Here’s the thing - Relikt hasn’t even been doing all that good of a job ‘in that Eastern European conflict that shall not be named’ and it isn’t even up against the latest NATO darts. NONE of the Russian Heavy ERA actually seems to do all that good of a job when actually shot at in an actual shooting war.
If I was in charge of balancing I’d nerf the living crap out of it. Partly to reflect real-life observations and partly just to wind up RuMains.
I’d call it the ‘Crazed Otter Tax’ whereby I just randomly and arbitrarily pluck numbers out of thin air, make stuff up as I go along when it means I can whack a vehicle into the game and… wait a minute - why aren’t I employed by Gaijin already to do this stuff?!
7 Likes
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/gcvaeG1VZj44
10 sources mostly primary ones.
But naturaly definitly all marketing lies etc etc not a bug
4 Likes
Russia get a post 2020 vehicle 7 updates in a row. The strongest SPAA for defeating incoming missiles/bombs, the strongest ERA, the strongest light tank, the strongest “tank destroyer” and the strongest CAS with the KH-38MT (that doesn’t exist and a skilled user can take off 10ft, land straight away and still get kills cause gaijin hasnt fixed airfield missile spamming), and Gaijin are now folding to the idea of a round that is specifically made to defeat the armour of the country they have been favouring for all this time. It wont get accepted; I heavily doubt it. It would go against everything they have done at top tier thus far.
I believe Fireball may have got these documents originally
@Fireball_2020 Am I correct?
Well surely it’s a good stick with which to beat Gaijin over the head with. Especially now they’ve let the genie out of the bottle with the anti-ERA properties on other rounds.
‘T-80U with KE sensitive Explosive Reactive Armour (ERA)’ can only be a T-80U with K5.
I’d say that’s pretty good evidence that L27 was designed with defeating ERA in mind (otherwise - why mention it in the specs?). Not only that - but punching through K5 was a baseline that the documents state was EXCEEDED.
It didn’t just defeat K5 and then the T-80U armour underneath - it did so convincingly and exceedingly.
Secondary source below:
CAT-UXO - 120mm l27 projectile
" [L27], also known as [CHARM 3] (CHallenger ARMament 3), features a longer penetrator made of DU to defeat complex armour arrays and advanced forms of Explosive-Reactive-Armour (ERA)."
These are the peeps who probably know more about munitions than the rest of us (including the devs) combined.
10 Likes
Do we have examples, photos, videos? Of non abandoned ones who’ve had their bags stripped and left with rubber being perforated because if that can be organized that’s good evidence imo.
Here’s one example of a T-72B3 Mod 2016 having been hit by a dart in 2022.
A few points.
-
2022 predates Western MBTs. A Soviet-era 125mm dart did this.
-
The penetration is small and clean without any signs of external scoring - typical of a kinetic dart doing it’s thing rather than a HEAT jet.
-
The best tank round in the Ukrainian Inventory at this time was 3BM42 Mango.
-
The ERA array has been detonated - so it didn’t fail to activate due to missing bits, etc.
Thus, Heavy ERA in the above photo appears to have done bugger-all against 1980s ammunition.
Against 1990s/2000s darts that have been specifically designed with defeating Heavy ERA? Yeah…probably not so good.
6 Likes
If you’re talking about the front left side of the armor, what 125mm dart was it? Also that ERA on the front I can confirm is NOT Relikt but K-5. Furthermore, was it an abandoned or crewed B3? The main reason I ask is because a lot of times crews when abandoning will take out the explosive, plates, etc out of the ERA brick before leaving or will return and do that.
I’ve heard stories also of crews driving tanks that straight up had them pre-stripped. I’m not sure how often this happens. But it would be neat to have concrete data, and instances of scenarios that happen in game. But honestly it would be pretty sad if a 3bm42 equivalent dart passed through K-5 blocks. Because if that’s the case the later B3 would need to go down to maybe 10.7 if K-5 got nerfed to that degree. If it is still using 3Bm60 at that point that might be a problem.
Guys, we’re getting Abram to save UK GRB win rate.
I’m in tears
First up - I stand corrected. It does appear to be K-5 on the glacis.
Second. We don’t know the exact dart that went through but the most likely candidate would’ve been 3BM42 from a Ukrainian late model T-64 or similar.
Third. I don’t think the crew would have abandoned their tank in the middle of a field but decided to strip just one ERA block before they went. The rest of the tank (turret, rest of hull) looks pretty much intact.
2 Likes
I think you misunderstood me. They will strip the internals of the ERA block and maybe leave rubber behind in the block itself on the tank. Either to sell it, or to put it on a different tank. I’m not saying they took an entire ERA block with them (that’s too heavy, and would be too much of a risk for little benefits vs just taking the guff parts out).
But either way, if a 3BM42 went through the UFP at that angle even without ERA that’s crazy. Unless it was a T-72A upgraded to B level. But that didn’t quite happen until this year or last year really. But if 42 can do that to a B3 ERA or no ERA some questions need to be surely answered and fast lmao.
Idk if that nation’s tanks could be reparable balanced if that’s the case also. Because they will always either be under-tiered or just pointless.
I have no idea how you can conclude the ERA did “bugger all”
T-72s have a multi layer front plate, so penetrating the front plate is not proof at all of it penetrating the back plate and ACTUALLY damaging the tank.
It is also quite evident that the tank was disabled by a mine judging by crater, the front idler and tracks being blown off and the overtrack sponsons being blown apart by an explosion. This suggests that the tank was not damaged by the hit to the UFP and was still in use until it drove over the mine.
Oh dear. You seem awfully keen on coming to a conclusion that nothing can possibly defeat K-5, much less an old 1980s vintage tank round.
First - you have no proof of which what took out the tank. I would point you to the lovely big hole blown in the front of it. The photo was captioned and logged (presumably by the person who took it) as a tank knocked out by APFSDS. Occams Razor applies.
The best you can come up with is ‘well, it might have hit a mine, or been hit by an arty shell or lasered from space. Maybe it was aliens. Because there is surely no possible way stronk Russian armour can be ineffective…’
So, in the absence of evidence to the contrary - K-5 did bugger all.
Edit - Here’s another Russian tank with K-5. I suppose you’re going to also argue that K-5 did it’s job BRILLIANTLY here too? What took this one out? Obviously nothing fired at it by an opponent - perish the thought - a rather large and angry Heron presumably?
2 Likes
I dunno what you are raging on here, the tank you just posted has the turret popped off, probably from a hit to the hull. The original tank you posted in a previous response is clearly detracked, has wheels blown off, and other damage suggesting it was disabled by a mine, rather then thehit to the UFP, which likely happened at a different time.
Do you honestly think that if a round hits Kontakt-5 it disappears? No, the rod still exists in a damaged state and will pass through some material before it is stopped. In the case of the 50-60mm thick outer front plate, a 120-125mm APFSDS round will most certainly defeat that outer plate, but still be defeated by the remaining layers.
The ANSYS simulations by the likes of SY and Dejmian show this
T-90s used as ballistic test targets also show that Kontakt-5 will not prevent the penetration of the outer plate, its not designed to after all.
If Kontakt-5 was sufficent to prevent penetration of a 50mm plate imediately behind it by a 120-125mm APFSDS round, there would be no need to have 2 more layers of 50-60mm steel behind it.
Accept my apologies for the initial OTT response. It was out of order.
The point is that there is an increasing body of photographic evidence that shows dart penetrations on tanks equipped with heavy ERA - tanks which are also clearly knocked out of action as a result.
Simulations are great - on youtube or in the sterile scenario of a lab. The actual reality on the ground will vary.
These are from points during the conflict where modern (e.g. post 1990s) ammunition hasn’t yet been supplied.
Now, by all means you CAN argue that maybe these are tanks that were destroyed by some other means - but you cannot rely on the ‘well you don’t KNOW for certain that was the killing shot’ defence for all the examples out there.
2 Likes
I’m gonna be really clear here again.
Due to how modern tank armor is constructed, which is multiple layers…
Penetration of the outer layer is not proof of penetration into the interior compartment of the tank
Even in the case of the middle pic, which is the T-80BVM hit in the Relikt ERA framing, that hit is not proof it being the hit that destroyed the tank, unless the cameraman went to the other side and filmed for the existence the exit hole into the crew compartment.
The only valid image is pic 3 which is from the inside, but it is also a hit into the side turret, which in the case of the T-72B3 is just Cast steel. So in that case, even a pic from the outside would be valid.
I don’t argue that you would still see a hole with a partial or non-pen. However.
Let’s turn it round 180 degrees.
You cannot provide evidence of those above examples being knocked out by anything other than a dart. It MIGHT be the case, but we’ve got some evidence for one thing and supposition for another.
We thus come down to balance of probabilities.
Tank knocked out. Big hole in front of tank. On balance - it is probably the big hole in the front that is your culprit for why that tank is no longer working.
The first example could’ve struck the mine, then been hit by the dart. That’s the thing. Both can be true.
Edit to add. More to the point - due to the nature of a tank being hit successfully by anything (HEAT or Kinetic) - you are probably not going to have many crew who would hang around to photograph and document the precise failure mode of their armour. I wouldn’t!
