They have made breech shots extremely inconsistent now and are especially terrible on Soviet/Chinese designs because they are smaller and harder to hit. The extra armour they provide now make it RNG whether or not you disable the breech or even penetrate.
It used to be almost a guaranteed disabling shooting the breech, now it is 50/50 or almost impossible if you have a low penetration round at top tier.
Literally every shot I pass through now only kills the breech and does no post-pen.
That aside, it’s a good armor buff for NATO tanks like the Type 90 and 2A4 to have a massive chunk of armor where it used to be only about 50% of its value.
It’s been on the Type 90 so long idk if you can call it a buff, it’s been one of the only top MBTs that actually has a >200mm trunnion of HHA whereas everything else is either thin and/or Structural Steel (also why the Type 10 is more ass at taking hits, as everything will go through to the ammo bunker)
Glad to see trunnions are making MBTs more durable.
Good change.
Yeah maybe take a good look at .blk files first before making such statements.
All trunnions (with exceptions that I will come to later) are currently modelled as a volumetric part of;
(minimum thickness) 150 mm modern CHA (0.98x RHA), i.e. 147 mm of RHAE.
The maximum effective thickness of them is 300 mm of mCHA (as above), i.e. 294 mm of RHAE.
This applies to all T-Series MBTs, M1-Series MBT’s, Leopard 2K and as far as I can tell the PT 16 / T 14 (mod.)
However, ALL other Leopard 2’s have their trunnions modelled differently - and they’re much, much worse;
The thickness of their trunnions is 240 mm but the material is structural steel (0.45x RHA), which corresponds to 108 mm of RHAE.
Now, there are also two groups of them, which feature the following code;
The left one in this example is significantly worse, as “secondaryshatter” is explicitly enabled, causing a stupid amount of spall-creation.
This is (most likely) also what causes this issue;
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/pyMBrqNZROz4
Unlike the default trunnions (T-series, Abrams, etc.), these also do not have a maximum thickness, yet it wont matter at all as the RHAE modifier is significantly lower (0.45x vs 0.98x), thus rendering the increased base-thickness worthless.
The other exception is Type 90, which has trunnions that are 200mm thick, have no maximum effective thickness limit but also feature modern CHA, like everyone else but Leopard 2 series (with Leo 2K and PT 16 being the sole exceptions).
Thereby, trunnions benefit T-Series mbts the most (due to how they’re shaped and modelled on them), Leopard 2’s the least and are, in some cases still, a significant downgrade to some Leopard 2’s survivability.
A very nice analysis, interesting to see how much armour it actually adds
I have no clue why they added these. Its like they’re catering to bad players. Got shot in the breach? Here’s your get out of jail free card in the form of trunnion.
This is War Thunder, don’t expect the devs to do anything right, and if they do, they only add it to a few tanks, leaving all the others forgotten for years, just like the thousands of reports accepted only to be ignored forever.
Yup, the last Q&A was very evident of that.
Yeah it’s just a bad change for gameplay overall - as if we needed even more inconsistency when we’re already shooting for places to disable a vehicle instead of gambling a kill-shot because of it.