concept in the physics of armor in gaming. Essentially, currently when a tank is hit, its armor remains 100% effective (except for parts like skirts that protect the tracks or reactive armor that can be damaged). The idea is that armor would wear down and become less efficient over the course of a game. For example, in the current system, firing on the frontal armor of an Abrams tank with an M163 will never destroy it, but it seems obvious that in real life, the armor would eventually give way, allowing bullets to penetrate and destroy everything inside.

It’s just an idea I had. I know Gaijin wants their game to be realistic, and this idea seems realistic to me. I imagine it’s technically feasible, but what about gameplay and balance? What do you think?

9 Likes

The current modeling of spall liners effectively does this. After a penetrating shot it stops reducing spall from repeated shots against the same area.

1 Like

I think modeling damage/destruction of Composite blocks is what youre referring to, and damage/holing/warping of RHA.

The problem for composites is that gaijin would have to know every MBTs composite block layout

4 Likes

Sounds like World of Tanks to me.

Good to know ! So it is already implemented in some way

Yep you are right, but maybe in case of advanced realism ?
Solution could be that with every hit we could just admit a certain percentage of wear off for each hit, depending of armor type & thickness and ammo type

1 Like

Gaijin can’t get volumetric to work, you think they could manage this? It’d be a mess.

15 Likes

I don’t think this would be worth the technical headache of implementation, for it to be remotely realistic the server would have to follow precisely where you have been hit on each armour plate as a opposed to allowing the entire armour plate to “fail” by random strafing from a M42 Duster vs the whole side plate of a Maus for example. Then there’s the balance of what calibre of round/number of hits vs realism and interaction with NERA at higher tiers.

It’s not really the same as the simplified destruction of modules i.e. spall liners/fuel/ERA

5 Likes

I totally agree but I have never said that gaijin wouldn’t mess it lol

Tanks that have ERA technically has armor degradation.

Ikr but that’s not what I’m talking about ! In talking about passive armor !

It would be really hard to model and maybe it would create even more buggy armor.

2 Likes

Every good idea Gaijin has implemented into the game has been half baked. Volumetric, IRCCM missiles, and now spall liners. It’s a complete joke. Volumetric is a great idea but combining volumetric armour and non-volumetric shells and vice versa it is awful. Either a shell doesn’t pen a small area because 2 overlapping 50mm plates somehow equal 5000m of protection or a 3 inch sized hole in the side of a tank opens up so it can killed by a smoke shell via overpressure.

1 Like

The problem for composites is that gaijin would have to know every MBTs composite block layout

Why on earth would they have to know that? Literally just give it hitpoints and reduce its effectiveness by some curve that feels reasonable in playtesting.

1 Like

Volumetric works perfectly fine. Show even one single clear example in test drive (to rule out ping/lag, and to be able to see exact angles, shells used, etc. make it replicable for others in the conversation, while also still using the actual game engine not the analyzer which may behave differently) where it doesn’t do exactly what you’d expect. I’ll wait.

i’ve asked probably 2-3 dozen people this over time, and never gotten a single serious answer. Like 90% of people give up instantly and don’t even try to find an example, cause they know they jumped on a bandwagon and have nothing to back it up right from the start.

The other 10% of people give an example with a gunner’s optic. Gunner’s optics stopping shells does not count. That is a bug, yes, but it is a bug with gunner’s optics having ludicrously high or possibly infinite armor values the first time they are hit, not anything to do with volumetric. This existed BEFORE volumetric already. Gunner’s optics still were 1 time black holes back then too.

Sounds like World of Tanks to me.

A huge number of things in War Thunder have hitpoints already. Engines have hitpoints, barrels have hitpoints, tracks have hitpoints, all crew members have individual hitpoints, even individual shells of ammo have hitpoints.

The difference vs world of tanks is not the use of hitpoints (which WT actually has MORE of than WoT). It’s that in WoT, hitting X “component” (visually speaking) magically teleports the destruction around and damages all components even ones not anywhere nearby.

This would not be an example of that. You’d be reducing the HP of the exact plate(s) you actually hit, NOT magically damaging random plates way on the other end of the tank. Like everything else in WT works and NOT like things in WoT work.

1 Like

Yep you got it !

Because thats not how at all how composites work lmao

Every tank mounts its composites way different

2 Likes

Are you a Russian or German main?

2 Likes

99% of people don’t give the slightest shit or have any idea how composites work. HP works just fine. And like I said you just assign a good feeling curve to it. If a particular piece of armor is suspected to be more of a 1 time use then compromised sort of deal, then make the curve sharply dip down early on, compared to RHA. Still very simple to estimate and model easily.

By comparison, do you think turbine engines work by “getting a little slower but still working, if they’ve only been shot with three autocannon rounds and not seven?” Do you think that crew members just load a little bit slower when they’ve been hit with 2 vs 1 piece of spall and are bleeding more? This is how EVERYTHING in War Thunder works in approximates, it’s always pretty wildly wrong vs reality, and it’s just fine and literally nobody cares.