# China, Italy, France, Britain , Israel 11.7 MBT need BUFF (2)

Okay, let’s do some maths.

Height of Abrams tank is around 2.44m, according to Wikipedia (not a great source but will do).
http://www.army.mil/factfiles/equipment/tracked/abrams.html (The secondary source)
We assume that the weak spot we’re trying to shoot is the turret ring, which we assume that it is at half the height of the entire tank. Let’s also assume that we are in an Abrams and the breech is at 3/4th of the height of the tank.

Let’s say we’re shooting at 10 meters:

Using simple trigonometry, tan(θ) = (Opposite / Adjacent), since it’s a right-angled triangle,
angle of incidence to the normal of the turret ring would be tan^-1(0.61m/10m) = 3.49 degrees.
This means that you have to aim the camera 3.49 degrees above the normal of the hypothetical flat plate of the actual armour plate.

Unfortunately, Gaijin have not implemented this in the protection analysis; however, you can instead calculate the downwards angle, and use the construction angle to find necessary angle.
You can also just turn off taking into account the ‘vertical angle’ of the camera.

If we shoot the turret ring from 500m,

The angle of incidence would be tan^-1(0.61m/500m) = 0.0699 degrees ≈ 0.07 degrees, like the original poster stated.
The reason why his diagrams look wrong is because they are wrong. These are just not to scale. The third diagram doesn’t show where the breech is, but where the round would act about.

If you still do not believe this is true, I would like you to explain why.

7 Likes

Thank you for those posts that prove the statements in my post correct, and proving why the following is done instead:

It accounts for the minor difference in angle while making sure you don’t accidentally cause negative angle [shoot from below effect].

What the maths is saying is that the camera should be 0 degrees to the point at where you’re trying to shoot.
And that the angle of incidence is somewhat inversely proportional to the range.

1 Like

I think your post concerns allegations of general corruption, as opposed to specific corruption relating to weapons development and procurement, which is what I was assuming you were talking about.

Indeed.

Back on topic.

I think it’s well known that the Chinese tree has been maligned by a viciously anti-Chinese (now removed) member of staff(?) and now needs to be healed.

First could be historical reload rates for the autoloaders, or implementing fixes from the legion of bug reports.

ZSL-92 is (leaked) on the way too! Would be nice to see those things.

2 Likes

That could help, especially actually fixing acknowledged bugs / features that their vehicles have, such as HMD and improved RWR on the Z-10.

1 Like

The Chinese MBTs aren’t fine, as Gaijin has already acknowledged in the bug reports submitted. They have many issues with them that entirely misrepresent these vehicles in the game. Even if their stats are good, their models are outright wrong, and they’re missing many features that they should have… not to mention the insane rate of fuel tank explosions, which feel even higher than soviet tanks.

That aside, the Ariete, Leclerc and Challenger 2 still do need improvements and I do think Gaijin should prioritise them, especially the Ariete since it’s the worst performing of the bunch. The Ariete could become infinitely better with a simple stat change for the WAR kit - if its kinetic modifier was changed from 0.2 to 1.5 (there is another thread that discusses why this should be done… I won’t go into it), the WAR kit would be enough to make the ariete’s turret actually able to take top tier rounds, and thus would make it actually competitive to play… even moreso if they added it for the AMV as well.

5 Likes

I’d rather have a better round on the Leclerc, currently it has the worst top tier round, and it’s armor can be one shot by 3BM60 regardless of that UFP “loophole”

The DTC10-125 and 3BM60 aren’t too far off

1 Like

Atleast Russian tanks have armor. And tandem missiles, if that changes anything. I love 9M119M1s. China could use a better top tound too.

Only the VT-4A1 really needs a better top round - the ZTZ99A and WZ1001 are completely fine. It’s not hard to make well placed shots with them since their gun handling is really good and they have third-generation thermals. What the Chinese vehicles really need is for their models to be fixed, and hopefully also the counter-laser APS for the ZTZ99A.

2 Likes

Cries in L27A1

Challenger 3 gets DM53 though xD

6 other Challenger 2s get L27. 4 of which are horrid to play.

having lower pen isnt the end of the world just sucks that ofl f1 is so light

2 Likes

I can assure you that the WAR kit can’t compete at top tier.
The WAR kit will improve the Arietes but it will only make it immune to shells like 3BM42 and 3BM46.
The tank is really old and is now being barely upgraded, the WAR kit is a design from early 2000, it can’t compete with top rounds.

Unlike the Ariete itself, the protection provided by the WAR kit is not classified - it provides around 250mm of additional KE protection. And even if it wasn’t public information, it was already discussed in the recent thread on it that we can also estimate based on its mass. This is already done in the aforementioned thread so I’m not going to bother copying it over to here…
About c1 ariete’s WAR kit - Machinery of War Discussion / Ground Vehicle - War Thunder — official forum

I’m confident that a proper, significant increase to the protection the WAR kit provides to the level it gives in real life would be enough to make at least the Ariete’s turret able to take a hit… because in game it does a fraction of what it’s supposed to. And so, if it was able to at least take a hit, it would have a lot more value in-game rather than being a glass cannon without much cannon.

1 Like

Yes the WAR kit is under secrecy and we only know it’s weight just by estimation from a paper published few years ago due to the AMV program starting to kick in.
The WAR kit was made to improve KE protection but it ain’t just RHA. Those are random estimates by a forum member.

Assuming that War kit is pure HHRA (as @spacesoldier117 said, we don’t truly know)

(100mm War Kit Thickness X 1.25 HHRA Armour Modifier ) / cos(58°) Angle of front Armour)

100 x 1.25 = 125

125 / cos(58°)

125 / 0.53 = 235.85 estimated protection from War Kit

385mm Ariete Turret KE @ 500mm with 3BM60 + 235.85

620mm Turret Cheek Protection.

Instead of using HHRA, lets use RHA which has a Armour modifier of 1.00.

Skipping showing calculation. We get Turret Cheek protection of 573.68mm if the War Kit is pure RHA.

2 Likes

Sure, but it’s definitely better than Gaijin’s estimate of… 30mm… for the upgrade package that’s meant to upgrade KE…

If leclerc received SHARD Mk1, it’d likely become extremely spicy. It’d also be quite disappointing to just have DM53 added to the Leclerc, though. France kinda leapfrogged from OFL 120 F1 with middle 500mm RHAe penetration all the way up to well beyond 700mm RHAe penetration with SHARD Mk1.

It’d be like the 292, but actually a glass cannon and at 11.7+

1 Like