How isn’t it? You have the burden of proof at the moment, and you’ve done nothing more than state it “isn’t modeled ingame”, and that is “isn’t reflected during gameplay”.
Another Vamilad 1 sentence OP where he gets into a 1v1 argument over some abstract meaning of something.
Classic.
2 Likes
Again, how? Give proof as to its inadequacy.
The armor in the game is the equvilent exchange to RHA withouth any sepcial mechanic that NERA/ERA causes to the anti tanks rounds, mostly blunt the tips and trajectory deflective.
There are not many algorithm that is simple to implemented and work as real times “for an online game”, bet that when choosing the math model for the armor/penetration, Gaijin has done their best to choose what to implement for that math. Other wise, do you want a real time/high load/high cost that even some top end hardware can be strugle to run.
The current armor system is game breaking. Modern vehicles play like go carts. It’s atrocious.
For the pre modern composite armor, it’s good though, for modern tanks, quite complicated.
1 Like
That’s where we are though and where current development time is focused.
NERA is usually 3/5 combined materials, great example is Russian T-80 hull armor, 2 different types of material, a textolite, and steel, steel is the final layer, so it makes sense to spall, like steel. However I saw you say something on composite, composite is many materials in a formation and patter, great example is the T-90A’s add on turret composite, the Abram’s Hull, and the Leo 2AV’s hull.
I’m not seeing it.
This is composite:
This is NERA (right turret section):
Composite regularly has “gaps” in the material.
NERA usually does not.
Composite does not mean spaces, composite is literally just armor with multiple layers/types of materials
1 Like
Yes, I know, I’m just trying to make it more understandable. However, T-80 armor is only 2 parts, and usually considered NERA, though it’s arguable it’s composite. Abram’s and other similar armor types usually have more than two materials.
That isn’t correct. NERA stands for Non Explosive Reactive Armor.
It works on the principle that passing thru differing density and hardness of materals induces shocks in a projectile and the elements in the array are free to move which causes sheering forces on it. This causes the projectile to fail and fragment, losing energy in that process, but more importantly, that energy is spread over a larger area of the armor array (your “spall”). Ideally capturing all of it within the armor assembly before it penetrates into the places with squishy bits.
NERA is made of a lot of different materials. It can be made of steel or aluminum plates sandwiched by rubber, or it can be kevlar sheets just kind of glued and bolted into place.
The difference between NERA and “composite armor” is in the configuration. NERA has low density spaces, where as composite, like the quartz and ceramic inserts in early “Chobham” or the turret fronts of early T-72s are solidly filled.
Why isn’t reduction of the round modeled?
MekboyVN_068 hit that pretty well.
Its not needed. The game only needs a close enough approximation, measured in “RHA equivalent” in order to produce a good enough simulation. It only needs to know, was the round stopped or did it pass thru and bad things happen. Usually when bad thing happens, they are very bad, so there is no need to calculate what percentage of a projectile was eroded, etc. Its just a game dude.
I sorely disagree.
Without modeling round reduction any penetrating shot is equal to any penetrating shot whether it went through NERA or not, this is massively weighed against the current balance of the game where blocks of ERA must be fully destroyed before full penetration.
An entire armor doctrine that was weighed as more favorable for a large number of nations IRL is cast aside for raw performance numbers because “it’s good enough”.
I disagree.
Quite, which is why modeling is important.
Then you should be playing Steel Beasts, not WT.
“We can’t improve because that would be good”.
“Perfect is the enemy of good.”