So, based on these 2 documents
Cr2 should have Over 40% Single Shot Kill Probability against T-80U with Kinetic ERA in a Head On scenario.
Cr2 should have Over 40% Single Shot Kill Probability against T-80U with Kinetic ERA in a Head On scenario.
8 Likes
The devs are referring to the design of the tip, which was the main focal point of the report being the unique anti-ERA element.
But a similar design was already featured on L26, so the focus on the tip overall is not clear how this was to overcome the ERA specifically on L27. Hence them seeking more information.
1 Like
“The round was tested against the T-80U with and without ERA in conditions to check its performance *within game condition*s.”
My bold and underlined. There’s the problem - if the values in the game are off then the results the devs get will be off also. This either applies to the T-80U and K-5 overperforming -or- L27 underperforming or even a mixture of both.
In such a case, repeating the experiment with flawed numbers will continually give flawed results that both a) contradict real-world sources and b) don’t really stand to the ‘common-sense’ test.
6 Likes
Will the reports on the other changes for L27 be done like length
2 Likes
These have all been linked to the ERA report and nudged. However we don’t have an outcome currently.
7 Likes
Hey @Smin1080p_WT
I think if the hull armour was reduced in effectivness this may be a much more feasible possibility. Most likely “anti/counter-era” was not needed, the penetrator was potentially stiffened(per the CHARM 3 programme docuement), but with correct penetrator performance, a realistic drop in the T-80U’s base armour would result in a penetration.
If we assume the high hardness rolled armour is 1.2* better than “RHa” in game.
And textolite is 0.136* that of RHa based on this report: Community Bug Reporting System
Then we get a total effective thickness of 188mm. Which if we find its Line of sight thickness at 68 degrees is a nice 502mm.
Now if we factor in the effect of APFSDS at 68 degrees, which is a reduction in the effective thickness by a factor of 1.21x.
That gives us 415mm protection by the main armour array against APFSDS threats.
Using the in game values of 525mm and 643mm, gives the ERA protection as ≈ 120mm.
Giving a total protection of 415 + 120mm which gives a total of 535mm.
Which L27 can penetrate at…
Near enough exactly 2.2km. Which would fullfil the document requirements of penetration at 2km… without anti “anti-era”.
Just a thought like…
(Note, if HHRa is not 1.2x but 1.25x let’s say, the extra performance gained from the pending L27 report would likely lead us to the exact same conclusion…)
8 Likes
Oh ok thank you
I have two questions to this.
Unless they are not the documents that were passed to developers, where does this leave any ambiguity?
The documents are quite self explanatory.
And a second question
Why did in-game performance took priority over historical documents in this case? Isn’t the case that the game is trying to mimic the real life, and we as community do these bug reports with sources, to correct them, so why did developers discard primary, internal, not even marketing to outside, sources?
Shouldn’t it be the case, that if something in game does not match historical data, the possible cause in game should be investigated and corrected?
19 Likes
So… if we find other NATO rounds that are specified as being able to defeat T-80U/K-5 (but not being able to in-game) then that should be a clear indicator that T-80 hulls are overperforming.
I can see THAT going down like a fart in a lift with the devs…
1 Like
Literal nothingburger. If you get penned in the mantlet your breach is gone already.
Similar design yes.
The L15A5 also had similar design to the L15A3, however the materials changed allowing it to UFP A T64 when L15A3 couldn’t reliably do that.
The L27A1 may share similar design, much akin to that of M829A2 and A3 (funny that they also share similar design in tips) both are DU but the 27A1 has different bag charges as well as has in excess of 700MM of penetration as provided in the tests above.
AKA A
- longer penetrator
- Metallurgical Upgrades: The DU penetrator in the L27A1 utilizes a new heat-treatment process that increases rod strength and hardness. This allows the dart to maintain structural integrity during the extreme shock and bending loads caused by detonating ERA tiles. (which is as I checked still in abug report)
- better bag charges to increase velocity.
It has the same design because it’s not the design which is anti ERA it’s the fact gaijin has it’s (as per the report which hasbeen accepted 2 years ago and nothing) values wrong.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/bMbEJftRqiSp
this bug report is literally the one which proves that the dimension ETC are what facilitate it to be anti ERA
4 Likes
The performance (penetration) of L27 is a separate report that has not yet been resolved. Therefor the test was naturally conducted with the current in game performance as that’s how the shell currently is.
As I already explained above:
All of these documents were passed on.
there are too many things pointing towards textolite being too effective but nothing stating it for individual tanks or generally giving a effectiveness average on tanks so nothing will be done about it
For example a quick calculation that might be wrong gives Textolite generally better performance than “Hardened armour”
That modifier is for naval vessels specifically
1 Like
I hope the Spall liners issue will be resolved soon.
1 Like
wait i thought this was a meme. you mean to say you testing in game trumps the real life testing? lolol
omg dude…
1 Like
I agree but unfortunately those silly billingtons (had something stronger but not the place) that make these decisions are so well insulated that Smin ends up coming under fire.
The thing we as a community do not understand is the CR2 is not even a great performing tank. I wouldn’t mind if Gaijin were rushing out these changes to stop months of Challenger domination…Since day dot it has been a poorly implemented, half finished mess from the ammo rack only carrying HESH leading to instant detonation for those 6 or so months to leaked documents the CR2 has been a shambles.
2 Likes
First spall liners in game to increase spall
2 Likes
Yes but other tanks aren’t always having some protection to the breach would be nice
1 Like
And when are they going to increase the quantity of the first ammo rack?
2 Likes
That’s not what was said at all? We are talking about the cross reference of penetration with ERA removed.
1 Like