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
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.
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.
So it’s linearly interpolated between 20 and 25 degrees
Around 2.5 which makes sense…
That’s 2.67(the 68° slope modifier) then divided by 1.05 roughly.
290.5341708 is the answer i got from division of 1.05 after too
Would anyone be able to double check
114.255011 x 2.67 = 305.06087937 / 1.05 = 290.5341708
Im not sure why the division of 1.05 but thats what fireball said
NEW THINKING
linear slope gives us 2.53 as the slope modifier for 68°
114.255011 x 2.53 = 289.06517783 which would be its equivalency vs Gen 3 apds
However it seems to peak at 300mm (it does reach as low as 287 in specific spots) for gen 3 apds in game which indicates there is an error still within the T64A in War thunder
500th edit or something but its either accurate or overperforming dependent on protection analysis results and how the angle is figured in it
HHRa on russian tanks is between 1.2-1.25 mostly in the files btw. You are forgetting that apfsds penetrates sloped armour more efficiently, so your “= 500KE” is then divided by 1.173 in game (which is a little low compared actual values apparently) Which would be 426mm…
It is a bit complicated as irl they didnt offer the same level of “protection” , for example the 5 layers hull was more effecient than the 3 layers.
That being said the t80u is certanly overperforming as if you compare it with the t80ud hull with the same array and also using hhra but with just 15mm of armour you get 70mm of extra protection normalized which is ridiculous
Also the t72A is overpreforming as well, irl it was vulnerable to the m111 up to 1.5 km while it was still vulnerable against it at shorter ranges with the 16mm add on, meanwhile the hull whithout the add on in game it can only be penned it below 500, meanwhile with the add on you cannot pen it at any range
First, MHHRA is 1.1, not 1.2 [it’s 1.25 for old HHRA, not 1.2 either].
This is seen from 50mm rear plate of T-80U protecting 55mm.
Your numbers are making assumptions rather than using data.
For example, on Maus’ 205mm RHA plate, it has 524.66mm LOS thickness at 67 degrees.
It protects 435mm against 3BM42, an effective angle of 62 degrees.
The Textolite was likely incorrectly given the MHHRA variable, likely when originally making the code over half a decade ago.
& Gaijin just hasn’t gotten around to looking at it since.
