Jump to content
On 16/02/2021 at 20:27, Jackvony said:

Well since I've royally pissed off the Brits, I'll add this find to make up for it:

https://thedeaddistrict.blogspot.com/2021/02/some-details-about-romor-era.html

This link contains details of the testing of ROMOR-A as well as some interesting RHA numbers for y'all. I apologize if this has been posted before as the thread is quite long but I believe this is new. 

 

It also contains the entire patent for ROMOR-A

 

iZYdQYm.jpg

  Reveal hidden contents

0068Ayuagy1gnltliwaccj30rv15cb2a.jpg0068Ayuagy1gnltlvbv2pj30rh15ahdu.jpgUS6962102-03.jpg

 

 You may consider filing a bug report on this. This way you can ensure they will look into it.

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, DELTACLUSTER said:

 You may consider filing a bug report on this. This way you can ensure they will look into it.

I believe this already was reported at some point. On the Russian forums...

 

Here we go:

https://forum.warthunder.ru/index.php?/topic/256905-185-romor-era-nevernyi-pokazatel-zashchity/&do=findComment&comment=7283906

Edited by TearsOfTea
medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Type-90 also currently cannot protect against DM-23 on the dev server since it was given volumetric armour. Things are subject to change on the devserver so hopefully these values are just placeholder.

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TheCheshireCat said:

The Type-90 also currently cannot protect against DM-23 on the dev server since it was given volumetric armour. Things are subject to change on the devserver so hopefully these values are just placeholder.

The difference is the chally 1 isn't volumetric. Just tested in game it can be penned by 120mm DM13 straight through the cheek. Hopefully is a devserver bug and potentially alludes to the lower cheek weakspot being fixed since it appears to have the same armor all over (although strangely the protection doesn't change when you move the angle so the horizontal angle is neutralized at like 30 degrees) and not whatever tomfoolery is currently going on.

Thing is, this is Gaijin so I have very little faith in the outcome being good...

  • Upvote 1
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, UKoctane said:

although strangely the protection doesn't change when you move the angle so the horizontal angle is neutralized at like 30 degrees) and not whatever tomfoolery is currently going on.

Thing is, this is Gaijin so I have very little faith in the outcome being good...

Perhaps they will put a same solution as on T-series tanks - where the armor is behaving like a flat armor instead of sloped (which actually increases armor vs longrods). Example: T-72B on paper should be penetrated by M829/L26 if the armor was behaving according to it's sloping, but since it is calculated as flat the effectiveness vs longrods is inflated.

Edited by CrossEyedN00b
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

I have just noticed on the live/dev server that the turret protection is 385mm frontally. Has this changed recently?

 

If it did, does anyone have any recent screenshots (within a couple of months) of the turret armour protection in the armour viewer demonstrating it?

 

 

Current dev and live server:

 

unknown.png

 

Edited by Shirazz
  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Shirazz said:

I have just noticed on the live/dev server that the turret protection is 385mm frontally. Has this changed recently?

 

If it did, does anyone have any recent screenshots (within a couple of months) of the turret armour protection in the armour viewer demonstrating it?

 

 

Current dev and live server:

 

unknown.png

 

 

I consider that a nerf cause German players don't want a Challenger with decent turret , which decrease their winning rate .

Edited by Louise_So_schoen
  • Upvote 1
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not sure for certain it has been changed recently, and if it has it may be a bug, but I need to find some proof that it has first.

medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, CrossEyedN00b said:

does this help?
 

 

 

Thanks but sadly no, i need some thing from this year preferably.

medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now for the funny(?) part: Vickers mk7 has now the same level of protection on the turret as Challenger 1...

 

image.thumb.png.902cc049d50020193caa7f0c

 

I took a look at the github blame for Challenger 1 file but there are no armor changes this year.

https://github.com/gszabi99/War-Thunder-Datamine/blame/master/aces.vromfs.bin_u/gamedata/units/tankmodels/uk_challenger_1.blkx

 

Perhaps Challenger is using an armor data referenced in some other tank which got changed and Chally 1 was hit by a ricochet?

Edited by CrossEyedN00b
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cant remember what that was before. I remember the top being strong. Is it stronger than it was?

 

edit: I dont think the datamines catch changes in the armour volumetric models themselves, just the values assigned to them so the problem may be there. It doesnt look like there were significant changes to the datamined files in over a year according to a a sqn mate who helps with the datamines.

Edited by Shirazz
medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@LordMustang you reached out to me on the Cr2 thread and now that these changes appear to have made it to the live server (:facepalm:), I can provide some sources on why this is bonkers.

 

Turret armor was already underperforming to a degree since it should be 430mm vs KE within the frontal 60 degree arc. However now it drops below 380mm.

This is the source that Gaijin state they used to base the Cr1's armor profile off:

Spoiler

2482339_800.jpg

In section A6 one can see that the Challenger has 435mm vs KE in the frontal arc, meaning that if you neutralize the horizontal angle of the turret face there should be 435mm KE protection, whilst front on that should climb higher still.

All the info needed can be found in parts of this unapproved bug report:

 

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Smin1080p @LordMustang

 

Challenger 1 turrent got nerfed signicantly. Pretty much 100KE less than previously.

 

I see no mention of any armour change in the recent 2.3.0.128 changelog. Is this a bug? since CR1 protection issue was long resolved (with documents proving)

QQ图片20210304191958.png

QQ图片20210304192004.png

QQ图片20210304192009.png

Edited by ShirosawaKanae
  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Shirazz said:

 

Thanks but sadly no, i need some thing from this year preferably.

Spoiler

these pictures are from 2.3.0.117 (now: 2.3.0.128)

medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Louise_So_schoen said:

 

I consider that a nerf cause German players don't want a Challenger with decent turret , which decrease their winning rate .

 

I raise you this one then;

I don't even know what Gaijin is doing anymore, Soviet top tier (all of them, even T-72A) got armour buffs.

 

unknown.png?width=1322&height=676

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, UNIT_normal said:

image.thumb.png.9989dd59b083715fd420cf88

Now they went beyond misunderstanding documents. They are ignoring documents. Even document that they showed to us.

Pretty sure this is a bug. Still need to check though. Changes like this are normally documented.

medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Shirazz said:

Pretty sure this is a bug. Still need to check though. Changes like this are normally documented.

I agree. I datamined Challenger Mk.3 blk file on 2.3.0.107 and 2.3.0.128(current). It turns out they are same.

medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, noko6 said:
Reveal hidden contents

these pictures are from 2.3.0.117 (now: 2.3.0.128)

 

Exactly what I am looking for, thank you very much.

medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, _Sheffield said:

 

I raise you this one then;

I don't even know what Gaijin is doing anymore, Soviet top tier (all of them, even T-72A) got armour buffs.

 

Yup, right now both T-80U and T-90A (ON LIVE) UFP are capable of defeating DM53 fired from L55...

medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Shirazz said:

DM53 can now be stopped at 500m by the T72b lol. Looks like im not crazy.

Currently armour of T-series behaves like it's vertical armour, this is wrong. The armour values at Line of Sight should be ~520-540mm for the best Soviet MBTs (80Y, 90A, 72B3), this is not the case, case is that their armour is 500-600mm AT VERTICAL and because APFSDS rounds in the game do not use their own LOS values, rounds such as DM33/M829/L26 (ones that IRL were likely capable of defeating T-72B at combat distances) now are having problems with T-64B.... T-64B!!!!!

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...