Who cares? In terms of mobility it is better than 50% of what top tier Russia has to offer while being a full 1.7 BR below 11.7.
If an Obj 292 and a T-72B (or whatever other 10.0 or 10.3 tank) misses the same percentage of shots that will not matter. 10*0.5 still equals 5 regardless if it’s arranged (5+5)*0.5 or (2+2+2+2+2)*0.5.
See the above.
The first time I mentioned this type of calculation I specifically only mentioned Russian MBT’s around it’s BR, all of which have cannons greater than 120mm in diameter. It can assumed that because I am trying to compare the Obj 292 to other Russian tanks that I would only look at Russian tanks (especially when you’re comparing the Russian Obj 292’s ready rack size to the ready rack size of other Russian MBT’s at top tier) and it’s also assumed I wouldn’t be tanking about IFV’s and stuff because they don’t do enough penetration to frontally pen without aiming for weakspots (it would be like saying a Sherman Jumbo is good enough for 11.7 because it can pen the weakspots of top tier tanks).
The driver’s hatch/port weakspot is bigger, but the Obj 292 has essentially no turret ring weakspot, making it more survivable on the whole as there is more pennable area on the horizontal (so in cases where an enemy gun needs to swing and shoot, there will be more area for them to hit on the T-80UM2).
Like pretty much every single other tank at the BR, while yes it is a slight disadvantage in terms of USSR the USSR does just straight up have an advantage in ERA in game (so it’s not like it’s particularly bad).
The mantlet generally has better protection than the T-80UM2’s mantlet, in terms of raw protection values from the protection analysis.
I also just went into the protection analysis and fired shots at the mantlet from every single spot I could and literally no shot to the mantlet of the Obj 292 will cause damage to the ammo, the cannon breech eats the spall and penetrator almost every time. Literally the only thing in that general area that will potentially cause damage to the ammo is by hitting the very middle of the driver’s sight. I also tested the T-80UM2 and it was the exact same story.
Uh, is it? You did see anything I showed prior with the heat maps? Or how about this:
First round that even has a low possibility of penning the Obj 292 outside of weakspots -
- Russia - 3BM60, first seen at 10.7, low possibility
- USA - M829, first seen at 11.0 (technically M900 on only the M1128 at 10.0, but that’s a singular vehicle which isn’t an MBT), low possibility
- Germany - DM33 (120mm), first seen at 11.3, low possibility
- Great Britain - L26, first seen at 10.3, low possibility
- Japan - JM33, first seen at 11.0, low possibility
- China - Type 1985-I APFSDS, first seen at 10.7, low possibility
- Italy - DM33, first seen at 10.3, low possibility
- France - OFL 120 F1, first seen at 11.7, low possibility
- Sweden - DM33, first seen at 11.7, low possibility (although technically the slpprj m/95, first seen at 11.3, low possibility, but that’s on a light tank)
So all in all -
- Two minor nations have rounds that can pen its non-weakspots at 10.3
- A single major nation and a single minor nation have rounds that can pen non-weakspots at 10.7
- A major nation and a minor nation have rounds that can pen non-weakspots at 11.0
- A single major nation has rounds that can pen its non-weakspots at 11.3
- Two minor nations have rounds that can pen non-weakspots at 11.7
Meaning it should be bare minimum 11.0-11.3.
And if you shoot literally anywhere else on the tank they’re insta-dead. If you shoot the tracks of a top tier tank with an AP round from a M2A4 it’s not going to do anything either, because shooting the tracks of a tank 99% of the time eats the round - the same holds for the cannon breech.
Yes, hence why I said “If you’ve got data saying they use different types of filler than cool, but until then yeah I’m just going to assume there isn’t a large difference in the filler mass.” The only thing I would change in this sentence would be to change the “in the filler mass” to “in the filler mass to TNTeq ratio” or something since I was talking about the amount of TNTeq in each round’s type of explosive filler.
I didn’t see anything about the types of filler being used, literally not a single chemical compound (or even non-reverse-engineerable common names like “C4” or something). Literally all they say is “filler,” never the name of a compound.
