# Estimating Russian Armor arrays using in Game material modifiers

I decided to make a new thread, as to not derail others talking about this subject.  Some of you on the forums have seen me post estimates based on math of certain armor arrays.  Mostly soviet tanks.  This is just a rough guide as to how it should work, allowing people to roughly estimate the RHA equivalence of Armor arrays with a mostly known composition.

In the case of the T-64A, it uses RHA Modern T x 1.01, and Textolite T x 0.16

T-64A

80rha/105txt/20rha

80 x 1.01 = 80.8

20 x 1.01 = 20.2

105 x 0.16 = 16.8

80.8 + 20.2 + 16.8 = 117.8

117.8 / cos(68) = 314.46mm RHAe Kinetic Energy

This actually comes out a bit higher than published values for the T-64A.  Which usually list 305mm RHAe Kinetic, Though I'd say a margin of error of only 9mm is pretty darn close.  Later in 83, the T-64A also received applique armor, around the same time as the T-72A.  The main difference being, the T-64 Array was upgraded with a 30mm applique plate, most likely BTK-1, as 30mm would be too thick for BT-70Sh.  The actual modifier for BTK-1 is HHRHA Modern, which has a value of 1.1.

With applique

30 x 1.1 = 33

117.8 + 33 = 150.8

150.8 / cos(68) = 402.5mm RHAe Kinetic Energy.

The T-72A on the other hand, is noted as having an RHAe of about 335mm.  Lets see how close we can get.  Again, the T-72A uses RHA Modern, and Textolite.

T72A
60rha/105txt/50rha

60 x 1.01 = 60.6
105 x 0.16 = 16.8
50 x 1.01 = 50.5
60.6 + 16.8 + 50.5 = 127.9
127.9 / cos(68) = 341.4mm  RHAe vs kinetic energy

Again we come out slightly higher than published values, 335mm from Russian Sources.  Then we add in the 16mm HHRHA Applique plate, from the 1983 modification.  This time treating it as BT-70Sh, with a modifier of 1.2 (came about this through trial and error when comparing to L-O results for M111).

16 x 1.2 = 19.2
127.9 + 19.2 = 147.1
147.1 / cos(68) = 392.6mm RHAe vs Kinetic energy

Note some sources list 405mm vs Kinetic for this array, but, the 392 value matches up quite well for M111's L-O Line of sight results for just under 500m at 68 degrees.  Which is historically correct according to btvt or tankograd.

We've got a bit of a Grey area with the in game T-64B, as it is actually a T-64BV.  Though the CIA estimates it at 370-440mm RHAe.

T-64B/BV

60rha/35tx/30btk-1/35tx/45rha

60 x 1.01 = 60.6

35 x 0.16 = 5.6

30 x 1.1 =  33

35 x 0.16 = 5.6

45 x 1.01 = 45.45

60.6 + 5.6 + 33 + 5.6 + 45.45 = 150.25

150.25 / cos(68) = 401mm RHAe Vs Kinetic energy.

Though here, there is some argument to be had, that the textolite in this configuration may be more effective than the large layers found in the T-64A or T-72A.  On the other hand, the purpose of the improved armor array on the T-64BV, was to improve the mass efficiency of the array over the older T-64A array without losing effectiveness.  In which case, it appears to mesh up quite well.

I also have estimates for the T-72A Mod 84, T-72B Mod 85, T-72B Mod 89/T-90, T-80B, and T-80BV.  Though I need some published estimates to compare to.   If you want, I can also explain how these can be converted to vertical figures vs long rod apfsds using L-O natural slope modifier for 68 degree's.

• 2
• 2

##### Share on other sites

T-80U Mod 1989 has its textolite replaced with ceramics, do you have estimates on that?

##### Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Alan_Tovarishch said:

T-80U Mod 1989 has its textolite replaced with ceramics, do you have estimates on that?

I would like to see this, since we almost already have a 'mod 1989 due to the engine and thermal upgrade

##### Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Alan_Tovarishch said:

T-80U Mod 1989 has its textolite replaced with ceramics, do you have estimates on that?

Would need to see documented proof of that, as going by the books I do have, the U shares the same front armor array as the T-80BV, the main difference being factory integrated K5.

50 minutes ago, ColdMatches said:

I would like to see this, since we almost already have a 'mod 1989 due to the engine and thermal upgrade

If anyone know how thick the NBC/Spall liner is on these tanks, I can also throw that in too, as there is a material modifier for it as well.

T-80BV/U

50btk/35tx/50btk/35tx/50btk

50 x 1.1 = 55

35 x 0.16 = 5.6

50 x 1.1 = 55

35 x 0.16 = 5.6

50 x 1.1 = 55

55 + 5.6 + 55 + 5.6 + 55 = 176.2

176.2 / cos(68) = 470.3 RHAe vs Kinetic Energy

Plus Kontakt 5

120 x 1.7 = 204

204 + 470.3 = 674.3mm Kinetic

In this case, I believe K5 to be under performing.  If the modifier for it were changed to 2.0 it would equal just over 710mm total vs Kinetic energy.

##### Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Conraire said:

Would need to see documented proof of that, as going by the books I do have, the U shares the same front armor array as the T-80BV, the main difference being factory integrated K5.

If anyone know how thick the NBC/Spall liner is on these tanks, I can also throw that in too, as there is a material modifier for it as well.

T-80BV/U

50btk/35tx/50btk/35tx/50btk

50 x 1.1 = 55

35 x 0.16 = 5.6

50 x 1.1 = 55

35 x 0.16 = 5.6

50 x 1.1 = 55

55 + 5.6 + 55 + 5.6 + 55 = 176.2

176.2 / cos(68) = 470.3 RHAe vs Kinetic Energy

Plus Kontakt 5

120 x 1.7 = 204

204 + 470.3 = 674.3mm Kinetic

In this case, I believe K5 to be under performing.  If the modifier for it were changed to 2.0 it would equal just over 710mm total vs Kinetic energy.

Something here:

And CIA doc here:

Liner is 50mm thick on T-64/72/80 models, however is only 20mm thick behind the turret face.

Also regarding the 'mod 89 T-80U UFP I don't have official documents but an image of numerous glacis plates.

Mod 89 at the bottom with the blue blocks.

• 1

##### Share on other sites
On 14/02/2020 at 22:02, ColdMatches said:

Also regarding the 'mod 89 T-80U UFP I don't have official documents but an image of numerous glacis plates.

Mod 89 at the bottom with the blue blocks.

From what I can find, thats for the T-80UD.

Made some revisions, adding in the NBC liner to the hull arrays.  Bumps the T-80U base array up by 7mm.  Then figure in another 204-250mm for the ERA depending on if the modifier can be fixed.

T-80BV/U

50btk/35tx/50btk/35tx/50btk/50nbc

50 x 1.1 = 55.0

35 x 0.16 = 5.6

50 x 1.1 = 55.0

35 x 0.16 = 5.6

50 x 1.1 = 55.0

50 x 0.05 = 2.5

55 + 5.6 + 55 + 5.6 + 55 + 2.5 = 178.7

178.7 / cos(68) = 477mm  RHAe KEP

681 to 727mm with Kontakt5

T-64A

80rha/105txt/20rha/50nbc

80 x 1.01 = 80.8

20 x 1.01 = 20.2

105 x 0.16 = 16.8

50 x 0.05 = 2.5

80.8 + 20.2 + 16.8 + 2.5 = 120.3

120.3 / cos(68) = 321mm RHAe KEP

With btk-1 applique, doesn't have this in game

30 x 1.1 = 33

120.3 + 33 = 153.3

153.3 / cos(68) = 409mm RHAe KEP

T-64B/BV

60rha/35tx/30btk/35tx/45rha/50nbc

60 x 1.01 = 60.6

35 x 0.16 = 5.6

30 x 1.1 = 33

35 x 0.16 = 5.6

45 x 1.01 = 45.45

50 x 0.05 = 2.5

60.6 + 5.6 + 33 + 5.6 + 45.45 + 2.5 = 152.75

152.75 / cos(68) = 407mm RHAe KEP

T72A

60Rha/105txt/50rha/50nbc

60 x 1.01 = 60.6

105 x 0.16 = 16.8

50 x 1.01 = 50.5

50 x 0.05 = 2.5

60.6 + 16.8 + 50.5 + 2.5 = 130.4

130.4 / cos(68) = 348.1mm  RHAe KEP

With 16mm BT-70Sh applique Armor

16 x 1.2 = 19.2

130.4 + 19.2 = 149.6

149.6 / cos(68) = 399mm RHAe KEP

Edited by Conraire
Correct certain applique armor values, due to max thickness of bt-70sh

##### Share on other sites

Now on to the T-72A Mod 84.  There are no estimates of RHAe for this array that I can find, as it's not a very common variant of the tank.

T72A Mod 84 Transitional

60rha/15air/15bt-70sh/15air/15bt-70sh/15air/15bt-70sh/15air/50rha/50nbc

60 x 1.01 = 60.6

15 x 0.05 = 0.75

15 x 1.2 = 18

15 x 0.05 = 0.75

15 x 1.2 = 18

15 x 0.05 = 0.75

15 x 1.2 = 18

15 x 0.05 = 0.75

50 x 1.01 = 50.5

50 x 0.05 = 2.5

60.6 + 0.75 + 18 + 0.75 + 18 + 0.75 + 18 + 0.75 + 50.5 + 2.5 = 170.6

170.6 / cos(68) = 455mm RHAe KEP

This was rather quickly replaced by the T-72B Obr 1985, with another updated armor array.  Though instead of being 3bt-70sh plates of 15mm thickness, it has 4 plates, 2 of 10mm thickness and 2 of 20mm thickness.  The KEP level also jumps up fairly well with this new array.

T72B Mod 1985

60rha/10air/10bt-70sh/10air/10bt-70sh/10air/20bt-70sh/10air/20bt-70sh/10air/50rha/50nbc

60 x 1.01 = 60.6

10 x 0.05 = 0.5

10 x 1.2 = 12

10 x 0.05 = 0.5

10 x 1.2 = 12

10 x 0.05 = 0.5

20 x 1.2 = 24

10 x 0.05 = 0.5

20 x 1.2 = 24

10 x 0.05 = 0.5

50 x 1.01 = 50.5

50 x 0.05 = 2.5

60.6 + 0.5 + 12 + 0.5 + 12 + 0.5 + 24 + 0.5 + 24 + 0.5 + 50.5 + 2.5 = 188.1

188.1 / cos(68) = 502mm RHAe KEP

And Finally, at least for the Armor arrays I have any data on, is the T-72B Obr 1989. This has similar KEP for the base array to the mod 85.  But, it incorporates integrated Kontank 5 ERA.  This array also does away with most of the air gaps, other than what is necessary for the NERA part of the array to work.

T-72B Mod 1989

60 x 1.01 = 60.6

5 x 0.05 = 0.25

3 x 1.2 = 3.6

19 x 0.05 = 0.95

3 x 1.2 = 3.6

5 x 0.05 = 0.25

60 x 1.1 = 66

10 x 0.05 = 0.5

50 x 1.01 = 50.5

50 x 0.05 = 2.5

60.6 + 0.25 + 3.6 + 0.95 + 3.6 + 0.25 + 66 + 0.5 + 50.5 + 2.5 = 188.75

188.75 / cos(68) = 503.8mm RHAe KEP Base array

With Kontakt 5 = 707mm to 753.8mm KEP

• 1
• 3

##### Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Conraire said:

T-80BV/U

50btk/35tx/50btk/35tx/50btk/50nbc

50 x 1.1 = 55.0

35 x 0.16 = 5.6

50 x 1.1 = 55.0

35 x 0.16 = 5.6

50 x 1.1 = 55.0

50 x 0.05 = 2.5

55 + 5.6 + 55 + 5.6 + 55 + 2.5 = 178.7

178.7 / cos(68) = 477mm  RHAe KEP

681 to 727mm with Kontakt5

I know you are using ingame material modifiers to make these estimates but if anything this shows that some of those modifiers are not accurate and therefore need to be changed  !

For instance  as it can be seen with the T-80U example here 477mm is simply too low . Knowing that T-80U has mass of 444mm in terms of thickness of solid steel  that would mean that at 477mm of estimated protection the 50btk/35tx/50btk/35tx/50btk/50nbc array would have a mass efficiency coefficient  of 1.07 , this defies any logic because it would mean that this complex array would be just marginally better than a monolithic RHA block ( 1.0 coefficient )  in which case there would be no reason to go with such an array !

T-72 Ural model 1976 with a  60rha/105tx/50rha  array  is estimated with precision to have a mass efficiency coefficient of 1.12 further demonstrating that  there is no way the array of T-80U offers less than 497mm of protection and that is assuming the 50btk/35tx/50btk/35tx/50btk/50nbc array has not improved mass efficiency compared to the  60rha/105tx/50rha  array which would obviously be a wrong assumption to make considering the increase in steel mass , complexity of the design and better mass distribution !

Edited by Raldi92
• 3

##### Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Raldi92 said:

I know you are using ingame material modifiers to make these estimates but if anything this shows that some of those modifiers are not accurate and therefore need to be changed  !

For instance  as it can be seen with the T-80U example here 477mm is simply too low . Knowing that T-80U has mass of 444mm in terms of thickness of solid steel  that would mean that at 477mm of estimated protection the 50btk/35tx/50btk/35tx/50btk/50nbc array would have a mass efficiency coefficient  of 1.07 , this defies any logic because it would mean that this complex array would be just marginally better than a monolithic RHA block ( 1.0 coefficient )  in which case there would be no reason to go with such an array !

T-72 Ural model 1976 with a  60rha/105tx/50rha  array  is estimated with precision to have a mass efficiency coefficient of 1.12 further demonstrating that  there is no way the array of T-80U offers less than 497mm of protection and that is assuming the 50btk/35tx/50btk/35tx/50btk/50nbc array has not improved mass efficiency compared to the  60rha/105tx/50rha  array which would obviously be a wrong assumption to make considering the increase in steel mass , complexity of the design and better mass distribution !

It would depend, I do think the Textolite layers should probably be slightly more effective in the 5 layer array against KE.  The advantage of textolite comes with chemical energy protection though.  Current chemical modifier is 0.5.  Which is actually lower than it should be, after tinkering with the T-64A armor array vs chemical it should be closer to 0.65.

T-64A

80rha/105txt/20rha/50nbc

80 x 1.01 = 80.8

20 x 1.01 = 20.2

105 x 0.5 = 52.5

50 x 0.05 = 2.5

80.8 + 20.2 + 52.5 + 2.5 = 156

156 / cos(68) = 416mm RHAe CEP

According to Russian Documents that should be closer to 450mm.

• 1

##### Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Raldi92 said:

For instance  as it can be seen with the T-80U example here 477mm is simply too low . Knowing that T-80U has mass of 444mm in terms of thickness of solid steel  that would mean that at 477mm of estimated protection the 50btk/35tx/50btk/35tx/50btk/50nbc array would have a mass efficiency coefficient  of 1.07 , this defies any logic because it would mean that this complex array would be just marginally better than a monolithic RHA block ( 1.0 coefficient )  in which case there would be no reason to go with such an array !

T-72 Ural model 1976 with a  60rha/105tx/50rha  array  is estimated with precision to have a mass efficiency coefficient of 1.12 further demonstrating that  there is no way the array of T-80U offers less than 497mm of protection and that is assuming the 50btk/35tx/50btk/35tx/50btk/50nbc array has not improved mass efficiency compared to the  60rha/105tx/50rha  array which would obviously be a wrong assumption to make considering the increase in steel mass , complexity of the design and better mass distribution !

As far as mass efficiency goes.  The T-80U has 150 /cos(68) = 400mm Steel.  477 / 400 = 1.1925.  There's only 400mm LOS of steel in the array, but the array itself without K5 is worth about 477mm LOS KE after factoring in steel hardness and textolite. So it would actually be more mass efficient than 477mm of actual steel.  You can't really base things off material density, as steel retains the same density regardless of hardness.  The only exception is maraging steel, which has up to 8,100kg/m3 density instead of 7850.  Fofanov's estimate isn't necessarily correct either, as at the time of his sites publishing, he didn't know the array or steel used.

##### Share on other sites
On 20/02/2020 at 02:33, Conraire said:

As far as mass efficiency goes.  The T-80U has 150 /cos(68) = 400mm Steel.  477 / 400 = 1.1925.  There's only 400mm LOS of steel in the array, but the array itself without K5 is worth about 477mm LOS KE after factoring in steel hardness and textolite. So it would actually be more mass efficient than 477mm of actual steel.  You can't really base things off material density, as steel retains the same density regardless of hardness.  The only exception is maraging steel, which has up to 8,100kg/m3 density instead of 7850.  Fofanov's estimate isn't necessarily correct either, as at the time of his sites publishing, he didn't know the array or steel used.

I believe you misunderstood where the 444mm is coming from . This number is not based on any Fofanov estimate  but rather Tankograd which uses an area density of 3,490 kg/m2 ( for the entire array )

In your example you only take into account the LOS thickness of the steel present in the array but without taking into account the LOS thickness of the textolite present in the array ( which has its own mass ) and without factoring in are density for each layer , hence why the LOS thickness of only the steel doesn't tell you much about mass efficiency !  You have to factor the LOS thickness of the entire array and area density of the array ( by taking into account the area density of each layer since its composite and not homogeneous ) in order to come out with a mass equivalent steel plate of X thickness .  Just to make things clear for readers  444.6mm for the equivalent steel plate  is for LOS thickness  so that means a steel plate of 166.55mm of physical thickness in terms of mass  ( compared to the 220mm of physical thickness of the T-80BV/U array ) .

As i proved previously on the other thread , , textolite coefficient is way too low and should be increased ( between 0.25 and 0.28 instead of 0.16 )  to reflect real life observations , also the efficiency of the subsequent layers should incrementally  increase  and be taken into account when it comes to estimates of protection against KE / CE in terms of RHA .  This is why the estimates made by using the actual ingame coefficients defy logic .

Edited by Raldi92
• 3

##### Share on other sites

Now after all of this, the T-80B and T-72A effectiveness has been nerfed by a large KE effectiveness.

This is slightly understandable. Both tanks are only a 3 layer array + applique.

Although I feel the nerfs were a bit much, I'd think a 1983(T-72A)/1985(T-80B) upgrade would be able to take on a 1979 AP(DM13) or even the 1983 AP(DM23) with higher quality steel than previous versions.

Also the T-72B and T-80U got buffs to the UFP KE, which can make sense in they are multi layer glacis array which involve more stresses on a KE penetrator.

With that said, why is the T-64B left out? It only scrapes 410mm KE effectiveness when it is a ~5 layer glacis array. Compared to the T-80U's 5 layer glacis array, it has a whopping ~110mm less KE effectiveness.

Now I know the T-64B array has less steel in the array (although more textolite) and less quality of steel (bar the middle 30mm plate), it doesn't make sense to me that it has such a large KE difference compared to the T-80U array.

@Conraire if you would know something about the T-64BV vs the T-80U's base array that'd be great.

##### Share on other sites
On 23/03/2020 at 21:05, ColdMatches said:

Now after all of this, the T-80B and T-72A effectiveness has been nerfed by a large KE effectiveness.

This is slightly understandable. Both tanks are only a 3 layer array + applique.

Although I feel the nerfs were a bit much, I'd think a 1983(T-72A)/1985(T-80B) upgrade would be able to take on a 1979 AP(DM13) or even the 1983 AP(DM23) with higher quality steel than previous versions.

Also the T-72B and T-80U got buffs to the UFP KE, which can make sense in they are multi layer glacis array which involve more stresses on a KE penetrator.

With that said, why is the T-64B left out? It only scrapes 410mm KE effectiveness when it is a ~5 layer glacis array. Compared to the T-80U's 5 layer glacis array, it has a whopping ~110mm less KE effectiveness.

Now I know the T-64B array has less steel in the array (although more textolite) and less quality of steel (bar the middle 30mm plate), it doesn't make sense to me that it has such a large KE difference compared to the T-80U array.

@Conraire if you would know something about the T-64BV vs the T-80U's base array that'd be great.

Well, as far as the 1983 upgrades for the T-72A and T-80B.  Those were mainly designed as a stop gap solution, to limit the range of 105mm apfsds against the T-72A, and T-64A(which also received 30mm hhrha applique armor), and make the T-80B immune to the 105mm, as the T-80 series was their new elite mainline tank to replace the T-64's.  The T-80B of course would limit the range of existing 120mm ammunition of the time (120mm DM23) as well, to about 500-600m or less.  It wasn't designed for immunity to the 120mm like certain people seem to think.

As far as the T-64B/BV is concerned there are two main differences between it and the T-80BV/U.  The T-80's all used BTK-1 HHRHA on all none cast area's.  Which means all 3 steel layers of the T-80BV/U are high hardness btk-1 armor steel.  Where as the T-64B/BV, only the middle steel layer on the front is BTK-1 HHRHA.  Add on to that thinner plates, and it will create a large difference, both arrays use 35mm textolite layers..

I'm also still trying to figure out why the guy that writes Tankograd blog, wanted me to join his discord, I suppose I can ask him about some thing directly if I need to.

• 1

##### Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Well thank you for the response.

#1

1 hour ago, Conraire said:

The T-80B of course would limit the range of existing 120mm ammunition of the time (120mm DM23) as well, to about 500-600m or less.  It wasn't designed for immunity to the 120mm like certain people seem to think.

The T-80B in game is not granted with such qualities.

Doesn't provide protection against DM23 @600m,

No real protection against Type 93(M833 clone) either,

Or even DM13...

\

So is something wrong in game or was a incorrect statement?

#2

It seems like the T-72B has the exact same armor value as the T-80U, looks like copy-paste...

Edited by ColdMatches

##### Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ColdMatches said:

Well thank you for the response.

#1

The T-80B in game is not granted with such qualities.

Doesn't provide protection against DM23 @600m,

No real protection against Type 93(M833 clone) either,

Or even DM13...

So is something wrong in game or was a incorrect statement?

#2

It seems like the T-72B has the exact same armor value as the T-80U, looks like copy-paste...

Yeah, I misspoke on the 120mm DM23. Couldn't remember when it entered service..  The Russians couldn't of known about it, since it entered service after the Mod 83 upgrades.  I was thinking about 120mm DM13, which in game is limited to just over 600m.  Type 93 in game, if it's suppose to be M833, is over performing.  M833 only penetrates 396mm pb according to my L-O numbers, though thats another one that entered service after the Mod 83 upgrades.  M833, if the values were correct would be limited to less than 1500m against the T-80B mod 83.  In game the muzzle velocity is too high for it to be M833, as muzzle velocity for that is only 1494m/s.  Aside from that, Type 93 appears to be a Tungsten-Nickel-Iron Alloy round, while M833 is U-Ti0.75%, Though its possible if it's class 4 tungsten alloy, that it could have close to the same density as the DU mix.

Perhaps I should reword that.  The Mod 83 upgrades(the short term fix) were meant to limit the range of Known 120mm and 105mm ammunition against those tanks.  At the time, known ammunition was M774 and 105mm DM23/M111, and 120mm DM13.  You can't really limit the range of rounds you don't know about without having test data.  The T-80B mod 83, would be and is immune to M774 in game outside of weak points, same for 105mm DM23/M111.  In converse, all T-72's made after 1984, aka the T-72B, aka the long term upgrade plan, would be and are frontally immune to M833.  Of course the US didn't stop with M833, they developed M900 for the 105mm, that wasn't until the late 80s early 90s though..

As a side note, at 1500m, M833 can penetrate about 470mm RHA Line of site at 68deg.

T-72B has different armor values, at least according to my protection analysis.  It may just be at that particular point where the tow hooks are.

• 1

##### Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Well the T-80B 83' and the T-72A 83' only provide protection against M774, 105 DM23, M111, but not 120 DM13 and other similar rounds. See here, 120mm DM13 is only limited at 1500m, ~1km more than what is said to provide adequate protection.

Another problem outside of just pure numbers and protection is where the shells in WT are placed. The T-72A faces things like 105 DM33, Type 93, OFL 120 G1, as as mentioned earlier, 120mm DM13, which all slice clean through its armor at extreme ranges (1km+). The T-80B has this but worse. At 10.0 BR, it can face 120mm DM23, 120mm DM33, M829, JM33, very frequently.

And the worst of all, the T-64A, which worked well against APDS, fights 1979 105mm DM23, M735, M774, Type 93, which it stands no chance against. Maybe that should be given the 30mm applique plating to help it.

Edited by ColdMatches

##### Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ColdMatches said:

Well the T-80B 83' and the T-72A 83' only provide protection against M774, 105 DM23, M111, but not 120 DM13 and other similar rounds. See here, 120mm DM13 is only limited at 1500m, ~1km more than what is said to provide adequate protection.

Another problem outside of just pure numbers and protection is where the shells in WT are placed. The T-72A faces things like 105 DM33, Type 93, OFL 120 G1, as as mentioned earlier, 120mm DM13, which all slice clean through its armor at extreme ranges (1km+). The T-80B has this but worse. At 10.0 BR, it can face 120mm DM23, 120mm DM33, M829, JM33, very frequently.

And the worst of all, the T-64A, which worked well against APDS, fights 1979 105mm DM23, M735, M774, Type 93, which it stands no chance against. Maybe that should be given the 30mm applique plating to help it.

The T-80B seems to have issues with armor smoothing.  And weird issues with the upper corners not protecting right.  Which is odd given it didn't receive volumetric armor on the hull.  It's not suppose to be immune to 120mm rounds, it's only suppose to limit the effective combat range of the ones that were known at the time, in game its weird.  One thing with protection analysis tool, you almost have to zoom out to the max to get the angle of attack to work right.

Those tanks that you're talking about have no composite armor, and can be lol penned by all the T-64A's/T-72A's ammo.  Most of them aren't that fast, like the M60 variants, and Type 74's. Or the ones that are fast like to XM-1 or MBT/Kpz-70, have weak armor and weak ammo that can't frontally pen the T-72A with the applique armor outside of weak spots..  Even the 10.0 M1 Abrams and IPM1 have to weak spot plink with M774, which should be able to penetrate the T-72A at over 2000m.

No it doesn't need to be frontally immune to other tanks, while being able to lol pen them to be competitive.  As far as the T-80B, it most likely will get it's BR lowered with enough feedback..  Even though the actual solution to the problem is to raise the BR cap to around 11.0 or higher, I don't foresee that happening soon.

##### Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Conraire said:

Those tanks that you're talking about have no composite armor, and can be lol penned by all the T-64A's/T-72A's ammo.  Most of them aren't that fast, like the M60 variants, and Type 74's. Or the ones that are fast like to XM-1 or MBT/Kpz-70, have weak armor and weak ammo that can't frontally pen the T-72A with the applique armor outside of weak spots..  Even the 10.0 M1 Abrams and IPM1 have to weak spot plink with M774, which should be able to penetrate the T-72A at over 2000m.

With a driver port the size of the moon, along with LFP and gun breech, it ain't that hard to weakspots, especially with high velocity shells and laser rangefinders.

One thing about those tanks is that many have thermals, and better reverse gears than the T-72A, a very meta thing in top tier WT if you aren't aware.

The AMX-32, AMX-40, Type 74G are as fast if not faster than the T-72A (and especially T-64A) forwards anyway.

I do feel bad for M60A3 TTS, that's just overtiered garbage like the T-64A.

The T-72A might not be as bad as I said earlier, as it has a stronger HP/T ratio and better armor profile.

• 1

##### Share on other sites

Vulnerability of T-72B to M774

I´ve noticed that just below the gun, the turret offers practically no armor thickness (77mm) is it how its supposed to work? because that has become the preferrd spot to shoot the tank and kill gunner and commander

##### Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, Alan_Tovarishch said:

Vulnerability of T-72B to M774

I´ve noticed that just below the gun, the turret offers practically no armor thickness (77mm) is it how its supposed to work? because that has become the preferrd spot to shoot the tank and kill gunner and commander

Well it seems that T-72A, T-80B, and T-72B have improper armor modeling in some way.

The T-72A and T-80B are bugged in that it should resist DM13 and similar rounds at a standoff distance of about 500m+

The T-72B in that the driver port is too big.

How would one bug report this?

Edited by ColdMatches

##### Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, ColdMatches said:

How would one bug report this?

With photos of the tank at the factory and schematics. Not the easiest things to get.