Making Russian Tank Protection more realistic

Sorry guys but this is going to be a very long post but i promise it will be worth it. It will expose russian bias when it comes to overall protection of russian tanks at top tier.

I bet you had your matches where you shot 120mm DM53 L/55 at T-72B ‘89’ upper plate for it to just bounce. Youre scratching your head like, why does a tank from 1989 have so much protection when Leopard 2A6 from 2001 only has 450mm KE hull. SO you aim at the lower plate instead next time and shoot just for the round to be eaten either by the fuel tank or for there to be no shrapnelling whatsoever.

I bet everyone here is tired of blatant russian bias so today we will be calculating kinetic protection for russian MBTs based on their materials and deciding on realistic protection figures.

First question arises, What multiplier should be used for Textolite?
Thanks, glad you asked…
image

T-64A features 80mm + 105 + 20 array. 100mm total steel and 105 textolite.
100mm at 68 degrees is 267mm LOS (Steel)
105mm at 68 degrees is 280.35mm LOS (Textolite)
Total Kinetic protection is 330mm LOS Steel equivalent which means that (330-267) the remaining 63mm LOS of steel equivalent is gained from 280.35mm LOS of textolite. This means that Textolite is 0.225x equivalent to 42SM (300BHN steel).

First thing is first… All penetration for APFSDS is calculated vs 260BHN steel however Russian top tier tanks use 42SM Steel which is 300BHN or BTK-1sh High Hardness Steel which is 400BHN.
So what multipliers should be used?!, you ask.

I chose to use M774 APFSDS (345mm x 26mm DU Rod) at 2000m (1375m/s) as reference and see how 260BHN, 300BHN, 400BHN steel it defeats using Willi-Odermatt Formula and see the difference and how much more protection the 42SM and BTK-1sh steel offer relative to 260BHN steel.



M774 APFSDS @ 2000m at 60 degrees]
260BHN Steel: 378.2mm LOS (189.1mm at 60 degrees)
300BHN Steel: 360.3mm LOS (180.15mm at 60 degrees)
400BHN Steel: 330.3mm LOS (165.15mm at 60 degrees)
—-
300BHN has 5% more protection
400BHN has 14.5% more protection
compared to 260BHN steel

Now since Textolite is 0.225x compared to 300BHN 42SM steel which is 5% better than 260BHN steel , we need to increase textolite modifier by 5%. Textolite is now 0.2363x modifier relative to 260BHN Steel

So these will be our modifiers going forward
Textolite = 0.2363x
42SM Steel (300BHN) = 1.05x
BTK-1sh STeel (400BHN) = 1.145x

=====

T-54 / T-55 / T-62
100mm 42SM Steel x 1.05
105mm at 60 degrees
210mm KE LOS

APFSDS needs 180mm KE penetration at 0 degrees to defeat 105mm at 60 degrees (210mm LOS)
It looks visually like this
40mm xxxx APFSDS
180mm @ 1000m at 0 degrees
105mm @ 1000m at 60 degrees - 210mm LOS

=====

T-55AM / T-62M
The Russian state that the protection is equivalent to 160mm of steel at 60 degrees which is very feasible.

BDD package has 30mm steel outer layer followed by 120mm of polyethylene which has 3x 5mm (15mm) steel plates mixed in but are sloped at 70 degrees instead of 60 degrees. Then you have the main 100mm base hull armor steel plate.
Thats 100mm Steel + 30mm Steel + 15mm Steel (at higher angle making them more effective) and 105mm of polyethelene to make it to total of 160mm steel equivalent. However the west and NATO state APFSDS penetration vs 260BHN steel and 42SM Steel is 300BHN.

160mm x 1.05 = 168mm
168mm at 60 degrees
336mm KE LOS

APFSDS needs 288mm KE of penetration at 0 degrees to defeat 168mm at 60 degrees (336mm LOS)
In terms of protection its somewhere in-between T-72 Ural and T-72A and on par with T-80B ‘78’

=====

T-64A ‘1967’ / T-64B ‘1976’
80mm 42SM Steel x 1.05
105mm Textolite x 0.2363
20mm 42SM Steel x 1.05

84 + 24.8 + 21
129.8mm at 68°
347mm KE LOS

APFSDS needs 279mm KE of penetration at 0 degrees to defeat 129.8mm at 68 degrees (347mm LOS)

=====

T-64A ‘1982’ / T-64B “1982”
30mm BTK-1sh Steel x 1.145
80mm 42SM Steel x 1.05
105mm Textolite x 0.2363
20mm 42SM Steel x 1.05

34.35 + 84 + 24.8 + 21
164.15mm at 68 °
438mm KE LOS

APFSDS needs 352mm KE of penetration at 0 degrees to defeat 164.15mm at 68 degrees (438mm LOS)
The Leopard 2A4 (1985) B-Tech Hull armor is also rated 350mm KE

=====

T-64BV “1985”
Kontakt-1 ERA
60mm BTK-1sh Steel x 1.145
35mm Textolite x 0.2363
30mm BTK-1sh Steel x 1.145
35mm Textolite x 0.2363
45mm BTK-1sh Steel x 1.145

68.7 + 8.27 + 34.35 + 8.27 + 51.53
171.12mm at 68°
457mm KE LOS

K-1 offers no protection vs KE however it does slightly due to the extra bit of steel that its made out of. Supposedly 8mm extra… 171.12 + 8 = 179.12mm at 68 degrees - 478mm KE LOS

APFSDS needs 367mm KE of penetration at 0 degrees to defeat 171.12mm at 68 degrees (457mm LOS)

APFSDS needs 384mm KE of penetration at 0 degrees to defeat 179.12mm at 68 degrees (478mm LOS)
Chinese ZTZ96 frontal base hull is very similar being rated 380mm KE

=====

T-72 Ural / T-72M
80mm 42SM Steel x 1.05
105mm Textolite x 0.2363
20mm 42SM Steel x 1.05

84 + 24.8 + 21
129.8mm at 68°
347mm KE LOS

APFSDS needs 279mm KE of penetration at 0 degrees to defeat 129.8mm at 68 degrees (347mm LOS)

=====

T-72 Ural-1 / T-72A ‘79’
60mm 42SM Steel x 1.05
105mm Textolite x 0.2363
50mm 42SM Steel x 1.05

63 + 24.8 + 52.5
140.3mm at 68°
375mm KE LOS

APFSDS needs 301mm KE of penetration at 0 degrees to defeat 140.3mm at 68 degrees (375mm LOS)

=====

T-72A “83” / T-72M1
16mm BTK-1sh Steel x 1.145
60mm 42SM Steel x 1.05
105mm Textolite x 0.2363
50mm 42SM Steel x 1.05

18.32 + 63 + 24.8 + 52.5
158.62mm at 68°
424mm KE LOS

APFSDS needs 340mm KE of penetration at 0 degrees to defeat 158.62mm at 68 degrees (424mm LOS)

T-72M2 Moderna features the same base hull composite array as T-72M1 but gets DYNA ERA which reduces penetration by 30%
605mm KE LOS - 30% (DYNA) = 424mm Base Hull
APFSDS needs 485.5mm KE of penetration at 0 degrees to defeat 226.59mm at 68 degrees (605mm LOS)

Note: Considering T-72M1’s were built 1982 and later, its very likely all of the plates are made from BTK-1sh since 42SM steel was replaced around 1980-1982, but im not sure. Its possible the T-72M1 base hull might actually be stronger, if thats the case the protection would increase from 424mm LOS to 451.5mm LOS which would increase the base hull KE protection vs APFSDS at 0 degrees from 340 to 362mm.

=====

T-72B “1984”
60mm BTK-1sh Steel x 1.145
15mm Air x 0.05
15mm BTK-1sh Steel x 1.145
15mm Air x 0.05
15mm BTK-1sh Steel x 1.145
15mm Air x 0.05
15mm BTK-1sh Steel x 1.145
15mm Air x 0.05
50mm BTK-1sh Steel x 1.145

68.7 + 17.18 + 17.18 + 17.18 + 57.25 + 3
180.49mm at 68°
482mm KE LOS

APFSDS needs 387mm KE of penetration at 0 degrees to defeat 180.49mm at 68 degrees (482mm LOS)

=====

T-72B “85” / T-72S / T-72B3
60mm BTK-1sh Steel x 1.145
10mm Air x 0.05
10mm BTK-1sh Steel x 1.145
10mm Air x 0.05
10mm BTK-1sh Steel x 1.145
10mm Air x 0.05
20mm BTK-1sh Steel x 1.145
10mm Air x 0.05
20mm BTK-1sh Steel x 1.145
10mm Air x 0.05
50mm BTK-1sh Steel x 1.145

68.7 + 11.45 + 11.45 + 22.9 + 22.9 + 57.25 + 2.5
197.15mm at 68°
526mm KE LOS

T-72B ‘1985’ also features K-1 which offers no protection vs KE however it does slightly due to the extra bit of steel that its made out of. Supposedly 8mm extra… 197.15 + 8 = 205.15mm at 68 degrees - 548mm KE LOS

APFSDS needs 422mm KE of penetration at 0 degrees to defeat 197.15mm at 68 degrees (526mm LOS)

APFSDS needs 440mm KE of penetration at 0 degrees to defeat 205.15mm at 68 degrees (548mm LOS)
Immune to 120mm DM23 (1982) and 105mm DM33 (1984)

T-72B3 features the same base hull composite array but gets Kontakt-5 ERA which reduces penetration by 20%
658mm KE LOS - 20% (Kontakt-5) = 526mm Base Hull

APFSDS needs 528mm KE of penetration at 0 degrees to defeat 246.44mm at 68 degrees (658mm LOS)

=====

T-72B “89” / T-90 / T-90A / T-90M
60mm BTK-1sh x 1.145
5mm Rubber
3mm BTK-1sh x 1.145
19mm Air x 0.05
3mm BTK-1sh x 1.145
5mm Rubber
60mm BTK-1sh x 1.145
10mm Anti Radiation Lining (Lead)
50mm BTK-1sh x 1.145

68.7+ 3.435 + 0.95 + 3.435 + 68.7 + 57.25
202.47mm at 68°
541mm KE LOS
With Lead & Rubber, the Total KE most likely reaches 550mm KE LOS

APFSDS needs 441.5mm KE of penetration at 0 degrees to defeat 206mm at 68 degrees (550mm LOS)
The base hull armour protection without ERA is comparable to Leopard 2A5’s C-Tech.

T-72B ‘89’ / T-90 / T-90A however also feature Kontakt-5 ERA
685mm KE LOS - 20% (Kontakt-5) = 550mm Base Hull
APFSDS needs 550mm KE of penetration at 0 degrees to defeat 256.55mm at 68 degrees (685mm LOS)

T-90M however features RELIKT ERA
915mm KE LOS - 40% (RELIKT) = 550mm Base Hull
APFSDS needs 734.5mm KE of penetration at 0 degrees to defeat 275.1mm at 68 degrees (915mm LOS)

=====

T-80 ‘1976’
80mm 42SM Steel x 1.05
105mm Textolite x 0.2363
20mm 42SM Steel x 1.05

84 + 24.8 + 21
129.8mm at 68 °
347mm KE LOS

APFSDS needs 279mm KE of penetration at 0 degrees to defeat 129.8mm at 68 degrees (347mm LOS)

=====

T-80B ‘1978’
60mm 42SM Steel x 1.05
100mm Textolite x 0.2363
45mm 42SM Steel x 1.05

63 + 23.63 + 47.25
133.88mm at 68 °
357.5mm KE LOS

APFSDS needs 287mm KE of penetration at 0 degrees to defeat 133.88mm at 68 degrees (357.5mm LOS)

Note: T-80B’s produced after 1980 had all of their plates made from BTK-1sh Steel

=====

T-80 ‘1982’
30mm BTK-1sh Steel x 1.145
80mm 42SM Steel x 1.05
105mm Textolite x 0.2363
20mm 42SM Steel x 1.05

34.35 + 84 + 24.8 + 21
164.15mm at 68 °
438mm KE LOS

APFSDS needs 352mm KE of penetration at 0 degrees to defeat 164.15mm at 68 degrees (438mm LOS)
The Leopard 2A4 (1985) B-Tech Hull armor is also rated 350mm KE

=====

T-80B ‘1982’
30mm BTK-1sh Steel x 1.145
60mm 42SM Steel x 1.05
100mm Textolite x 0.2363
45mm 42SM Steel x 1.05

34.35 + 63 + 23.63 + 47.25
168.23mm at 68 °
449mm KE LOS

APFSDS needs 360.5mm KE of penetration at 0 degrees to defeat 168.23mm at 68 degrees (449mm LOS)

Note: T-80B’s produced after 1980 had all of their plates made from BTK-1sh Steel

=====

T-80BV ‘1985’ / T-80U / T-80BVM
50mm BTK-1sh Steel x 1.145
35mm Textolite x 0.2363
50mm BTK-1sh Steel x 1.145
35mm Textolite x 0.2363
50mm BTK-1sh Steel x 1.145

57.25 + 8.27 + 57.25 + 8.27 + 57.25
188.29mm at 68 °
503mm KE LOS

APFSDS needs 403.5mm KE of penetration at 0 degrees to defeat 188.29mm at 68 degrees (503mm LOS)

T-80BV however also features Kontakt-1 which has no effect vs KE but does offer 8mm extra steel. 188.29 + 8
196.29mm at 68 degrees is 524mm KE LOS
APFSDS needs 421mm KE of penetration at 0 degrees to defeat 196.29mm at 68 degrees (524mm LOS)

T-80U features Kontakt-5 ERA
630mm KE LOS - 20% (Kontakt-5) = 503mm Base Hull
APFSDS needs 506mm KE of penetration at 0 degrees to defeat 235.96mm at 68 degrees (630mm LOS)

T-80BVM features RELIKT ERA
840mm KE LOS - 40% (RELIKT) = 503mm Base Hull
APFSDS needs 674mm KE of penetration at 0 degrees to defeat 314.6mm at 68 degrees (840mm LOS)

What are the advantages of this?

  1. Realistically Feasible protection values for all Russian Tanks
  2. Russian armour stops UFOing meaning their current top tier tanks wont all be top tier material anymore reducing the amount of top tier options for Russia since they have too many right now
  3. Adds room for stronger tanks such as T-90M, T-14 Armata to be added to fill in the top tier spots since tanks like T-72B3 and T-80U wont be top tier worthy anymore.
  4. APFSDS penetration difference will matter more now and give difference nations more diverse experience becuase right now it doesnt matter if you have DM33 or M332 APFSDS, you still have to shoot same weak spots on russian tanks despite M332 being much better than DM33
78 Likes

Good job man. Finally in detai! Proof why t80bvm is most played top mbt and why generally half of player base or more plays top tier Russia. This gets fixed and everyone at top tier has much more fun except tryhards! And also they need to fix no spall isue when the round manages to penetrate. The armor values arent the only artificial buff they have. Totally ridiculous!

22 Likes

AT 0 DEGREES

AT 68 DEGREES

M111 (4.0kg penetrator, 4.2kg projectile) at 1455m/s. 330mm WHA rod
M774 (3.4kg penetrator) at 1509m/s. 345mm DU rod
M833 (3.58kg penetrator) at 1494m/s. 427mm DU Rod
120mm DM33 (4.3kg penetrator) at 1650m/s. 510mm WHA rod
120mm M322 (5.4kg penetrator, 5.6kg projectile) at 1705m/s. 620mm WHA rod

M111 [Left Column, Tungsten]
326mm @ 0m (0 Degrees)
152mm @ 0m (68 degrees) - 405.8mm LOS

M774 [Right Column, Depleted Uranium]
353mm @ 0m (0 degrees)
165mm @ 0m (68 degrees) - 439.3mm LOS

M833
396mm @ 0m (0 Degrees)
185mm @ 0m (68 degrees) - 493mm LOS

120mm DM33
484mm @ 0m (0 Degrees)
225.8mm @ 0m (68 degrees) - 603mm LOS

120mm M322
589mm @ 0m (0 Degrees)
275mm @ 0m (68 degrees) - 734mm LOS

Targets M111 can defeat:
T-54 / T-55 / T-62 = 180mm KE
T-64A ‘67’ / T-64B ‘76’ / T-80 ‘76’ / T-72M = 279mm KE
T-80B ‘78’ = 287mm KE
T-55AM / T-62M = 288mm KE
T-72 Ural-1 / T-72A ‘79’ = 301mm KE

Targets M774 can defeat
All that M111 can
T-72 ‘83’ = 340mm KE

Targets M833 can defeat
All that M774 can
T-72M1 = 340-362mm KE
T-64A ‘82’ / T-64B ‘82’ / T-80 ‘82’ = 352mm KE
T-72B ‘84’ = 380mm KE
T-64BV = 384mm KE

Targets 120mm DM33 can defeat
All that M833 can
T-80BV = 421mm KE
T-72B ‘85’ = 434mm KE

Targets 120mm M322 can defeat
All that 120mm DM33 can
T-72M2 = 486-518mm KE
T-80U = 506mm KE
T-80UM2 = 506mm KE
T-72B3 = 522mm KE
T-72B ‘89’ = 550mm KE
T-90 = 550mm KE
T-90A = 550mm KE

13 Likes

It’s proof of nothing. It’s bunch of claims without documentation backing it up. It they OP has documentation to back up their then they should make a report on bug report site. Also it already been answered that the spall thing is intended and not a bug.

1 Like

issue we habe right is is that
T-72B ‘85’ needs 530mm KE at 0 degrees to be penetrated by APFSDS

When APFSDS defeats 530 at 0 degrees, it defeats 247.29mm at 68 degrees which is 661mm LOS
T-72B ‘85’ hull array composite is only 574mm thickness in LOS and somehow in the game it provides 661mm LOS of steel protection along 68 degrees.

Basically gaijin hasnt shown us proof for their values but what we do know is that they are unrealistic and not even feasible

31 Likes

I’ve always found it impressive, how can it be that players of a game make calculations with much more sense and collect data infinitely better than the developers?

23 Likes

found the rossiyan main

24 Likes

Can we make it so Russian MBTs actually get spall damage now?

Has everyone forgotten that there is a feature written in the code that prevents spall from being created on top tier russian MBTs?

30 Likes

Nope, it was answered it was intentional.

Why is it intentional?

It I remember right it was do to wet storage.

Russian MBTs dont use wet storage xD

22 Likes

Obviously if the changes were to go live, a lot of BR’s and ammunition rounds would have to be adjusted especially for Russia

Tier 5
T-54 Mod 1951 - 7.7BR (APHE/APHEBC)
T-54A - 8.0BR (APCBC / 3BM8)
T-55A - 8.3BR (3BM20)
T-62 - 8.3BR (3BM3/3BM4)
T-55AMD-1 - 8.7BR (3BM20)
T-62 Obr. 1975 - 8.7BR (3BM6/3BM21)

Tier 6
T-55AM - 9.0BR (3BM25)
T-62M-1 - 9.0BR (3BM28)
T-64A - 9.0BR (3BM15)
T-72 Ural - 9.0BR (3BM15)
T-72A - 9.3BR (3BM22) [Mod 79 stock / Mod 83 upgraded]
T-64B - 9.3BR (3BM22) [Mod 82 stock / BV Mod 85 upgraded]
T-72B ‘85’ - 9.7BR (3BM26/3BM29) [Mod 84 stock / Mod 85 upgraded]
T-80BV - 9.7BR (3BM26/3BM29) [Mod 82 stock / Mod 85 upgraded]

Tier 7
T-72B ‘89’ - 10.0BR (3BM26/3BM32)
T-80U ‘86’ - 10.0BR (3BM26/3BM32) [No Thermals]
T-80UM - 10.3BR (3BM32/3BM42) [Has Thermals]
T-90A - 10.3BR (3BM32/3BM42)
T-72B3 - 10.7BR (3BM42/3BM42-2)
T-72B3M - 11.0BR (3BM42-2 / 3BM60)

Tier 8
T-72BM ‘Rogatka’ - 11.7BR (3BM46 / 3BM60)
T-80BVM - 11.7BR (3BM42-2 / 3BM60)
T-72BM2 - 12.0BR (3BM42-2 / 3BM60)
T-90M - 12.0BR (3BM42-2 / 3BM60)
T-14 Prototype - 12.3BR (3BM59 / 3BM60)
T-14 Production - 13.0BR (3BM70 / 3BM69)

US

Tier 5
M60 - 7.7BR (M392 APDS)
M60A1 - 8.0BR (M392 APDS)
M60A1 (AOS) - 8.3BR (M728 APDS)
M60A1 RISE - 8.7BR (M735 APFSDS)

Tier 6
M60A3 TTS - 9.3BR (M774 APFSDS)
MBT70 - 9.7BR (XM578E1 APFSDS)
M1 Abrams - 10.0BR (M774 APFSDS)
IPM1 Abrams - 10.3BR (M833 APFSDS)

Tier 7
M1A1 - 10.7BR (M829)
M1A1HA - 11.0BR (M829)
M1A1HC - 11.7BR (M829A1)
M1A2 Baseline - 11.7BR (M829A1)

Tier 8
M1A1 AIM - 12.0BR (KEW-A2)
M1A2 SEP V1 - 12.0BR (M829A2)
M1A2 SEP V2 - 12.3BR (M829A2)
M1A2 SEP V3 - 12.7BR (M829A3)
M1A2 SEP V4 - 13.0BR (M829A4)

6 Likes

I cant see how the T-14 would be 13.0 or how Gaijin would model BM70 given its lack of even rudimentary documentation.

T-14 would be breech repair simulator, and if flanked, very easy to get the whole crew in one shot.

2 Likes

If they want to be truly realistic, they should change the era on russian tanks to cardboard.

That being said, great work!

17 Likes

Consequences of making my proposed protection value change

T-55AM: From 236mm KE to 288mm KE (22% Buff)
T-62M-1: From 236mm KE to 288mm KE (22% Buff)
T-64A: From 253mm KE to 279mm KE (10% Buff)
T-72A ‘79’: From 321.5mm KE to 301mm KE (7% Nerf)
T-72A ‘83’: From 359mm KE to 340mm KE (5-6% Nerf)
T-64BV: From 450mm KE to 367mm KE (22.5% Nerf) [Without K-1 included]
T-72B ‘85’: From 530mm KE to 417mm KE (27% Nerf)
T-72B ‘89’: From 656mm KE to 550mm KE (19% Nerf)
T-80B ‘82’: From 444mm KE to 361mm KE (23% Nerf)
T-80U: From 630mm KE to 506mm KE (24.5% Nerf)
T-90A: From 630mm KE to 550mm KE (14.5% Nerf)
T-72B3: From 630mm KE to 522mm KE (20.5% Nerf)
T-80BVM: From 864mm KE to 674mm KE (28% Nerf)

11 Likes

also not to forget that some of the penetrators we have ingame where build to defeat ERA or even heavy ERA

6 Likes

Personally… I think anti era shouldnt be implemented cuz they M829A3 and M829A4 would completely remove the meaning of armour from the game.
They should just be modelled as full on 830mm DU rods with no anti era.
That way M829A4 wont be able to pen T-90M past like 1km.

If russian tank armour didnt UFO, nobody would be asking for that feature.

1 Like

Maybe but the DM53 and one of the Chally rounds are anti ERA

2 Likes

BVM uses Relikt, not Kontakt 5.
There’s no evidence of DM53 going through Relikt + armor.
I agree with the premise of this thread.

1 Like