As far as I can see, you have no idea what you’re talking about. @Sombralix explained the problem very well, and @UKoctane basically did a ELI5 for you… yet you’re still missing the point?
To make it as simple as it is humanly possible; T-72B was nearly penetrated by 3BM-32 Vant in real life, that round is around the performence level of DM23 used by the Leopard 2A4 but for some reason projectiles such as DM33 and M900 which are, on average ~20% more powerful cannot defeat the armour of this tank?
What is your “calculation” even meant to represent exactly? The hull? The turret? The turret sides?
All your examples scream of “I talk a lot without saying anything”.
I think you’re misinterpreting the figure shown by the protection analysis here, looking at the angled values will always be misleading from LOS due to the differing slope modifiers of various shells, it will only scale with LOS for HEAT shells since they have no positive or negative normalisation and only penetrate the exact LOS path length. The value in game is saying “This shell with it’s slope modifiers would need this much flat penetration to get through this armour”, it is not at all a comment on exact LOS thickness due to different slope modifiers. In your Ariete example, 142mm of protection has been turned to 271mm or 118 LOS thanks to the positive normalisation of modern APFSDS, it penetrates more LOS thickness at angles than flat.
When looking at the 0 degree angle, no matter the KE shell, the thickness displayed will be the same. That is objectively the equivalent thickness of that array if it was displayed to a target at a 0 degree angle. It is also the amount of raw penetration needed at the armor’s actual angle to go through, which gives the true LOS protection of that armour, e.g for the Ariete it’s 142mm@60 or 284mm LOS thickness. Any shell with more than 142mm@60 has more than 284mm LOS penetration at that angle and can get through. I’m presuming this part is indisputable since it’s basically common sense and proveable in game. So when the T72B in game offers 220mm flat, it has 590mm LOS protection at 68 degrees. If you took a KE shell with perfectly neutral normalisation (i.e penetrates say 500mm at 0 degrees, 250mm at 60 degrees, 187mm at 68 degrees etc) then the protection analysis would say the equivalent protection against the specified ammo is 590mm.
TL:DR you can’t use shells with positive/negative normalisation to talk about LOS protection. You HAVE to use the 0 degree protection and then calculate it with trig or you’ll get Gaijined.
tbf am pretty tired and drifting all over the place here but I hope you get the point.
This is the Penetration of 125mm 3BM32 ‘Vant’ APFSDS
380mm long DU penetrator that weighs around ~4.3kg
Muzzle Velocity is 1710m/s
Penetration:
422mm @ 0m at 0 degrees
197mm @ 0m at 68 degrees - 526mm LOS
APFSDS with only just above 420mm of vertical penetration nearly penetrated T-72B hull with the 1989 array without Kontakt-5. Yet in game we need 530mm at 0 degrees with APFSDS to penetrate T-72B hull.
Double posting oh well but I’m going to use pretty pictures here using our good old faithful the T34 to explain why the protection analysis number is ONLY trustworthy when looking at LOS at either 0 degrees or when using HEAT.
As well all know the T34’s hull is 45mm at 60 degrees. I think we can all agree that this is 90mm LOS thickness (45/cos60).
Going to use 2 shells, 3BM42 which has positive normalisation, and 3BM22 that has negative (3BM42 penetrates more LOS the higher the angle gets whilst 3BM22 penetrates less)
When striking the hull with no angle, both say 45mm, but when striking at the 60 degree angle:
You can see that 3BM42 says less than LOS, and 3BM32 says more, due to 3BM32 penetrating less LOS thickness at 60 degrees than it does flat, and 3BM42 penetrating more. Does this mean the LOS thickness of the T34’s armor isn’t 90mm though? Absolutely not, it’s just Gaijin’s way of easily displaying how close you are to getting through armor with a certain shell, but can be misleading when trying to work out LOS values.
Here’s HEAT with perfectly neutral normalisation and the exact LOS thickness:
I’m not intentionally misleading myself I’m just objectively correct, I know it sounds cocky but it’s true and I really hope the explanation above helps. Yes it affects tanks other than the Soviets too, some benefit, some suffer, but the Soviets disproportionately benefit due to their high armor slopes and the use of longrod rounds as the reference flat penetration instead of LOS thickness.
Just because you haven’t found something doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. I could share it, but what’s the fun with just serving you something on a silver platter?
As for you “proving”, well, UKoctane just disproved it lol. Ironically he did what I wanted to do, so well, that spared me a few minutes.
3BM-22 doesnt actually have negative normalisation its just that the carbide core tip inflates its vertical penetration at low obliquities. without the carbide core, the shell slope modifier would look exactly the same as other APFSDS.
Well you learn something new everyday (like whacky Soviet APFSDS designs), but for the purpose of what we’re trying to prove here it gives the same result.
In the memoirs "Life Given to Tanks " dedicated to the UKBTM chief designer V.N Venediktov, published in 2010, G. A. Kheifits, a leading specialist in the Department of Armour at UKBTM who was appointed to the State Commission for testing the T-72B tank, describes the live fire tests against mock ups of the T-72B upper glacis and other experimental armour designs developed by the UKBTM design bureau that took place at the proving grounds of the Main Missile and Artillery Directorate (GRAU) in Donguz (in the Southern Urals). At the same time, various armour designs developed by the LKZ design bureau were also being tested at the same proving grounds, including a mock up of the T-80BV upper glacis. The tests were carried out with the 125mm 3BM-32 “Vant” monobloc DU long rod APFSDS ammunition, which was the newest ammunition of its type available in the Soviet Army in 1985.
According to Kheifits, the tests of the T-72B armour designed by UKBTM were successful. Even after increasing the amount of propellant to launch the “Vant” round at its maximum permissible velocity (1710m/s), it was not possible to break through the armour. On the other hand, the armour designed by LKZ was perforated by “Vant” when fired from a standard propellant charge.
He didn’t disprove it though.
He used a single steel plate.
I used Ariete for spaced armor, as that was the easiest, and disproved him while proving that the effect seen on T-72 occurs elsewhere as well.
How else do you explain 114mm of adjusted material [80x0.05+110] being equivalent to 142mm for APFSDS on a flat plane? Granted, everything could be given the modern HHRA, which would be 1.2, but that only comes out to 136mm for Ariete, and 218 for T-72B.
Using @Sombralix 's flawed math, Ariete “has an LOS of 323mm at 64 deg” when it doesn’t.
Just as 193mm of adjusted material makes 241mm of equivalent for T-72B.
BTW, Vant pens more than DM33, and almost as much as DM43 seeing as DM43 penetrates [tho barely] T-72B in WT.
What did you disprove of again, I want you to explain it.
Not that your math in regards to the Ariete is even correct, you didn’t account for the modifier of HHS which is 1.25… lets see 110*1.25 = 137.5
Now add 137.5 and the amount of armour provided by air, which per you is equivalent to 4mm, we get 141.5mm. Incredible what accounting for material properties does, no?
I will now wait for you to explain how 3BM-32 Vant performs better than DM33 or as good as DM43 when it’s some ~200mm shorter than both in terms of penetrator length, don’t worry, I will wait for you to think of a good excuse.
Besides that, you clearly did not bother to read what was posted, while yes, Vant did fail to penetrate, it was so close they had to adjust the armour effectiveness, tl;dr, while the test was succesful, the armour was nearly perforated by Vant despite it being a significantly weaker projectile than stuff like 3BM-42 and DM33.
T-72B’s armor makes more sense if it’s using HHRA 1.25 multiplier then.
There’s a reason I’ve been saying material, because nothing indicates which tanks use which multiplier for their RA.
It’s long been known about the over performance of Russian armour arrays with countless bug reports with evidence provided on the matter over the years. But it seemingly just gets ignored.
Who made the game?
Who has the most players in queue and which tank is most played?
Who has most premiums at top tier, not to mention the undertiered ones?
Who NEVER gets nerfed and always seems to be right from the get-go. Or gets ‘‘nerfed’’ after 3,4 years like ka 50 and still destroys everyone in battle from the get-go.
Who has best missile performance even after spaa nerf? Not to mention best anti-air by far.
Who has all the rounds available to their tanks?
Overperforming armor as pointed out here greatly?
Who has all the rocket and atgm’s in service available to their helicopters?
Who is now getting their fifth attack aircraft that has broken damage model that they don’t fix but yet still bring new su 25 in game?
You never see anyone suffering playing Russia.
You see KA 52 destroying ground and air but you will never see AH 64D with his fire and forget missiles that will for sure be ‘’ game breaking’’
Not to mention that longbow radar doesn’t work properly and you cannot track missiles with just peaking behind the hill with radar. So it’s just works as ah64a with radar and visual skin upgrade.
Not to mention many other stuff not getting their stuff because ‘‘ballance’’
But who gets the strongest short-range SPAA that if the player is remotely capable can shoot missiles and atgms out of the sky even if they are fire and forget?
So we will basically be not that unbalanced with getting fire and forget hellfire. But that’s even not the biggest concern here, just pointing stuff out.
I love always pointing this out cause it’s like a comedy show except it’s a reality. At least virtual reality.
1- International crowd of European Union citizens.
2- Unknown.
3- No one, cause top BR premiums aren’t a thing.
4- Strv 122s, exclusively buffed since release. Ka-50 has been nerfed over a dozen times since release, including this last major update, which is accurate IMO, as it had features it shouldn’t have had. Especially due to the lack of beam riding simulation before last major added it.
5- TOR-M1 & ITO. ADATS still over-corrects the most, and Pantsir only has 30G missiles that are dodged by going mach 1 & perpendicular.
6- Japan, and only Japan has all the rounds available to their tanks.
7- T-72B 1985 arguably, and that’s about it. Maus use to have too much armor as well, but it was proven wrong in a bug report. [Hint, hint. Find data and submit a bug report on T-72B 1985.]
8- No one has all their in-service ATGMs available to their helicopters, cause that would cause massive imbalance.
9- An “attack aircraft” that is extremely over-BR’d for ground battles because of R-73s, a test that’ll allow them to know where to put Aim-9Ms, AAM-3s, Python 4s, etc.
Also why do you think A-10 & Su-25 have “broken” damage models? They’re attack aircraft designed to take heavy hits.
?- Strongest short range SPAA goes to USA & Sweden, with M247 & VEAK.
Strongest mid-range SPAA goes to China: TOR-M1. Absolute monster of a SPAA.
BTW, before someone claims Soviets have all their ammo: IRL they have TANDEM HEATFS rounds, 3BM59, 3BM32, and a whole host of other rounds.
Just as USA has other HEATFS rounds, and hilariously OP rounds no other country can hold a candle to, including M829A3 & A4. I as an Abrams lover, don’t want those rounds because my Abrams are perfectly fine with their meta M829A2 round.
4- Strv 122s, exclusively buffed since release. Ka-50 has been nerfed over a dozen times since release, including this last major update, which is accurate IMO, as it had features it shouldn’t have had. Especially due to the lack of beam riding simulation before last major added it.
How has Strv 122 been exclusively buffed since release? Is this about the rounds i.e the vehicle being brought up to par with others?
Are we going to ignore the 6 month period when Strv 122s had their reload nerfed, or, the fact their mantlets (just as any other Leopard 2A5+) are way too weak for their size?
7- T-72B 1985 arguably, and that’s about it.
All of them will if T-72B 1985 is, virtue of the base armour. Ironically, the 1985 provides the same amount of KEP protection as 1989 one due to both having 170mm worth of steel, the latter is only slightly better against CEP because of the 20mm of rubber.
Irrespective of all that, 3BM-59 would be around ~3% better than 3BM-60, while 3BM-32 would be worse than 3BM-42.
You also greatly overestimate M829A3, apart from its anti-ERA it doesn’t stand out from the rest, its penetrative power is actually somewhat on par with DM53, that as of today, lacks its own anti-ERA - either due to balancing concerns or Gaijin simply doesn’t want to introduce such mechanics because it would force them to change BRs of many tanks.
Shouldn’t M829A3 be around 700 pen? Also, gaijin don’t want to add because it would neglect Russian stalinium ERA making Russian tanks point and click adventures just like it is with nato tanks currently. God for bid Russian win rates dip under 70%
