Very nice write up, shame it will do nothing. But a very nice write up nonetheless
10 Likes
If you post a bug report in the forums instead of the proper site obviously
Even a proper bug report would likely be rejected based upon some BS technicality or accepted and never actioned. The only way Gaijjin “might” actually make changes is with a significant amount of community pressure
1 Like
There’s still a point in trying
A bug report would not be accepted, atleast not to my understanding, hence i have created this post and potentially it be forwarded to the developers, or atleast be told whether a report would be possible.
3 Likes
Thought about a dev-forum post and tying it fully into both L27A1 and DM53 Anti-ERA?
shared struggle
dare i say it.
this is probably very intentional
What is this nonsence all kinetic protection improvements in T-64B and T-80U comes from steel plates not textolite if you wan’t find effectivness of textolite against kinetic rounds compare any 100mm RHA plate at 68 degree to T-64A it will be 260 vs 230 on M774 aka 105 mm gives 30mm of kinetic protection 0.3.
This is not the case in game… otherwise the protection would be lower than what it is.
The protection of T-80U hull is double that of T-64A, with the addition of 50mm of steel, and harder steel, it is not possible to achieve this.
For example, the T-80B achieves 330mm protection with the high hardness armour… still a very big difference…
2 Likes
Modern HHRA has 1.10 modifier you have 230+23+130+13+20=416+effect of composite armor and you have 500~ KE protection.
What are these values?
2 Likes
Wait? Do you mean the same company that gave us gems such as ‘We think is Clear Marketing Lie’,
‘Despite all the documents we BeLIieVEe that -insert dubious conclusion here-’
‘Hurr Durr - Igla looks like Stinger - so it must be same.’
and the latest line.
‘Erm - we tested it IN-GAME and we couldn’t do it - so it’s impossible.’
…
have some form of favouritism, bias or selective deafness when it comes to implementing some things for certain nations over others? I’m shocked! Truly…
For those unaware - some irony might have snuck into the above
7 Likes
So without repeating things. As you further go up the RU tech tree - with thicker and thicker arrays of armour - the relative unexplained discrepancies in protection on their hull armour scales and becomes more of an issue?
E.g. At the point of T-64A - there’s a bit of uncertainty but it’s not gamebreaking. By the time you get to T-80U it’s totally out of keeping with what you’d expect.
Is that a gross simplification or reasonable conclusion?
T-64A is actually correct after the change earlier this year, this seems to have effected the T-80B too which uses a very similar array. The biggest sinners are T-64B and T-80U.
Originally they were all overperforming i guess by a similar %, however T-64A was corrected but that did not trickle down to the others.
4 Likes
Got it. Appreciate the number-crunching.
2 Likes
I personally think its incorrect still given that most HEAT rounds i fire at it provide less protection than it should
and when working out the apds gen slope effect @ 60 its a bit too much for KE
it should be 80 x1 + 105 x 0.13576200952 + 20 x1 = 114.255011mm total when flat
However you do the slope effect of gen 3 @ 60
114.255011 x 1.84 = 210.22922
you can see that it should be roughly 210 but when you put the tank @ 60 in game it gives roughly 217-219 which ofc grows as it goes to 68 degrees instead
This seems insignificant until you look at all the Gen 3 APDS rounds and a loss of 10mm of effectiveness for the tank is the matter of penetrating it or not in a lot of cases given L52 peaks at 290mm in game at present
Ahhh, I think this would come down to discrepancies in gaijins slope modifiers for APDS and APFSDS, I would expect gaijin has tuned the armour for APFSDS as specified.
maybe but i cannot find the slope modifiers for them to check