Yeah but this tells nothing on the amour other then the minimum i should do 6 years before it adopted it not proof enough to nerf it
1 Like
And it still wouldn’t be modelled accurately with that data because lack of detailed information it’s a single number
11 Likes
Does he play with a braille keyboard?.. Wtf i going on with those BVM stats?
2 Likes
I’m only commenting on this because this issue with the Challenger 2 has been going on for years, and my solution is: simply reduce the probability of ammunition explosion from 100% to 5%, just like in the Leopard 2. Who has ever shot at the ammunition below the lower plate of the Leopard 2 and nothing happened? Why does it have to be different for the Challenger 2? Just do that; armor is not important when 95% of the one-hit situations the Challenger 2 faces are due to ammunition explosions!
If you cared about tanks being realistically modeled in protection you would know, like I found out that i think 11 or 12 Russian high tier tanks now have their UFP composite overperforming by 100mm LOS underneath the era. Or about ~90mm Flat pen.
Edit: and this is why you enjoy russia so much. Because theyre overperforming. Oof.
The whole tank is a weakspot contrary to popular belief.
ALL T72B variants, T90s and T80U variants (w/ BV array) and the new Obj 775 are affected by the severe misinterpretation of their protection
The era is performing about how it should in terms of protection.
I am writing a +50page paper report on the breakdown and analysis of why 4 soviet tanks are right and the rest are wrong. With a truckload of analysis and sources
But you out here misinterpreting MINIMUM requirements from a primary document.
7 Likes
Im dyslexic … yet im looking forward to reading that 50 page report XD
Well you could have asked what I think on that issue. Yes, those parts are overperfoming but I´m not sure about the best way to fix it.
The biggest elephant in the room is the performance of K5 relative to rounds which were designed specifically to mitigate its effects (M829A3, DM53, L27, M338 and so on). Simply put we have a lot of indications that those rounds should defeat tanks with K5-like armor even at standoff ranges. BUT we have no absolute certainty on how they do it, and the best indications of that, believe it or not, come from Russian primary sources (namely, patent for the 4S23 reactive element for Relikt ERA).
If Gaijin was to remodel the performance of K5 vs the above mentioned rounds, for example rendering the KE protection of the tiles null vs them, I would support it without a doubt. A nerf like this should render T tanks UFP vulnerable at least to DM53, L27 and others (however theres a gray zone regarding some earlier rounds like DM43 or M829A1 that should be able to defeat the same UFPs if they had no ERA or expended ir already).
Mate DU rounds aren’t modelled correctly in game anti era is gonna get modelled any time soon
3 Likes
You didnt read what i posted. K5 is providing the correct amount of protection when analysed
It is the COMPOSITE underneath the era that is too strong. If the composite was corrected. M829A1 equivalents can pen K5 Tanks under 1200m as a simple analysis
Which is relalistic given 1200m is too close for an effective combat range. Hence 829a2 has simply boosted velocity and a sacrificial 100mm steel tip. As a stop gap to push the effective combat distance out past 2000m. A3 was future proofing the performance for next gen heavy era like relikt
K5 provides roughly 20% reduction in LOS Performance of apfsds according to Nll Stalis design director.
In game it provides 140mm LOS of protection,
140mm is about 20% of the LOS pen of M829A1 at 68 degrees of ~750mm LOS.
Or 120mm of 600mm flat pen
Gaijin took the LOSe values of the arrays and applied them as flat penetration equivalents. For example the T72B (with late T72B array, present in game as the 60-60-50 array) front w K1 should be ~450mm KE (flat pen) OR ~560mm LOSe
Instead of the 540mm flat pen and 650mm LOSe found in game rn. M829, DM33 L/44 and L26 can all pen at close ranges which isnt possible in game rn.
This is all observed when using Monobloc long rod penetrators as they way the penetration is calculated is linear unlike composite penetrators
5 Likes
I did and as I said I´m not sure on how would be the best way to fix it. The problem has 2 parts, the base armor and the ERA. Dealing with the ERA part is easier and there is support for it in sources.
Apart from some UFPs not behaving according to the material modifiers already ingame (and its hard to understand why this hasn´t been fixed already), theres the problem of calculation of penetration independently of actual impact angle, which is an even bigger problem in my opinion and harder to fix.
But in short, yes, I´m fully in favor of nerfing soviet UFPs and any other tank parts of any vehicles of any nations which are not performing realistically, such as Cr2 turret armor.
2 Likes
Penetration is actually working properly. All values you see with KE threats is given as a protection value as a ratio of its flat penetration. It all works. I promise. Its just that theres alot of modifiers for projectiles that arent monoblocs. You can calculate the LOS of a plate w an AP round if u have the slope modifiers. Because the value it gives u is NOT a LOS.
I wish they would just give every value as a LOS. Or LOSE and not a ratio applied to the threats flat penetration.
The real problem is gaijin doesnt use the Lanz formula. Its modified for some reason to the point that the 60 degree is relatively close but the 30degree LOS pen is like 50mm less than it should be for ALOT of monobloc penetrators. all lanz projectiles are affected by gaijins wrong formula
The way u calculate soviet protection is not with material modifiers but a mass efficiency. This is a pretty common mistake people make.
But material modifiers dont matter for real world protection in a way thats calculable. They apply a fixed protection value to composite to give u a protection value. The way the game engine works they probably change the values so the whole composite matches the correct protection values
1 Like
Right now each and every MBT in the game is modelled per NATO/Western/German testing standards (i.e vertical protection versus vertical penetration), and as such, for the most part i.e if we ignore obviously weakened zones for “”“balance”“” such as gun mantlets, a lot of them are technically speaking accurate - the problem is that, the same standard is applied to Soviet vehicles which were tested via a different method, which was LoS 68 perforation versus LoS 68 protection - so what Gaijin did was, take the protection values the Soviets/Russian attained when using their method, and plugged that into the game using the Western method… and they forgot to convert LoS into flat protection when doing so.
If Eastern tanks were properly converted to Western measuring method, most of them would be only about as armoured as the Leopard 2A5 on their hull when we ignore ERA.
3 Likes
Yes exactly and this is what i did. They would all have about 450mm KE under the K5 for the 53535 and 60-60-50 arrays.
Where is this german testing method vertical pen vs vertical pen. Do you have a document or source? Because i would very much like to reference this in my paper.
Like i know exists but i have to prove it or at-least provide something.
Any useful relevant search terms?
This here; it states that the protection for C-technology turret within the 60 degree arc (which is from an angle at which the cheeks themselves are at a neutral vertical and horizontal angle to the striking projectile), the penetration for DM23 at “all ranges” is, per WT (which is actually quite an accurate representation); 410mm at PB range to about ~370mm at 2km’s.
Hull protection is extrapolated from both this and the Swedish trials, and hovers between ~425mm KE and ~435mm KE for vertical. If the protection was rated for LoS, it would be equivalent to around ~480mm instead, but that’s not the case in the game…
note: it was a British assestment, via documents from later years, the protection was apparently increased to about ~430mm for the turret in the frontal arc :)
5 Likes
I know no one talks about this here, but i wonder why people say that Chally 2E is the only saving grace of the UK top tier MBTs. I mean sure mobility and .50 cal are good, but BN is right there! Lws, the best APS in the game and gen 3 thermals for both gunner and commander sight, with the second one being elevated and wide with great zoom, resaulting in superb situational awareness, with a system that can remove 4 of the danger that would kill you as a bonus.
Saves me more from ATGMs then the pointless era on the TES
I know it was like 2 months ago, but it was catching darts for me when enemy was >1000m
And yes, the era is useless
Yeah it can do that its great
Unless theirs a stock player