Does anyone know if the ERA hidden inside the turret should actually be broken down into many pieces like the above diagram instead of just four large pieces in the turret front currently? Or is this just an option to install even more ERA outside the turret armor?
Also, since LFP and side ERA option has been rejected in bug reports, I am trying to write a suggestion to add them. Does anyone know what is the source of the picture?
Having a source won’t make a difference. The issue is that this modification has yet to be physically made, and as such the Devs don’t feel the need to add it right now, and justify it because it technically doesn’t exist.
Our only hope for this is to be used or added as a future variant of the VT-4, so it would be best to just make a suggestion for it
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/x2838dkUbDUL
Im sorry but this response makes no sense when you consider all the Russian tanks that have highly detailed ERA. This not only puts the VT-4 at a disadvantage, it just seems to show a blatant doubt standard for modeling between Russian ERA and Chinese ERA. Even Western ERA gets more detail than this, so I just don’t except this response as an excuse to keep the Chinese ERA in large clusters. Can someone please make another post about this? This just doesn’t seem right
Sounds like it was a balance decision rather than any technical or logical limitations. Most of the Chinese tanks actually had individual ERA blocks modeled while Russian ones were grouped. It helps balance that because of how tiny Russian ERA is and only 1 block exploding only reveals a small area; and most of the times the area the ERA covers cannot be reliably penned anyways for the tanks it sees at their BR. HOWEVER, with the case of MBT-2000 and VT-4A1 the logic isn’t the same. The areas the ERA covers is quite large for each block. Additionally the areas the ERA cover can easily be penned without the ERA.
Your best bet is to try and appeal with this change as a suggestion post on the forum but I would give that a non-zero (but very close to) chance of actually happening… Afterall it’s been 2 years since the ZLT-11 bug report on incorrect transmission reverse speed was passed to the devs and they haven’t touched it…
I think we should at least continue to write bug report about the turret front ERA. According to Thai manual, there should be four ERA plates per side but in game there is only one huge V-shaped ERA which is quite unacceptable in my opinion.
Yeah the turret ERA is probably the big one worth fighting for tbh
Yeah I’m not gonna go out of my way to waste time and energy on that front, especially when I consider how most of the time it won’t really affect my gameplay. I will however still try and bring attention to the reload rate of the VT-4, and for Spall liners for both the ZTZ-99A and VT-4.
However, I can’t do this alone, and I really wish there were more people to help get gajjins attention (in a professional way). In particular, while I myself am not Chinese, I whish there were more people from the Chinese community who went out of there way to express support for these changes like players did for the Abrams.
Some time this week I’m going to try and see if the devs are even going to make mention of Chinese spall liners at all.
Bruhhhh
but what use has it, when its in the armor? I mean im not an expert, but wouldnt you want it to be the outer most layer ontop of the armor?
It’s one of the most inner layers of the armor. On some naval ships it’s the same way, they install the Kevlar layer on the inner most layer towards the crew compartments and will put thin paneling, or something over it
Think about it, the point of spall liners is to reduce the amount of spalling and fragmentation created when Steele is pierced. If the softer Spall liner is on the outside, it would have no effect on the rounds performance, and then it would pass through and punch through the steel, which would then spall on the inside crew compartment, sending metal fragments everywhere.
By placing the Spall liner on the inside, it still won’t stop the APFSDS if it punches through, but it will catch smaller and lighter fragments produced by the penetration, and reduce the overall cone of damage produced by penetration.
no, i already know that you put it inside of the tank, but i dont know why you put it inside the armor, cause then you have another fragmentation layer that you dont block with it, so why did they do that alegedly on the abrams?
Red Effect just put out a new video actually regarding the Abrams situation, and apparently according to an interview he made with an Abrams Tanker, there is no spall liner inside the tank, except for the ammo rack. This makes since as we can’t see any spall liner inside the crew cabin, and it wouldn’t really make since to put spall liner in the composite armor, as it would no longer serve a purpose like you said. So yeah I guess the Abrams really didn’t have any Spall liner worth modeling with the exception of the blowout panel doors
An experimental round with 600+ penetration has been passed:
New APFSDS DTC-10E/S should be added into Chinese MBT // Gaijin.net // Issues
Refining of ERA modelling has also been passed:
The ERAs of VT4A1&MBT2000 needs to be refined. // Gaijin.net // Issues
The new shell being passed in particular is great news! China could really use some improved firepower at the top, as it’s tank are otherwise at risk of falling behind
Well done to you, dear friends.
comment by Smin
Does the VT-4 actually have 8mm rubber side skirts?
In this video the guy taps on the skirt and it doesn’t look like the VT-4 is rubber like the VT-2 next to it.
It seems like the VT-4’s skirt is hard and rigid with bolts through it. It also doesn’t look like its only 8mm, but I’m a bad judge for that. I have no idea what he is saying, can someone translate it?
In other words, China and other minor nations are so unimportant you don’t get special treatment…
