I will make a few points to address your claims,
- Firstly, regarding the kinetic protection provided by Duplet:
According to the data provided, assuming the plate was angled at 68 degrees (same as T-64/72/80/84/90), 58mm penetration after encountering duplet, means 155mm residual penetration from LOS.
In-game, 3BM42’s penetration at 60 degrees at 100m is 524mm (the link you provided claims the penetration would be >550mm). Lets take the lowest figure of 524mm (Even in-game this number would be higher because BM42 effective penetration increases with the angle of the plate):
In game number for 60 degrees: 524-155=369mm penetration defeated.
Claimed real life number: 550-155 = 395mm penetration defeated.
This also lines up with my calculations of the tests done on the turret:
Approximately 120mm LOS penetration was observed at a firing angle of about 60 degrees. Taking the in-game number at 60 degrees, 524-120 = 404mm penetration reduction.
Averaging all these numbers, Duplet, including its covers and dampeners should stop 390mm of kinetic penetration.
Remember, the 369mm reduction is actually false because it uses BM42 penetration figure for 60 degrees not 68, so the average is actually lower than it should be.
In-game, Duplet stops approximately 292mm of kinetic penetration, including the protection provided by all covers and dampeners. 100mm less protection than it should provide.
Additionally, all of this is calculated for BM42, which has a segmented core, allowing it to perform better against ERA, mono-block projectiles such as BM60 or OFL F1 would be affected to an even greater degree. (As stated in the blog you linked)
- Regarding the 50mm steel plate of the BM Oplot.
I agree with your assessment that such a plate would have shown different results from the turret tests, and we should have observed very little residual penetration after two layers of ERA.
The issue is, BM Oplot certainly has this plate, there is no doubt about it, it can be seen in any factory images of the module, and the blueprint of the module mounted on BM Oplot confirms that this plate exists and is made of the same RHA as the rest of the module.
My personal theory is that the duplet module tested against BM42 was made according to the patent and did not contain this plate, but only dampeners similar to turret ERA, which is why it performed similarly to the turret ERA. However, ofc this is my theory, and I don’t have any concrete evidence to prove it.
- Conclusion:
If we model the Oplot’s armour without this 50mm plate, the ERA’s effectiveness against kinetic rounds should still be increased by about a 100mm at the very least.
If we take into account the increased protection against monoblock projectiles, and the 50mm plate, this protection should be even higher, but 390mm of reduction against Kinetic rounds is an absolute must.
As for the side skirts, its values should be adjusted according to the ERA performance calculated above, but overall I don’t have much issues with how they’re modelled in game. They seem to be accurate to the Thai version of the tank.
