- For PC
- For MAC
- For Linux
- OS: Windows 7 SP1/8/10 (64 bit)
- Processor: Dual-Core 2.2 GHz
- Memory: 4GB
- Video Card: DirectX 10.1 level video card: AMD Radeon 77XX / NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660. The minimum supported resolution for the game is 720p.
- Network: Broadband Internet connection
- Hard Drive: 17 GB
- OS: Windows 10/11 (64 bit)
- Processor: Intel Core i5 or Ryzen 5 3600 and better
- Memory: 16 GB and more
- Video Card: DirectX 11 level video card or higher and drivers: Nvidia GeForce 1060 and higher, Radeon RX 570 and higher
- Network: Broadband Internet connection
- Hard Drive: 95 GB
- OS: Mac OS Big Sur 11.0 or newer
- Processor: Core i5, minimum 2.2GHz (Intel Xeon is not supported)
- Memory: 6 GB
- Video Card: Intel Iris Pro 5200 (Mac), or analog from AMD/Nvidia for Mac. Minimum supported resolution for the game is 720p with Metal support.
- Network: Broadband Internet connection
- Hard Drive: 17 GB
- OS: Mac OS Big Sur 11.0 or newer
- Processor: Core i7 (Intel Xeon is not supported)
- Memory: 8 GB
- Video Card: Radeon Vega II or higher with Metal support.
- Network: Broadband Internet connection
- Hard Drive: 95 GB
- OS: Most modern 64bit Linux distributions
- Processor: Dual-Core 2.4 GHz
- Memory: 4 GB
- Video Card: NVIDIA 660 with latest proprietary drivers (not older than 6 months) / similar AMD with latest proprietary drivers (not older than 6 months; the minimum supported resolution for the game is 720p) with Vulkan support.
- Network: Broadband Internet connection
- Hard Drive: 17 GB
- OS: Ubuntu 20.04 64bit
- Processor: Intel Core i7
- Memory: 16 GB
- Video Card: NVIDIA 1060 with latest proprietary drivers (not older than 6 months) / similar AMD (Radeon RX 570) with latest proprietary drivers (not older than 6 months) with Vulkan support.
- Network: Broadband Internet connection
- Hard Drive: 95 GB
Today, we’ll be talking about changes to the post-pen effects for APHE shells used by ground vehicles that we plan to introduce into the game. We’re ready to show you what we have planned here, and at the end of this news post you can participate in voting for or against — whether there’ll be changes or not all depends on your vote. Let’s take a look!
Preserving fragments in the head part of the shell
First off, we’d like to tell you about a change that we consider necessary and will be implemented into the game without any vote. This change relates to maintaining the integrity of an APHE shell’s head after armor penetration. When an APHE shell explodes, its warhead is not subject to significant fragmentation and can cause substantially greater damage than the scattering fragments of the case and base.
The fragment of the shell’s warhead is significant in mass, can penetrate armor of considerable thickness, and at the same time also form secondary fragments when penetrating armor. This change will allow the warhead to better hit enemy crew members located behind internal partitions, such as the engine compartment bulkhead, as well as other modules along the shell’s flight trajectory that cannot be penetrated by small fragments generated from the shell exploding.
Increasing secondary fragments and high explosive damage
Due to a number of technical reasons, secondary fragments from APHE shells differ and are worse compared to fragments from regular, solid AP shells. When reworking fragmentation fields, we’ll enhance the secondary fragments of APHE shells to the level of solid AP shells.
The high-explosive damage from APHE shells will remain — it causes relatively little damage, affects the crew and modules inside the tank and has a damage zone in the form of a sphere around the detonation point of the shell. The diameter of the damage sphere of high-explosive damage is noticeably smaller than the scattering zone of secondary fragments.
Implementing fragment areas
Here are the changes that we’d like you to vote on, whether they’re introduced or not will be determined by community vote: scattering sectors of fragments from APHE shells.
When a shell explodes, three main fragmentation areas are formed, shown in the image below:
- The remainder of the shell’s head and its fragments.
- Fragments from the base of the shell.
- Fragments from all sides of the shell (the case).
When a shell explodes inside of a tank or armored vehicle, the shell’s head acts as a small solid AP round and may penetrate more internal modules. Alongside this, smaller fragments from the shell casing form a fragmentation cone and hit the crew and modules around the explosion point. We plan to implement both of these to the game.
*Translation (Pic.113): Scattering of the APHE shell fragments on impact
At the moment, we use a simplified fragmentation pattern for APHE shells in the game without segmentation into different areas. If we were to implement the proposed physically reliable sector fragmentation patterns for APHE shells, the post-pen effect of APHE shells will be more realistic. However, when hitting protruding modules, such as the commander’s cupola, the probability of crew damage would be reduced.
Reworking the post-pen effects of APHE shells can change the tactics of the game, making protruding weakened areas less vulnerable. However at the same time, post-pen effects after penetrating the hull of a vehicle due to the preservation of the shell’s head after the shell explodes will be increased.
We’d like to hear your opinion on this — share it in the comment field and vote Yes or No for the changes to post-pen effects in the poll!
In-game examples of the described changes
Here’s some screenshots of how damage to ground vehicles will be altered with the changes implemented.
Post-pen effect when penetrating the center of a tank without preserving the head of the shell (before) vs while preserving the head of the shell (after):
Before
After
Post-pen effect when the commander’s cupola is hit by a spherical spread of fragments from a shell explosion (before) vs hit with a physically reliable sectoral scattering of fragments from the shell explosion (after):
Before
After
We’re planning to give players the opportunity to test these changes in a special game event, as well as the “Protection Analysis” menu, before applying these changes to all APHE shells in the game. However, preparing this testing will require some significant time from the development team, so today we want to collect your opinions on whether you’re interested in switching to a more detailed damage model for APHE shells. So, shall we test it?
If you’re interested in testing, we’ll start preparing it and will host another voting on this change based on its results.
Comments (262)
Comments will be premoderatedremoving 'trick shots' for realism is usually a good idea, as long as it doesn't give certain naions an advantage for not using the shell type
APHE? How about HESH, you know...a shell that actually needs fixing? Or at least needs fixing more! When HE as a shell designed to take out structures and infantry is directly better at taking out armor than a shell designed to take out armor...come on folks, please try some logic?
why are the angles of attack, and heading different in the before and after shots ? Makes your examples invalid, even if it is 'just' one degree
Wing_Co, It is still valid. Angel of attack in this point has no big meaning (what we are showing is post pen effect).
It is of course great that we will be allowed to test the change in the protection analysis. However, the article manipulates the before-after part. Asu-57 does not meet with the Tiger H1. This means that the poor damage of the Asu-57 is not an indicator of the poor damage of the APHE as such. As they are trying to prove to us. APHE from 76 and 85 mm guns cope well with Tigers if they have enough explosives. Therefore, the proposed changes will bring more unpleasant situations in combat tha...
This will ruin mid tier America but it can be fixed with some BR changes: M26 Pershing to 6.0 M4A3E8 to 5.3 Jumbo 76 to 6.0 T25 to 5.7 I think this way the game will be balanced if the aphe changes are implemented
I can understand the incentive behind these changes and why people might find them interesting or even good but at the same time these changes would honestly be highly problematic for gameplay, I'd say. Cupola shots have always been an important part of the game and a way for uptiered vehicles to be relevant. Besides it's not like they are an assured killshot, especially on Panther cupolas. Gameplay must not be sacrifised again for the argument of realism, volumetric tried that, it ended poorly.
So I'm kinda split on all of that. Personally I love realism - but Gaijin is very very selective where we have that. We have certain things very realistic, like the tanks themselfs, but not the time periods where they fight each other. We have "realistic" ballistics but only on CQC maps. (mostly, I know) If we go the realism route, Gaijin would have to go full into it, not selective where they please to do so.
Yes please... it's long overdue. However it will never pass, because RU and GER mains will have their insanely handheld vehicles nerfed by this and we cannot have that. Especially Russian community will throw a hissy fit and their whaling is too much for Gaijin to lose on.
What a horrible idea,theres a lot of mid tier tanks whose only meaningful weakness is the cupola. Removing a skillfull way of dealing with an heavily armored tank will only make those encounters more one sided,and all that for "realism" Its a game,up to a certain point realism needs to suffer for it to be fun
The developers are increasing survivability. They said that survivability is a priority. In the article, they showed what is convenient and profitable for them. We vote for greater survivability in the game. The game has long had nothing to do with historical accuracy and realism.
Submit a complaint