I remember a while ago on reddit that armor 6mm thick doesnt spall. They tested by shooting the M3 Halftracks side armor and the results was no spalling whats so ever.
Russian MBT spall armor for their ammo racks is 6mm, just enough to protect against shrapnel but thin enough for the game to not generate said shrapnel. Thus, giving Russian top tier tanks ridiculous protection.
Im curious if anyone can confirm this idea or if its something else completely.
In game its 7mm and less won’t spall. russia was given 4mm - 6mm in game. I can confirm from the game code. Here you go:
" “armorThickness”: 4.0,
“stopChanceOnDeadPart”: 0.0,
“createSecondaryShatters”: false,"
Secondary shatters is your spalling, and you can see they are set to false for the object 279. But even more so they simply turned shatters off for russian tanks. Again here is the code from the object 279 where spalling is turned to “false” or off:
" “ammo”: {
“armorClass”: “tank_structural_steel”,
“hp”: 300.0,
“armorThickness”: 2.0,
“armorThrough”: 10.0,
“fireProtectionHp”: 20.0,
“createSecondaryShatters”: false,"
Notice that is on the ammo racks for the object 279. You will notice initially thickness is 2.0 (this negates spalling but triggers some fuses). Then you have a second armor plate. Then you will notice spalling is off on the ammo racks.
Yep, he is doing God’s work for them. Basically whatever you say he will just try to say the opposite no matter how ridiculous it sounds.
There is no denying that the top tier is blatantly in favor of Russia.
We as paying customers demand at least a response from developers.
God knows how much money I spent on this game and I will keep spending it because this is the only game I play. I just love machines and everything about them. Love reading stuff here, learning stuff… etc…
It’s just unacceptable and really unprofessional how long this unbalance of T80BVM is going on.
It’s a multiplayer game for Christ’s sake. It’s not a propaganda machine or isn’t it? Why does nobody answer this?
I saw the other post that is brand new now about Challenger 2. Some guy gave now great evidence that Challenger 2 basically NEVER has its amo stored in the hull.
Which by the way makes it a pretty awful choice in this CQB maps that we get most of the time.
Not to mention my Merkava mk4M with ammo behind the engine etc…
Russian tanks don’t have that type of artificial nerfs, heck they have artificial buffs. And that’s what is bothering me.
To be fair one of the biggest reasons why I write here is because I want to play Russian tanks so much.
I miss them being just like every other tank in the game with its flaws and benefits.
Gajin I want to play my T72B3 without feeling like I’m cheating!!
So finally after ALL THESE YEARS we ‘‘MIGHT’’ get proper ammo storage for Challenger 2. Not to mention other MBTs that we have that are artificially nerfed in multiple ways.
All while Russian MBTs work very well, and have everything at their disposal.
Having the strongest frontal plate, plus side shots unreliable, lower glacis just blows up the fuel, etc…
TOTALLY RIDICULOUS.
I really adore this game. It’s totally unique for us fans of the tanks. With a really awesome community that strives and is passionate to make this game come to life as it should.
We made it with the economy change, now we need to change the balance.
I’m positive that with people like @DocUSMC with their expertise in the field and others on board, we can basically make things happen for sure.
I’m basically nobody, just an ordinary passionate player like everyone who has the skill and experience to back things up and hates when someone blatantly denies the obvious that 90% of people here agree on.
I just love this game to death, it’s a shame that the balance is really bad at the top tier where I enjoy those modern tanks the most.
Never got used to typing on the forums and always just read what everybody wrote here most of the time but I just feel obligated to tell things how I see them.
We are basically everything but antagonistic towards Gajin and War Thunder.
We want help and the numbers of people here don’t lie that there is something very wrong with top tier.
Lol they are not going to listen to me. That is some kind of fantasy land. If they did, they would have to make some absolute major changes, that would completely flip how some nations are performing.
Can u look up if the Leo 2 mantled if it still has the modifier so that it spalls more?
Would this be it?
“hidableInViewer”: true,
“variableThickness”: true,
“gun_mask_03_dm”: {
“genericArmorQuality”: 0.15,
“cumulativeArmorQuality”: 0.8
},
Ah, that explains everything. Ive experienced and seen videos of going for ammo rack shots and the resulting damage was only one or two shells. Contrast this to NATO MBTs where ammo rack shots will usually hit multiple shells, thus more dice rolls for ammo detonation. USSR tanks only needs to roll one or two dice rolls to ammo detonate because most of the shells are protected by a labrynth of spall armor.
I dont have the game infront of me right now but from what i’ve seen most NATO MBT spall armor is usually just thick enough to cause secondary spall effects.
should be yes
I did the entire ussr line. 91% (147 vehicles) are set to only 15% ammo detonation rate. 6.1% (10 vehicles) are set to 50%, 2.4% (4 vehicles) are set to 0%, and 1.2% (2 vehicles) have a 35% chance. Some of the ones that are really strange are russian light tanks like the PT 76 at only 15% chance to detonate. Or the T80 carousel which should have a very high chance sitting at 15% as well and getting a “wet storage” modifier that prevents detonation. ON A CAROUSEL. A test was performed with russian tanks vs others where other nations detonated 12 out of 12 times on carousel hits and the russian tank detonated 0 out of 12 times. Here is the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rt8ov7QgxDY
Then yes it has two values and is set to hidden as you can see.
i found what it looked like in the good forum
“gun_mask_05_dm”: {
“armorThickness”: 650.0,
“genericArmorQuality”: 0.6,
“cumulativeArmorQuality”: 0.8,
“createSecondaryShatters”: true
},
“gun_mask_03_dm”: {
“armorThickness”: 400.0,
“genericArmorQuality”: 0.2,
“createSecondaryShatters”: true
“gun_mask_04_dm”: {
“armorThickness”: 240.0,
“createSecondaryShatters”: true
Here is the code after the last update:
},
"gun_mask_05_dm": {
"armorThickness": 650.0,
"genericArmorQuality": 0.6,
"cumulativeArmorQuality": 0.8,
"createSecondaryShatters": true
},
"gun_mask_03_dm": {
"armorThickness": 400.0,
"genericArmorQuality": 0.2,
"createSecondaryShatters": true
Nothing has changed.
SHARD pens Relikt + armor. You should know that.
@GNDM_Panzer
lol You need to take a chill pill, Russia lover.
The fact you find sincere honest autistic people disgusting is proof enough you probably shouldn’t be playing video games.
@scorpian
The armor causes spalling cause it’s thicker than 6mm.
But the T-72b hulls and T80U hull arrays are objectively overperforming by 80-100mm los underneath the ERA. And j can prove this with sheer mathematics. I am almost done writing my 36 page paper for submission to prove it. With like 3 primary sources and numerous secondary ones. So no. What youre saying is false. These tanks in game are NOT accurately modeled
@Iluminas Want something really fun?
Here is the code for the T72b labeled in code as a 1989 variant.
" “ufp_inner_35mm_composite_armor”: {
“createSecondaryShatters”: false,
“cumulativeArmorQuality”: 14.5,
“turret_01_bottom_dm”: {
“armorThickness”: 5.0,
UFP is marked to not spall. Remember how you were wondering about 7mm and under. Here you go, its set to 5mm and not to spall under the UFP.
This could technically make sense if there is some sort of spall liner. But i doubt there is. My favorite part is that the composites on nato tanks have spall liners. Which should imply little/no spall. Instead of 3bm60 creating spall like a grenade was dropped down the turret
DocUSMC’s disinformation about T-72B 1989:
He only cites one plate, the interior 35mm plate or rubber depending, not all plates in the array, to push a false narrative. Rubber makes sense cause that can’t spall.
On to your post: Using Gaijin’s calculator, multiplying RHA by 1.25 you get ~138+mm of effective thickness armor for T-72B.
Yes but noone understands that the protection values for these vehicles have been miscalculated realistically, leading to incorrect implementation. The OP attempted to do this but none of his calculations are correct either.
@DocUSMC
BTW…
1- No, that’s anti-balance. Vehicles wouldn’t be facing anything other than themselves under such a system.
2- Vehicles are already balanced based on capabilities & average performance.
4- Tech trees already have their propr armament. Soviet ammo isn’t the best in WT by a long shot.
5- This would cause light tanks & heavy tanks to go down in BR, which I oppose.
6- era or ERA? In ERA there’s a bug report site.
7- That’d be changing RHA from 1.25 to 1.1 or 1.0 which would translate to other tanks as well, possibly Ariete.
8- Already finished. Ammo detonates perfectly.
9- No, that compression idea is bad for the future.
10- They already have their IRL reload time. There are no boosts to Soviet heavy tanks. In-fact, IS-4M’s discrepancy is larger than the 1 second discrepancy of T-72 & Abrams.
11- Artillery does hurt.
12- Maps are already diverse. There’s over a dozen large maps in WT.
13- No, complicated physics code like this would be dumb. Said physics code would drastically buff Soviet tanks for having slightly shorter barrels than most western counterparts.
14- Requires overhauls that are in development.
15- You can already ban a map, so you already have this feature.
16- Honestly not needed.
17- Already in-game.
18- You mean Relikt?
19 & 20- Always constantly updated to be more realistic.
21- They already have their ERA & APS. Sweden doesn’t have any tanks currently that use ERA & APS. When those are added to WT they’ll be there.
22- Already done.
23- Not sure why you want Vacuum for T-72B3 so much.
24- No, capabilities and only capabilities should be matching BRs.
There is no one nation dominating in WT currently.
Every post i have seen trying to correct these vehicles, None of them have been able to calculate them correctly. Because none of the posts use the proper way the soviets calculated the equivalent protection, except my paper that is coming soon.