Modelled Layered Armor Damage mechanic in War Thunder

Do you think this should be added?
  • Yes
  • No
0 voters
If no. Why
  • I’ve left my answer in the comments
  • Prefer not to say
0 voters

The equation for you nerds.

Sammanfattning

image

Tank armor is typically constructed with layers of metal plates designed to absorb the energy from projectiles such as bullets or missiles, akin to a shield safeguarding the tank.

However, each time a tank sustains impact, despite the armor’s role in dissipating energy, it endures stress similar to bending metal repeatedly, which can eventually lead to structural weaknesses and potential fractures.

Repeated impacts gradually accumulate stress within the armor. This may result in slight deformations or bending of the metal plates, accompanied by the formation of small cracks. Although initially inconspicuous, these cracks undermine the overall integrity of the armor.

Continued assault exacerbates these cracks, causing them to widen and deepen over time. Eventually, the armor’s protective capabilities become compromised, resembling a weakening wall succumbing to successive blows until its collapse.

In summary, repeated impacts on tank armor lead to progressive structural deterioration. The metal plates may ultimately crack and fragment, rendering the tank susceptible to further harm.

  1. Steel Armor:
  • Highly resilient to impacts and deformation.
  • Can withstand significant strain before failing, but repeated impacts or concentrated force can lead to deformation or fracture.
  1. Composite Armor:
  • Varies widely in susceptibility to failure depending on composition.
  • Ceramic composite armor is lightweight but brittle, prone to shattering under repeated impacts.
  • Polymer-based composite armor may deform more readily under heavy impacts.
  1. Reactive Armor:
  • Effectively counters shaped-charge warheads but is one-time-use.
  • Susceptible to failure if damaged by previous impacts, compromising its effectiveness.
  1. Spaced Armor:
  • Disrupts penetration of incoming projectiles by causing them to lose energy.
  • Effectiveness depends on spacing and composition; can fail if spacing is too narrow or outer layers are compromised.

Visual representation


image

The image above depicts a Panther tank subjected to multiple impacts from a 17-pounder cannon. As explained, the armor plating’s structure has faltered under the strain.

image

Here we see an example from the Swedish King Tiger. a corner of the turret has been removed after repeated stress to the armour

image
Here we see the turret mantle has undergone serious strain and broken off.

More info and facts.

Sammanfattning
  1. Kinetic Energy Penetrators:

    • Larger caliber kinetic energy penetrators, such as those fired by tanks or anti-tank guns, generally have greater kinetic energy due to their mass and velocity.
    • They can cause failure in armor plating more quickly compared to smaller caliber penetrators due to the increased force exerted upon impact.
    • However, the exact time to failure will also depend on the specific properties of the armor, such as its thickness, composition, and structural integrity.
  2. High-Explosive Anti-Tank (HEAT) Rounds:

    • HEAT rounds, regardless of caliber, rely on the focused energy of their shaped charge to penetrate armor.
    • While larger caliber HEAT rounds may deliver more explosive force upon impact, leading to faster failure of armor plating, smaller caliber rounds can still achieve penetration if they can deliver sufficient energy to overcome the armor’s protective capabilities.
    • The time to failure with HEAT rounds will be influenced by factors such as the distance from the detonation point to the armor, the angle of impact, and the specific design of the armor.
  3. High-Explosive (HE) Rounds:

    • HE rounds typically have a larger explosive payload compared to kinetic energy penetrators or HEAT rounds.
    • While they may not directly penetrate armor, they can cause failure over time by exerting pressure on the armor plating, leading to deformation, cracking, or weakening of the structure.
    • The time to failure with HE rounds will depend on factors such as the thickness and composition of the armor, as well as the proximity and intensity of the explosions.
  4. Sabot Rounds:

    • Sabot rounds, like kinetic energy penetrators, rely on their velocity and mass to penetrate armor.
    • Larger caliber sabot rounds can deliver more kinetic energy upon impact, potentially causing faster failure of armor plating.
    • However, the effectiveness of sabot rounds will also be influenced by factors such as the design of the penetrator and the specific properties of the armor being targeted.

In summary, the time to failure of armor plating when subjected to different types of anti-tank rounds will vary depending on factors such as caliber, velocity, energy transfer, and the specific properties of the armor. Larger caliber rounds generally have the potential to cause failure more quickly due to their increased kinetic energy, but other factors also play a significant role in determining the outcome in combat situations.

  • Additional Note:

Currently in War Thunder, repetitive shots directed at the same area on a tank exhibit consistent outcomes, regardless of precision. This fails to accurately represent the cumulative effect of sustained attacks on armor integrity, akin to a King Tiger deflecting repeated 12-gauge buckshot rounds.

1 Like

I’m kind of torn on this. On one hand, it’d be pretty cool to have an armor fail to give some chance against those infamous hardy tanks in a given BR (Tigers, T-34s, IS-6s, etc.) but on the other hand, this level of detail fidelity might be a bit excessive for gameplay enjoyment. You do well when you angle, when you don’t you suffer the consequences; it is easy to understand, hard to master, as proper game design usually goes. Having a caveat in this could lead to needless frustrations.

5 Likes

CPU cycles and storage size are best used on other features.
Especially for something that ultimately won’t be appreciated by the playerbase when autocannons are reducing their armor quality…

Competitors don’t simulate this either if people want to bring up that argument.

So from my perspective: Hard no to this being a feature.

1 Like

Are you Zyranovos’s alt or something? See other thread for why not.

Look at my ingame-profile and come back. Also you know more than one person is able to have the same idea. What are you a teacher? XD

Yes aktually.

well ill be damned, what subject/course are you majored in?

I’m not surprised you would not understand that.

My apologies for the confusion, madam. Sarcasm isn’t foreign to me, but I hoped for a bit of good faith. Have a good day.

I don’t think this would be a good feature even if it’s realistic. Autocannon vehicles and .50 cal would become too strong and introduce a new layer of balance that would hurt the game. While it’s not perfect right now the idea of armor values staying the same for the whole match is better for gameplay.