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?
38 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
32 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)
11 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.
3 Likes
If they want to be truly realistic, they should change the era on russian tanks to cardboard.
That being said, great work!
20 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)
16 Likes
also not to forget that some of the penetrators we have ingame where build to defeat ERA or even heavy ERA
7 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.
2 Likes
ehh gotta defend Razer here, he is one of the few russian players supporters that can be even talked to and has no problem to critise them as well or defend other nations when it comes to it
3 Likes
It’s cause I play all 10 tech trees, and have no glaze over my eyes even though Japan is my first finished TT for air & ground.
2 Likes
jup, you have some bad takes i dont agree with, but we aint here for that xD
An important point to make is that things are often compared combat distances, not at point blank (easily a loss of 10~20% mv, and KE scales with V^2 so penetration can be significantly reduced even at relatively short distances) so there is the potential for penetration to occur at very short range but not at a useful distance so there is some leeway in regards to actual performance which isn’t often relevant in a realistic engagement since tanks don’t often get into knife fighting range or blundering into one another like often occurs in WT.
We know for example that IRL DM53 as with many other shells can easily penetrate the base NERA array out to a significant distance were it not additionally covered by ERA.
The question is if the various ERA-bypass / defeat mechanism(s) (including those relevant to CE shells / ATGMs) were appropriately implemented would it be able to do so against WT’s current (obviously very much overstated) implementation of the UFP Arrays and at what distance would they begin to fail to go though, let alone to the point where sufficiently reliable OSKs stop occurring due to reduced spall and module placement / resistance.
2 Likes
And I know I didn’t post this, but I’d love to see testing against Relikt + armor done by Germany and/or USA.
Of course, I doubt USA will bring out M829A2 to test, but it’s possible.
1 Like
I would agree that at this point, it isn’t likely that they would make the details public of any testing for at least a while (if ever) since things aren’t going so badly at the moment that showing off in said way would be needed, though we do know that they do have at least one T-90 variant that could be used for destructive testing, though I do doubt that this would be the first time they got their hands on K-5 blocks considering that it has been around for almost 35 years(1985) now so they likely would have had exact specifications to work to and with Relikt (2006) being a further refinement of the tech, the mechanics behind the bypass mechanism (sacrificial & low impulse tip design) for heavy ERA is almost certainty still effective or at least presents significant tradeoffs to account for.
M829 TC: 1984.
M829A1 TC/IOC: 1988/1991.
M829A2 TC:1992.
M829A3 IOC: 2003.
M829A4 TC: 2015.
?-E5? TC: TBA.
Consider the fact that there was some effort to replace M829A1 with -A2(1992 TC) and shortly with -A3 (2003 IOC) in service after the Gulf war verifying the degraded performance of -A1 when faced with Heavy ERA so obviously it was a sufficient impact to at least cause some concern about the reduced engagement ranges of ERA development, but the crash course to develop the -A4(2015, and will serve as the main round for for the SEP. v3) variant did not occur so the DoD retained confidence with -A3 can deal with further evolutions at least until we see either Multi-hit ERA variants or a Hard Kill APS fielded in quantity.
It also changes depending on if you look at things as a issue of Amour Values or Ammunition Selection in terms of BR placement, I think at least that the Armor should be adjusted first and then ammo selection should be revaluated wholesale to see if some needs to be reverted to earlier rounds to prevent things being outstripped, though relying on armor / lack of post penetration to tank / absorb shots to get a tank to survive engagement(s) should not be a viable option in WT, at least in my opinion at least for adequately placed shots at least at higher tiers.
The same way that APFSDS shatter / auto-bounce changes that impacted the M1’s Upper plate were reverted in short order for good reason.
Though issues with map and objective design really are the major issue that gets in the way of balancing by the numbers.
well that was the developer? (i think in russian forum?) said.
as i remembered people ask why russian ammo/charges did not explode when it was turn in to black.
they said that. which is hilarious in many ways, like the crew submerge in sea of oil.
4 Likes