I remember there being reports out on russian armour in general, specifically for the t64 series and its derivatives which included the t80? Pretty sure the recent changes to the t64 was a result of this.
I dont want to take peoples word for it, i want answers lol
But i want to know if its better to look at L27 or T80U as the biggest factor rn
I understand that but if the publicly available data is limited it has the potential to have a great margin of error which is what i want to know personally to best define where i should start nosing around for sources
What we are trying to focus on is the expected performance of L27A1, where we have a primary source, that being the UK MoD, stating it can penetrate, frontally, a T-80U at the required range of 2km.
The shell cannot do this in game for a T-80U with the ERA stripped, let alone with the ERA fitted.
The conclusion to be made is either:
- L27A1 is underperforming by a large margin
- T-80U is overperforming by a large margin
- both of the above
Therefore it is important to figure out which of these, or whether both of these, are the case.
6 Likes
I’ll go with no then?
1 Like
So, we cant get the l27a1 buffed due to the armour of the t80u IN GAME and the first hand source cannot be used to change either due to… reasons?
Well i know when ive been told to go give self fellatio.
5 Likes
I’m a bit loopy on some pain meds (tried to lift a full kids pool up, did something nasty to my back), can someone clarify these points:
-
L27a1 cannot penetrate the t-80u through the era at 2km in game currently.
-
The report says charm3 exceeds the ability to penetrate the t-80u
-
The developers don’t believe the report due to some unknown ambiguity.
-
The current performance of l27a1 and the t-80u in game were used as a basis for the developers to not believe the report.
I must be misunderstanding something here.
4 Likes
This puts the L27/T-80U comparisons to bed. The 700mm protection level and ability of T-80U to be defeated is all an estimation/assessment.
So unless proof of anti-era capabilities is found, this is a dead end.
The only route forwards would be correcting of the T-80U armour.
1 Like
Nope, they used the notoriously bad in game protection analysis to refute the report.
The lack of consistency is illuminating.
We have taken all available data and modelled T-80U armour as realistically and accurately as possible.
L27A1 we dont believe offical sources. Assigns values that allign with what Gaijin want and are not at all realistic.
This is not a sustainable model.
1 Like
Would it not make logical sense that upon acquiring the T-80U, if that initial assessment were incorrect, there would have been a rush to develop a new shell?
The fact that CHARM 3 was deemed to be perfectly fine and there was no rush to replace it suggests that the assessment of its performance was either accurate or pessimistic.
Charm 3 was not a “rushed” development, it was planned well before any T-80U evaluations.
Not what I meant.
Right, do we have proof we were actually able to evaluate T-80U’s armour before the closure of RO…?
Buts that’s not what it says tho.
It says that T-80U relies mainly on ERA for protection, and that the protection of the ERA is yet to be accurately assessed. That does not contradict L27A1 penning it.
It is much easier to say:
Yep, our round can pen the tank with ERA, than it is to say:
ERA provides xxx mm of Armour protection.
1 Like
If they have done testing on the ERA equipped tank, they you would suspect they have tested against the basic hull too… and thus known the benefits of the ERA… and maybe how to counter it.
If you look at the Yet part, it suggest the accurate assessment is on the way, probably to be made soon after that document was made.
Also remember the number of tanks and ERA bricks was very limited, you can’t just throw anything at it as much as you want.
Testing it against a round designed to counter it first would be a wise choice.
It can go through, good.
It can’t, back to work.
After they made sure they can do it, then test it agains something else to figure out the protection.
2 Likes
And thus the evaluations from 1989-1992, and thus the L27 requirements and the requirements the L27 were tested against are all estimates… we don’t have any docs from 1993+ to prove if requirements/testing/performance was updated.
This document is from 93, isn’t it?
Thought it was 92 but I could be wrong