Mate, you are wasting your time. This game is developed by russians. Any ukrainian tank in this game will always be 10x nerfed, no matter what evidence you present to the developers. They could never accept the fact that tank made by ukrainians is way better than any russian tank.
4 Likes
It’s not like Duplet is underperforming but it’s like Russian heavy ERA is over performing Vs NATO-standard ammo so we expect Duplet to be way better as it is now? Isn’t it?
Yeah, russian bias is a thing. But in case of russian ERA there is no bias, IRL it is really capable of stopping kinetic rounds, so in WT russian ERA is performing accordingly - they just didnt have to make it better than it is IRL. But in case of ukrainian ERA they had to make it worse, otherwise we would have situation where ukrainian tank is better than russian, because they would be same in terms of firepower and protection, but Oplot would also have reverse which is huge deal in game.
4 Likes
It is literally underperforming, it should stop almost 400mm kinetic penetration minimum
3 Likes
I found this video, might help with the vertical speed discussion.
Clearly this movement is independent of the stabilizer since the tank is stationary. And it seems to be higher than 4.4 deg/sec.
6 Likes
I think this will also be fixed, seems to be the same hole as in this report. Community Bug Reporting System
1 Like
How come duplet can’t deflect apfsds while relikt can?
the side ERA only intervenes against the rod’s trajectory at angles of 65 degrees or higher, whereas Relict becomes effective at a much earlier angle of 35 degrees. This results in the APFSDS rounds that penetrate Relict causing less damage than those hitting the Oplot’s base side armor, even though basic Relict ( without additional era packages)has a lower rated KE protection value. These two ERA types work differently, but I didn’t expect the difference in their effectiveness to be so pronounced.
It can deflect, but only deflect when the pen is already yellow or red😆
1 Like
Well I guess we know now, lol
https://x.com/andreibtvt/status/1975534194970239098?s=46&t=LO_FPDatH9sIUE5hlB6NPA
Turret armour is (hopefully) fixed.
Here is all the info that I managed to gather from russian CIS forum topic regarding Oplot:
The UFP -
This image demosntrates, quote “the early prototype of filler, stacked plates” that was later changed to homogenous plate in production searies.
It is this part:
The part of technical documentation for this specific part was posted with some editing with comments:
You can note that blueprint shows 3 rows of bolts it is because later Oplot variants have afromentionted section look like this:
The ERA -
Gaijin used this broshure http://uamicrotech.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/p04.pdf which is dedicated for the similar ERA as original Duplet but made by
A company that was established in 2018 , while ERA used for Oplot(and Thai variant) was made by "Basic Center of Critical Technologies “Mikrotek” ". Not to mention that Oplot itself was produced from 2009 to 2018.
If we to inspect the broshure we can already see the issue with the number of inner elements used -
Additionally it seems that new HKChPWSH elements use aluminum(I found explanation that it is less prone to corrosion resulting in longer shelf life) instead of copper for shaped charges. This and the size of charges indicates that it is less effective than original “ХСЧКВ34”.
In conclusion, if regarding ERA effectiveness there is room for debate and doubt, for 50mm plates between ERA there is none and it is only up to common sense and decency from Gaijin now.
6 Likes
This change would also explain the claimed lighter weight of these elements by the manufacturer.
That looks neat, nice to see a biy more info.
Quote? Can you provide the link/source to such quote? Would be another nice point in proving what kind of armor is there.
Just quoting what some tank enthusiast blogger said, the one that provided bluepring piece, not like official source quote.