yeah like im doing
this is the same image where the camera is level with the area being shot at, not the ufp where i am not shooting
this is the same image where the camera is level with the area being shot at, not the ufp where i am not shooting
The dynamics of armor penetration and the influence of Explosive Reactive Armor (ERA) are complex and multifaceted, leading to ongoing debates and research in military circles. Your observation about the penetrator length and its interaction with ERA is quite pertinent. The traditional notion is that longer penetrators like those in certain advanced ammunition (e.g., DM53, M829A3) might face diminished disruption by ERA, as the impact is primarily absorbed by the forward section, but the sheer length allows them to sustain functionality. However, the development of more sophisticated ERA systems, such as the Nozh/Duplet, significantly complicates this relationship. These systems can employ rows of explosively formed penetrators, akin to High Explosive Anti-Tank (HEAT) warheads, which can potentially fragment longer penetrators if properly oriented. This capability underscores the evolutionary arms race between advancements in penetrator design and countermeasures like enhanced ERA, where engineering efforts continuously strive to outpace the other in efficacy. Discussions about these tactics offer valuable insights for future development and strategic deployment in armored warfare technology.
@Necrons31467 @Circleati dont argue, just…
- look at the constructive armor plate angle
- follow it in armor analysis
- bingo. No difficult camera manipulations with zooming out needed
1 Like
Constructive armor plate angles play a pivotal role in the effectiveness of modern armor systems. By angling the armor plates strategically, a vehicle can reduce the penetrative capability of incoming projectiles, effectively increasing the thickness of the armor that needs to be penetrated and thus enhancing its defensive capabilities without adding additional weight. This angling simplifies the complexity of building robust protective measures around a vehicle, yielding better results when analyzed for armor efficacy. Consequently, it allows for straightforward analysis without the need for extensive camera manipulations or zooming during visual assessments. This approach underscores the importance of understanding the geometry of armor design, where subtle shifts in angles can result in significant improvements in defensive capability, showcasing a fundamental principle in armored vehicle engineering.
ChatGPT located. Points discussed discarded
depends, If the ERA takes the tip off an APFSDSs penetrator that’s ~20% to 30% of the penetration gone just due to the amount of energy required and mass lost to reshape the tip before it can start the ablatic shear phase. A lot of the length of the longer APFSDS is actually a sacrificial tip designed to leave the actual penetrator intact and sharp when it impacts the armour. How effective that is in reality is just guess work due to most of the information being classified (and that’s ignoring all the other effects ERA has on an APFSDS, like yawing the dart etc, and how that changes with tipped darts).
Wonder if this thread will also get closed soon
aaaaaaaaaaaand your point is?
First vid: Side shot
Second vid: LFP
Third vid: Drivers hatch
like idk if you cant read, are legally blind, or just plain incompetent but like, idk why you posted those vids as a reply…
Literally just the exact same thing i said but in video form.
1 Like
just know where to aim, honestly, if yo do it’ll be EASY oneshots, no matter how he’s facing you
I literally regularly non pen 90° flat on the side… With both L27A1 and DTC
1 Like
doesnt change anything. Thats why it doesnt matter. Its the same from the picture above as from one where the camera is basically on the ground. The LFP and drivers hatch is the weakspot. pretty much the entire upper front plate is immune thanks to Relikt. This kind of nitpicking is really annoying given that literally anyone who has half a functional brain knows that you do not shoot the upper front plate on russian tanks past like, 10.3 and instead shoot the LFP or try to drivers hatch. And since the BMPT is largely a regular T Tank chassis with the small changes for the grenade launcher guys same thing applies.
PS: btw the spots where the grenade launcher gunner sit are funky spots that in general do nothing when hit. At most youll kill a single person by essentially hitting the top of their head. but the round doesnt do shit. Its much safer and better to shoot the LFP or drivers and hope the round travels into the internal part of the “external” belt
1 Like
BMPT is based on T-90M chassis while having even more side ERA armor than 90M if I’m not mistaken.
Basically it has the best possible hull it can get.
1 Like
its got actually less supposedly than the T90M. As the 90M has a plate with 200mm KE and 600mm CE followed by the bag with 20mm KE and 600mm CE. BMPT side armor is one plate with 200mm KE and 600mm CE plate like 90M but then the side triangles have 2mm KE and 300mm CE.
I think its due to the weird layout and gaijin spaghetti code that it just massively overperforms. BMPT72 on side shots feels way more reliable to kill than the tech tree BMPT and the only real difference between them for side shots is the extra triangle relikt with “2mm KE”. (ofc the extra crew helps in survivability but rn im just talking about round penetration. Ive had a fair bit of rounds even slpprj m/95 get stopped even when effectively firing on flat side.)
there aren’t really any sacrificial tip-equipped shells known except for M829A3 and A4. 3BM42 has segmented penetrator, it might count, but it’s a pretty SHORT rod 😏
DM53/63/73/83 says hello buddy.
This is just a ridiculously bad take.
DM53-DM73 do not have sacrificial tip. DM83 is unknown
lol.
Starting from DM53 all DM versions have sacrificial tip, Germans tested DM53 on T80U and results showed that it can effectively penetrate any Russian tank that is equipped with K-5 up to 3km.
I don’t know where you getting your information but I suggest check your sources.
And also T-90, and T-72B 1989, and Kontakt-5 :)
They had all of the pokemons.
2 Likes
Now since expert is here I’ll leave this matter into your hands :)