Call of the Dragon: Object 292

[AlvisWisla]

I mean, armor is the problem with Object 292 as well. 80B turret, which is 10.3 Abrams level of non-existent.
And weird hull that’s not 80U, but not 80B, so it gets lolpenned by all but Leopard 2 and Abrams, cause everything else is using DM33 or 3BM42 equivalent rounds, or better.

[TyphoonCro]

And that’s ok
Inferior armor at cost of (greatly) improved firepower is a good compromise
10.7 seems reasonable to me

[DevilO6]

@AlvisWisla

And weird hull that’s not 80U

It is a t80U hull, just no era and side skirts are different, aslo the lfp is stronger

[AlvisWisla]

It’s ~35mm less effective protection to T-80U non-ERA covered portion at 68 degrees.

[DevilO6]

From the front the biggest difference i see is 12mm

[Beeschurger]

@TyphoonCro

Non-stabilized M1A2 with L/55

hell yea that sounds interesting.

checks the original devblog

@DMYEugen

Even as low as 9.7, these problems would make the vehicle a challenge to play

ahahahahaha. imagine M1A2 with 650mm pen at 9.7.

as long as it is placed at some reasoable BR, sure.

but not abrams with DU inserts in turret and thermals and 650mm pen@10m@0° at 9.7.

[DMYEugen]

@Beeschurger

ahahahahaha. imagine M1A2 with 650mm pen at 9.7.

Lmao. That line is a leftover from back when I originally posted the suggestion on the old forums. I initially wrote that line with the intention of drawing parallels to heavy tanks with good armor but otherwise poor performance. I, of course, don’t hold the same opinion now but I just never got around to changing it.

[Beeschurger]

nah, its fine.

vehicle by itself sounds like great addition, and granted the lack of stabiliser would warrant lower br.

i just read the 9.7 line and nearly had a stroke imagining the resulting horror.

[Kanelikainalo]

@AlvisWisla

China’s 8.7 TD was one of them, over 520mm of pen at 8.7 with a laser range finder and stabilizer.

What TD is that? Only 8.7 TD they have with a cannon is the PTZ89 with DYW1 round that has 443mm flat pen at 10m.

@AlvisWisla

It’s ~35mm less effective protection to T-80U non-ERA covered portion at 68 degrees.

Bud it’s the exact same armour array of 3 x 50mm HHRA and 2 x 30mm Textolite.

@AlvisWisla

And weird hull that’s not 80U, but not 80B, so it gets lolpenned by all but Leopard 2 and Abrams

Which are? Only tanks at its br i could find that “lolpen” the UFP are 2S25M with 3BM60, AMBT with KE-W and M1128 with M900.

Doesn’t really sound “all but Leopard 2 and Abrams”(which both are at higher BR) to me.

[AlvisWisla]

DYW1 has 510 at 100 meters 60 degrees.
Stryker MGS, M60 AMBT, Challenger Mk3, Vickers Mk7, Bhishma, ZTZ96 [all], Ariete P.

[Mytho-GR1]

@AlvisWisla

DYW1 has 520 at 100 meters 60 degrees

what

[Kanelikainalo]

@AlvisWisla

DYW1 has 520 at 100 meters 60 degrees.

Why would you use LOS pen at a forum that no one else uses LOS pen ever…?

That’s just manipulative and confusing people on purpose.

@AlvisWisla

Challenger Mk3, Vickers Mk7, Bhishma, Ariete P.

All of these are higher BR.

@AlvisWisla

ZTZ96 [all]

Doesn’t lolpen the UFP.

“Lolpen” needs to be reliable and i’d say from further away than 0m…

So actually none of those above are correct.

[AlvisWisla]

Cause there’s no such thing as flat armor at higher BRs.
Using flat pen would confuse people since they’d never see flat armor.

[Mytho-GR1]

@AlvisWisla

Using flat pen would confuse people since they’d never see flat armor.

are the sides of tanks no longer flat

[Kanelikainalo]

@AlvisWisla

Using flat pen would confuse people since they’d never see flat armor.

Yes the pen number that is literally stated in the game and wiki would definitely confuse people…

This thread makes it pretty obvious that you confused people because you didn’t use flat pen.

[AlvisWisla]

They’re also not 400 mm thick, not even 200mm thick.

[Mytho-GR1]

and its side armour

[CRO_SkyGuard]

@TyphoonCro

It can punch through the turret of M1A1HC at range

Only through the gunners side, but there is absolutely no reason to shoot the turret cheeks of an abrams even if it pens you are testing your luck if its even going to kill the commander and even if it does he will just reverse away and replace the gunner, you are better off shooting its breech at that point.

Shooting the Abrams under the breech and LFP oneshot it 80% of the times even with a shell like the 3BM42. I would be more worried about it shooting me with an HE shell than the APFSDS.

When all aspects are considered, I still fail to see how the 292 will be better than the T-80B.

[eqS729gYidXuT2BN]

@CRO_SkyGuard

When all aspects are considered, I still fail to see how the 292 will be better than the T-80B.

You literally wrote one of the main reasons already:

@CRO_SkyGuard

@TyphoonCro

It can punch through the turret of M1A1HC at range

Only through the gunners side

It can pen the Abrams’ turret cheeks, one of the most highly armored panels in game.

@CRO_SkyGuard

When all aspects are considered, I still fail to see how the 292 will be better than the T-80B.

• Has a 695mm penning round that goes 1980 m/s
• Has armor barely worse than the T-80B
• It pens more armor per second than the T-80B: 457/7.1 = 64.37mm/sec (T-80B), 695/10 = 69.5mm/sec (Obj 292)
• They have the same horizontal traverse rate
• Object 292 has mobility only 8.2% worse than the T-80B (power to weight ratio), which is still better than all but one of the T-72’s
• Their top speeds are within 2 km/h of each other

So all in all, it is about as good as the T-80B in every way except the gun lolpens everything in the game, meaning it should go waaaaay up in BR. This thing is meant to be a glass cannon (otherwise why add it to the game), so it should be at a BR where it would be a glass cannon - like 11.0-11.3.

[Kingtiez]

If it gets an engine upgrade, 10.3 would be a good placement for now until we see how it performs.