I know this game takes armour thickness and angle into account when calculating penetration from shells, but it should also take in the armour construction. For example, Soviet tanks during World War Two were constructed using armour treated at high temperatures. This made the armour stronger, but it also became brittle. In a single hit, the armour could crack and break off. T-34s were especially weak to HE shells as the explosive power would shatter the armour. I think the game should take armour damage into account, for example, if I hit a t-34 with a HE shell and it doesn’t pen, it should at least weaken the armour so that the next shot is more likely to damage the compartments.
4 Likes
On other hand I really would love to see this in game.
Since there is also documents how soviet 152mm HE shells performed against ferdinands, panthers etc etc. They really ripped those apart.
But the problem here would be how to model this armor weakening in game, and how much worse autocannon meta would be after that, especially keeping 35mm oerlikon spaa’s in mind.
1 Like
Another point to consider where welded joints which held armor plates in place. Russian ones were weak and simple welds. It was common that enemy shells, even when they bounced off, broke these welds.
Broken weld between T-34 UFP and the chassis. The tank is lost. Other nations interlinked these joints. Often in a way that they were as durable as a clean armor plate without any welds.
This cracking issue and welding issues were entirely fixed during the war, and implementing it would be wasted CPU cycles for something that ultimately does not matter.
4 Likes
How much realism to you really want though? Should they also start modeling the reliability of the Panthers engine and transmission? or the decline in German armour quality due to shortages of critical trace minerals later in the war. There is a reason these things are not implemented, aside from the extra system resources it would take.
2 Likes
We used to have bad armor quality modifiers. But they were removed since the game is assuming that the tanks are in their ideal form.
They did talk about having armor weaken from hits but it would give spaa a huge buff.
I think it would cause a huge balance issue.
1 Like
I think they just assume tanks are made to a high quality.
OMG. A weak point in the “Stalinum myth” and you feel immediately the need to spread things like that:
Whilst i agree that the OP looks like he is doing cherry picking - the game is far away from even trying to be a simulator.
Otherwise there would be no 3rd party view and players would break down in large number before they even got near an enemy, would fight without shells for their main gun or would have zero clue about the location of enemies due to a lack of radios - and extraordinary poor (target) optics.
There are multiple reasons why certain things are not implemented - discussing some of them will get you a forum ban for a few days whilst others are obvious:
You play a game designed to earn money with minors looking for a plain shooter - they are not interested in things like immersion.
1 Like
Really stretching to accuse me of Russian bias on this one mate. As I pointed out armour quality would adversely effect German tanks as well, more so the later in the war said tanks where built. And armour weakening would effect ALL tanks.
How are you planning on balancing German and Russian tanks when you have the exact same tank with vastly different armour properties depending on which factory it came out of, or if it’s made from a batch of steel that had enough manganese, nickel or chromium in it or not?
1 Like
Most Soviet vehicles used High Hardness armor, apparently except the KV-1/2.
It’s pretty well known that T-34 had armor plates of 450-450 BHN, Tiger 1s only around 300 and US cast armor was 240, I think.
So a T-34 had substantially harder plates but they were all overmatched by medium to large AT guns.
HHA armor is already in the game but it’s simply 25% better than RHA.
Face hardened armor isn’t implemented at all, which affects a lot of German tanks and some Japanese.
Both HHA and FHA are superior to RHA under certain circumstances and worse in others.
On the T-34 HHA made it simply worse because sloped armor should be soft and ductile while vertical armor, like on German tanks, should be as hard as possible, for the best effect.
Hard amor behaves worse when overmatched as it will simply break under stress and can’t shatter the incoming shell.
If a pointed shell shatters against sloped armor it will bite into it, asserting more energy into the plate, while a soft ductile plate will simply deflect it while deforming.
A lot of WW2 tanks
I don’t know about any others other than German tanks till 1943 and some Japanese.
Don’t think any other nations used FHA.
I meant a lot of Japanese ww2 tanks since Type 85 Ha-Go to Type 5 Chi-Ri
Its not a question of quality work or not. Simple lined welds can’t deal with the shock and energy involved with high velocity impacts.
Its a matter of technique. Interlinked welds could handle these impacts. Simple welds cannot. Its a question of realism. Like thicker armors take more fire than thin armors. Especially sloped armor plates with simple welds were very prone to get dislodged from the rest of the chassis.
By ignoring this you just produce things like the magic ingame angles, which bounce everything. While irl the plate would have been shot off the rest of the tank.
Here’s some info on it from a CIA report on a captured North Korean T-34-85:
Spoiler
Full report here:
https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP81-01044R000100070001-4.pdf
3 Likes
No, i was just addressing the obvious. Im not here to accuse anybody. These exchanges are in the forum for ages - with no result.
I plan nothing.
Imho most players don’t see the gap between gaijin’s way of balancing and their own expectations what balance should be.
I was earlier referring to cherry picking as way more decisive things than armor quality is not implemented. Besides the already mentioned optics things like ergonomic design, communication between a tank platoon the (changing throughout WW 2) level of crew training is not reflected.
Finally the ultimate point of numerical superiority does not work in equally sized lobbies - same as being in the offensive or defending a position.
That why this thread leads into the usual Black Hole…
1 Like
Tiger 2 armor used to have a modifier of 0.95 as a soft nerf, but panther doesn’t.
They sadly removed it for some reason like a year ago.
We’re talking about WW2 tanks. T-34 production after the war was likely far better, quality wise. Also the T-34 model was improved over the years.
we used to have weakened armour for late ww2 german tanks
I think it should come back for all low quality trash armours, it will help balance the BS damage models on russian armour, make the tiger 2 finally 6.7 worthy and just represent vehicles more accurately overall