How would I go about suggesting that the slowest tank at top tier should have some redeeming factors?
Edit - this isn’t be trying to be a smart arse btw, its a genuine question - if documents are presenting supporting real life characteristics of the vehicle are not going to be taken for what they say, how would one ask for changes for gameplay purposes
this wouldn’t have been the case if:
A - T-80U armour wasn’t over preforming
B - L27 wasn’t under preforming or had its actual penetration values
Currently there is reports stating that one of these values must be wrong as L27 can pen a T-80U
I’m sorry , what? The L26A1 round has very little to do with the construct of the L27A1 round, the L27A1 round was specifically designed to deal with modern threats E.G T80U up until at least the 2000s, the L26 was already becoming outdated by that point.
Hence the need for CHARM 3.
It’s hard to watch reports from the literal military of a nation be dispatched and tossed when brochures are used for other vehicles to add features.
Yes i reported it myself, its still slightly over performing but thats a different topic
Generally since that fix the textolite on the T64A has been ~0.4x weaker than on a lot of other tanks
But it is not fair the base it on a multiplier entirely as different rounds have different affects on different materials and armour
I dont believe RHA + texolite + rha is “reactive” so the affect is greatly reduced and so generally it could be more than found on the T64A, especially with plates in between textolite which could be punishing to the rod
But it is more designed to counteract HEAT and given that the T80U uses i think the array that was made to counteract 105mm DM23 i would think it to be overperforming with no other basis than knowledge and educated guesses
The fact a Leopard 2 player proved you completely wrong on this by shooting my turret frontally and blowing the doors off my Merk via an ammo rack not a crew knockout… YIKES. To say something so confidently is not a good move.
So, based on these 2 documents
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.
“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.
Will the reports on the other changes for L27 be done like length
These have all been linked to the ERA report and nudged. However we don’t have an outcome currently.
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…)
Oh ok thank you
I have two questions to this.
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…
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
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
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
I hope the Spall liners issue will be resolved soon.
