Yes, and if you get “severely damaged” you would have to return to a friendly cap (or lacking that, a spawn) to fix it, much like you would return to a base in air. So you have a shot at getting back in the fight, but you’re not just gonna shrug off catastrophic damage like we do now.
So basically perma-stock parts?
Just for very severe damage. What qualifies exactly as severe damage is up for debate. For example tracks and barrels definitely not, it would be incredibly obnoxious. But I’m sure the devs had to have a similar discussion for planes too. In a plane it will take you a couple minutes usually to limp back to base, repair severe damage and lift off again, so long as this is similar it could help. It would certainly make solid shot (or low-filler HE) a lot more viable, HESH too.
For planes, severe damage only really effect what happens at the end of a battle.
Outside of that, it is regular crits with a name change.
The main difference between pmanes and tanks is that planes cant repair outside of the base.
HESH is just broken in general. Maybe one way woukd be to have repairs take more time tgat more damage the module took. Less time if a 50mm APHE took out your engine via death sphere vs a 120mm AP round slamming into it.
There are plenty of other issues with the game about reliability. If gaijin took this into account, they would also have to account for the unreliability of tiger engines and the fact that a t-34’s armour would shatter after being hit by a shell. The game just assumes that everything is in perfect working order.
This isn’t about reliability.
It’s about that APHE shells can’t detonate under conditions where the fuze or cavity get destroyed.
The game just assumes that every AP round will stay in perfect condition after interacting with armor, which of course isn’t the case.
Sloped armor puts massive acceleration forces on the fuzes, jaming the firing pin in place.
Shells breaking appart scatter the explosives, before the detonator can blow them up.
If tungsten carbide shells can shatter under certain conditions, then APHE can be made to not detonate under certain conditions as well.
We already have fuze sensitivity, which stops APHE from fuzing in the first place.
Then there also must be an armor limit at which point APHE stops functioning entirely.
This can be based on caliber and filler ratio and be amplified by sloped armor.
But it shouldn’t really matter anyway.
If you hit a tank with APHE that doesn’t fuze, it’s still like hitting it with AP.
The result should hardly matter.
1 Like
HESH damages the inside of a tank by a giant steel scab getting blown of the armor.
The armor is now massively compromised.
As if having a giant hole blown in the armor wasn’t bad enough, HESH literally destroys the armor plate.
That’s like wearing a bullet proof vest that was shot 10 times already.
HESH should be a one shot kill machine and it would still be less effective than other AP rounds because of its bad ballistics performance and inability to cause damage to spaced armor.
HESH does reach one shot lvl damage WHEN it works. Sadly, gaijin ruined it.
I think another guy said something about making it over pressure amd insta-kill if it hit armor that was thinner than its “pen”.
Possible to do though not sure how far up the british tanks would have to move.
That’s what I mean when I talk about the developers’ selective realism. They make tungsten carbide rounds shatter when they hit spaced armor (exaggeratedly so, in my opinion), while APHE rounds don’t shatter, don’t misfire, and have exaggerated damage. The developers are dedicated to exaggerating realism in some cases and exaggerating fantasy in others.
How easy it would be to do everything right, so there would be a realistic balance between the different bullets.
2 Likes
You do know APHE is functionally identical to AP though, right? It doesn’t explode like a grenade, it just helps it spall a little bit more.
Technically not true.
Spall are steel fragments from the tanks armor, while APHE is supposed to fragment the shell after penetration.
Under certain conditions, both APHE and solid AP will break apart on their own.
APHE would mostly be useful against thin armor plates where AP shells wouldn’t produce a lot of spalling and the shell just stays intact.
But since most penetration result in the vehicle being disabled, the effect is pretty superficial.
Of course against bunkers or other fortifications APHE, with large filler, would actually be more effective.
But for destroying an armored vehicle, the difference wouldn’t be worth the added complexity and the unreliability of it working in the first place.
2 Likes