Reintroduce Hullbreak

[_Marco]

I know what some of you who got triggered by this topic are thinking right now, so let me make one thing clear; I think that hullbreak, as it was in the game already, was terrible. I do not want a revive of these mechanics as they were. I just believe Gaijin shouldn’t give up on it just because the way it was implemented the last time was a failure. Hullbreak is simply a too essential mechanic for that.
I mean there is many points that speak for these mechanics:

1. Balance:
   Without Hullbreak, we now have a situation where light armored vehicles can withstand more damage than was originally intended. This has led to a “paper armor meta” where vehicles that should be destroyed by a single hit can survive multiple hits, making gameplay frustrating for many players. Reintroducing hull-break could help restore this balance.
   Here is an extreme example for what goes wrong:

The only spots where the Pzgr. 43 of the Jagdtiger (18s reload at best) will fuse and reliably one-shot the M109 from the front are these 2:
You have to scratch the gun breech so the round won’t get stuck and will fuse. Not a single heavy tank at this BR is as hard to eliminate, this balancing issue would be compensated by the hull break mechanic.
This also applies to other big APHE rounds like the Russian 122mm ones.

You have to aim pixel perfect or the M109 will either be able to shoot back or retreat.

2. Realism:
   The hullbreak mechanic simulates the real-life phenomenon where light tanks and vehicles can structurally fail due to the impact of large-caliber projectiles.

Here is an illustration of the discrepancy between War Thunder and real life:

This is all that happens when you shoot a lightly armored vehicle in the engine block in War Thunder:

Engine dead

This is what hullbreak would represent (same impact as above, just a few frames further):

the entire front of the vehicle breaks apart + the whole vehicle bends a little bit

The round that obliterated the car like that was a 105mm AP round fired from a M60.

Here is the video if you want to see it in motion: https://youtu.be/pFSIu7CyawI?si=4Qwu57NQvrohUOBp

3. Fun Factor:
   Many players, including myself, found it satisfying when a large caliber round would actually do it’s job and one-shot lightly armored vehicles. One-shotting is what these high caliber and reload guns are made for and rely on. The possibility of one-shotting is what makes the long reloading time bearable.

Again, I know how bad hullbreak was back in the days, I do not want this, too:

I think the aim should be to try a nerfed variant of hullbreak that doesn’t get triggered by hitting any part of the vehicle. There should be additional standards, like the round having to hit a big module with a certain kinetic energy etc.

Edit: Ofc, even though this post was only about APHE and AP rounds, other rounds like HESH would finally perform the way they should, too.

[MagikWT]

Should’ve mentioned HESH but otherwise great post :)
Overpressure is super buggy and broken.

[_Marco]

Yes exactly and OP doesn’t work for HESH, as you said, as well as AP and APHE.
Especially with tanks that have a very long reload time simply switching to HE or HEAT is impossible

[Caernarvon02]

I think hull break would be the thing to finally make the KV2 and HESH slingers actually do some real damage.

[Caernarvon02]

it would benefit FV4005 massivley, very few modern tanks would be in an operable state after being struck by one of those 73kg shells so the fact that it hardly does anything most of the time is not good

[MagikWT]

I don’t think a King Tiger, as much as I love it, should still be standing after a center-mass 165mm HESH round. Even worse with the FV4005. But that’s just War Thunder baby-

[Caernarvon02]

A T90 wouldnt be either. the Conqueror 4005 shot at was completely crippled, turret ring, trunions and a cracked hull. the centurion it shot was torn in half

[LukavMineav]

Hey Marco, I agree that features deserve a second chance but I feel like what you’re asking for might run contrary to some of the better features we have in the game. I’d like to point out what I feel may be underlying issues which are causing the problems you feel exist with the realism.

The TL;DR, the issue that I think you’re facing is to do the inability to make follow up shots in War Thunder. If your first shot fails to disable the enemy vehicle in war thunder, you’re generally dead unless the enemy makes a mistake or you have an exceptionally quick reload. This problem only get’s worse as your reload speed increases. Lightly armed vehicles are generally well spaced out and it’s difficult to disable them at the best of times and long reloads vs light vehicles is devastating however, HE ammo and most HEAT ammo is devastating against light vehicles which I feel is very realistic. I’m all for for having another crack at hull break, but I personally feel like you’re trying to make AP ammo do something that it really shouldn’t realistically do.

More thoughts below.

1. The fact that War Thunder ground vehicles must contend with the fact that all modules can be repaired when damaged. I don’t think it’s fair that we’re arbitrarily deciding that ‘light vehicles’ are to be instantly destroyed when one of their major modules are hit. I feel like this system would need to be applied to all vehicles rather than arbitrarily selecting from a list of light vehicles.

• For example, consider applying the hull break to a TAM but not a Leopard? or OF-40. Most Rank I vehicles don’t have enough armour for hull break not to apply to all of them.

2. This is a problem of ammunition types in reality and in War Thunder. In reality, tank gunnery already acknowledges that solid armour piercing shells (inert and explosive) are unsuitable for shooting at soft or lightly armoured targets. Generally in warfare, there are far more unarmored targets that need to be engaged by tanks than armored ones. I don’t know about the rest of the world but in gunnery school, general practise was to have a HEAT shell loaded because it was dual purpose (if a target had not yet been identified), effective against armored and unarmored targets.

To be fair, I think armor piercing ammunition having an inconsistent affect on light vehicles is more realistic than not. Take the video you shared for example, I know you might think that impact looked impressive but the concusive force didn’t shatter the glass of what is essentially a car (the glass cracked on the windshield because the frame of the car deformed). It warped the frame of a vehicle designed to deform under load with with an internal skeleton of a frame being the only thing to transfer the load of the impact. Edit for Clarity* what I’m trying to say here is that this isn’t a problem of AP underperforming or light tanks being to resilient. It’s an issue of tanks being able to recover from unrepairable damage, and continue to fight.

Second point on ammunition selection, Heat and High explosive are exceptional for destroying lightly armoured vehicles which is very realistic, to me at least it seems like you’re asking for AP shells to be imbued with a property that they don’t possess.

Finally you mention reload speed, you mentioned the Jagtiger’s PzGr 43 and the subsequent long reload. In my opinion the problem isn’t the ammuniton not being affective against light vehicles, it’s the context that the Jagtiger is being used in. War Thunder rarely presents scenarios where a vehicles characteristics are allowed to shine. Many people would argue that the Jagtiger was a highly impractical vehicle, which was specialised for a role that didn’t really exist by the time it was put into use.

3. Overpressure being Buggy, I don’t think it’s perfect and my sources may let me down here. From what I’ve read online, a Mk3A2 hand grenade has lethal concussive force of up to 2m (not factoring fragmentation) it has a 226.8g TNT charge. So as far as I’m concerned, overpressure is working realistically for open top vehicles. As for the armour penetrative capacity of high explosive impacts on armor, I’ve likely got the same sources as you guys which is stuff that’s already been shared in these forums.

[ZendikarHaven]

I agree, though I think overpressure is still a fairly good mechanic and should remain. HESH… has other issues, and should be given overpressure, but I would not be opposed to a limited version of hull break returning.

[LukavMineav]

I agree, watching a recent Dollarplays video highlighting how the the (time delay/radio) fused M107 ammo behaves completely different to the standard HE in terms of overpressure was a real eye opener at just how inconsistently some shells are modelled in game. HESH and as well as a number of explosive ammunitions are long overdue for a rework, at the very least to bring them to the standard of all explosive ammo types.

*additionally, it would be good to know the secondary properties of many ammo types also. I would love to know the explosive armour penetration capacity of HEAT shells, not just the penetration power of the Shaped Charge.

[_Marco]

@LukavMineav

1. The fact that War Thunder ground vehicles must contend with the fact that all modules can be repaired when damaged. I don’t think it’s fair that we’re arbitrarily deciding that ‘light vehicles’ are to be instantly destroyed when one of their major modules are hit. I feel like this system would need to be applied to all vehicles rather than arbitrarily selecting from a list of light vehicles.

• For example, consider applying the hull break to a TAM but not a Leopard? or OF-40. Most Rank I vehicles don’t have enough armour for hull break not to apply to all of them.

You are right. Hullbreak might not only affect light tanks in real life. But there is always exceptions and I think we can agree that it affects lightly armored vehicles the most.
I mean historically speaking even the Kingtiger’s upper plate shattered sometimes due to it’s poor manufacturing quality at the end of the war, ofc I wouldn’t like to see that represented. I think we have to find a compromise between realism and it making sense for the game.
In War Thunder medium tanks (like OF-40) are destructible pretty easily through spalling or the round fusing already so I believe it’s bearable to not let these mediums hull break, especially since Gaijin will never be able to implement hullbreak that accuratly. Lightly armored vehicles surviving too many hits, though, is a real problem, especially when in reallife they wouldn’t.
So; Gaijin will never be able to simulate reality but I think that hullbreak is too essential when it comes to lightly armored vehicles to leave it out.

@LukavMineav

This is a problem of ammunition types in reality and in War Thunder. In reality, tank gunnery already acknowledges that solid armour piercing shells (inert and explosive) are unsuitable for shooting at soft or lightly armoured targets. Generally in warfare, there are far more unarmored targets that need to be engaged by tanks than armored ones. I don’t know about the rest of the world but in gunnery school, general practise was to have a HEAT shell loaded because it was dual purpose (if a target had not yet been identified), effective against armored and unarmored targets.

Even with hullbreak high explosive ammo types would still be the most effective ones against slightly amored vehicles. With solid rounds you would still fail to kill the enemy when hitting no massiv modules at all.
So, again, this would definitely not be 100% realistic but it’s impossible to simulate these things 100% accurately, so you will always have to find compromises in video games.

@LukavMineav

Edit for Clarity* what I’m trying to say here is that this isn’t a problem of AP underperforming or light tanks being to resilient. It’s an issue of tanks being able to recover from unrepairable damage, and continue to fight.

Yes, and I believe that slightly armored vehicles profit from this the most.
I want to illustrate that with made up numbers that are still representative of the problem, it’s just about theory:

• Let’s say 80% of destroyed medium tanks got destroyed completely irl, the other 20% died by one crucial part being hit
• That would mean 80% of these destructions would be possible in War Thunder since if a crucial part gets hit, you can just repair it ingame
• Let’s say 90% of light vehicles that got destroyed by solid rounds got killed by one crucial “module” being hit
• currently 0% of these 90% are represented → lightly armored vehicles benefit massively from the game mechanics. So this is why I would like to get these percentages up a bit with the help of hullbreak.

I hope this somewhat makes sense, if I missed something, please let me know.

@LukavMineav

to me at least it seems like you’re asking for AP shells to be imbued with a property that they don’t possess.

I believe solid rounds do have the ability of making thin armor plattes shatter or damaging the entire frame, generally speaking.

@LukavMineav

Finally you mention reload speed, you mentioned the Jagtiger’s PzGr 43 and the subsequent long reload. In my opinion the problem isn’t the ammuniton not being affective against light vehicles, it’s the context that the Jagtiger is being used in. War Thunder rarely presents scenarios where a vehicles characteristics are allowed to shine. Many people would argue that the Jagtiger was a highly impractical vehicle, which was specialised for a role that didn’t really exist by the time it was put into use.

I don’t know about the history of the Jagdtiger but this does not only apply for this tank. It applies to every high caliber tank that is not a howitzer.

@LukavMineav

As for the armour penetrative capacity of high explosive impacts on armor, I’ve likely got the same sources as you guys which is stuff that’s already been shared in these forums.

To me it seems highly illogical that you can destroy a whole MBT with just .5kg of tnt.

[Ghostmaxi]

Nah.

[_Marco]

why though?

[Ghostmaxi]

Because it was absolutly bad?
Overpressure is FAAAAR better, not only in implementation, but general idea.

[_Marco]

Yes. But can you please tell me why you think that?
I detailed you in my post why I think we should have hullbreak, too. What about you telling me not just:

@Ghostmaxi

Nah.

What about you explaining why you think that? That’s what forums are about.

[Ghostmaxi]

Nah.

[_Marco]

So you have no specific objections to my post?

[Ghostmaxi]

Yes, i dont want it.
In any form back.
Luckily there are no plans from Gaijin either. Which is good.

[_Marco]

Ok, so you don’t want it back. But you don’t really know why you have that opinion.

[Ghostmaxi]

I do, it was simply bad.