We don’t even know which shell it actually has, some assume Grifel but I’m not so sure anymore personally, it could have the other ammo project Zaraysk which was a project specifically for the LP-83
Grifel 1 and Grifel 2 are later projects for the 152mm 2A83 cannon, notably used by the Object 195 and experimental units of the T-14 Armata. With a projectile length of 900x25mm and a muzzle velocity of 1780m/s, penetration at 60° is a bit higher than 1000mm RHA.
Given that LP-83 was an independent development from the 2A83, I wouldn’t be so sure about ammunition compatibility.
It would have to be Zaraysk, it wouldn’t be firing Svinets or Mango
I guess they could add Grifel 1 as a placeholder and send it to 10.7, there no much information about the LP-83 gun to make accurate guesses.
Chemical penetration is generally worse against modern vehicles than kinetic since kinetic is generally less protected against than chemical try shooting a Heat at a abrams cheek and then compare how much effective armor it has with a Apfsds (iirc most mbts have about one third more protection against Chemical effect rounds) (also imo it would be balanced at around 10.7)
Now that I had chance to test drive the 292
I’ll just say, when firepower is concerned, this thing has no place at 10.0.
Sure, it may face tanks like Leopard 2A4, M1 (up to M1A1, including IPM1) but it will eat those tanks for breakfast. I dare say 10.7 should be lowest for this tank, it is missing some stuff like thermals and additional armor of standard T-80 but firepower more than compensates for it.
1 Like
I use it as a way of calculating armor DPS (I know the damage dealt doesn’t directly correlate with all rounds/types of rounds, but as a general rule for APFSDS it holds), since people saying “it’s got a slow reload” doesn’t make sense when it literally is doing more damage within the same time frame.
1 Like
That doesnt make any sense but you do you buddy.
1 Like
How the actual heck is this thing 10.0 in BR.
there is only ONE APFSDS round that can front pen this thing and its the KE-W round that the M60 AMBT has. and that cant even pen the turret cheeks.
It has 695mm pen at 0m compared to 583mm at 0m, the highest pen at 10.0 before this thing came. that is almost 20% higher penetration than the TOP round of the BR. and its a round it gets stock…
How Gaijin came to the conclusion to put this thing at 10.0 i have no idea…
Like the T-80B gets front penned with a 425mm pen at 0m round almost no issues and has a best round of 457mm pen at 0m. the T-80B is 10.3 …
The T-80U barely has better front armor and has a top round of 532mm pen at 0m. AND ITS 11.3
Sure, more things go into the BR choice than armor and pen, but this does not make sense. It can eat APFSDS for breakfast and has the highest penning round by a wide margin at 10.0. either its a 10.7 or they need to rethink armor and pen on this thing.
Like Jesus Christ…
Give it time…
Fairly certain it will go to 10.3 week after the 8th mark
10.7 possible later
The gun is just too good for 10.0
I don’t doubt that.
my main issue is how they thought it would be a good idea with 10.0 to begin with. everyone can tell just by looking at the protection-map and the numbers that it needs to be higher, so why cant Gaijin?
I’d say marketing, maybe?
Advertise it lower and then put it higher
1 Like
Only one APFSDS can frontally pen this tank at this BR? Dude literally any full caliber APFSDS in the game can pen the lower plate and driver’s port of ANY Russian MBT, especially this T-80. What nonsense.
any MBT APFSDS round can pen lower plate of any tank at 10.0. its not worth mentioning lower front as it is irrelevant.
Just going to ignore the driver’s port part? And you said “frontally” which includes the lower plate. Be more specific with your claims if you are going to be so specific about your criticisms.
1 Like
Again, same applies, any MBT APFSDS can pen any MBT driver port.
i didn’t think i needed to be more specific as i thought it was commonly known and implicitly understood about lower front plate and drivers ports exactly in the same way gunmantlets are at BR 10.0.
But yes, i could have spelt it out. i just didn’t see the need.
Person A: this round can UFP any tank found at this BR!
You: yeah so? Any tank at this BR can pen weakspots on russian tanks!
The issue isnt about whenever you can pen the weakest armor found on the tank but the strongest
not really what i said but ok.
Im not going against you in any way nor i claim you said something?
not directly, but his answer was to my post thus me being “Person A” in your response to him.
either way, even if you didn’t mean me. its not what he responded to. (i agree with your sentiment, i just think criticism needs to be correct).