You don’t have to say some to hide the identity, you can just say Challenger 2, be proud.
Oh yeah, I forgot this post existed.
All MBTs get positive modifiers to their steel.
No, they are overestimated. only ONE tank has a “positive modifier” using the nato composite efficiency structure, and that is the T-80U array. with a nato KE modifier of 1.01
I forgot to add i meant this is with the correct protection applied to a T-80U. its overperforming by ~100mm LOS
Ariete is a notable one with positive on steel, same as Soviets.
Abrams have positive on steel, same as Soviets.
Et cetera.
Steel with a modifier of 1.25 on T-72B’s steel gives it at least 132mm of flat protection.
M1A2 SEP has 503 at 0, which the x-ray NERA does not have enough on the stat-card to make it such.
291 on M1 Abrams. 36mm equivalent of NERA according to the wiki page.
1.25x 139mm of steel = 173+36=209mm. So there’s missing information or there’s a higher modifier on NERA than we’re led to believe.
As for T-80U.
230mm flat equiv.
150mm steel, 60mm Textolite.
150x1.25 = 187.5. 60x0.225= 13.5.
So 201.
Honestly, I think they changed modifiers of a number of things without updating the wiki.
Hell when the M900 Was made, it literally was rated and i qoute " Able to penetrate all known armor " Gaijin knows they’ve over buffed russian armor and they did this on purpose.
I’ve had someone estimate M829A3 able to penetrate over 720mm -750mm at 0 degrees from 0 meters 650 - 690MM AT 2,000 meters
If you calculate M829A3 as 830mm x 24mm all DU round at 1555m/s
You get 720mm @ 0m at 0 degrees
But it has 110mm WHA tip so its actually slightly less than 720 but definitely over 700
Okay see the problem is that you cant calculate soviet protection by knowing the effectiveness of just one layer and blanketing it over the entire array. Because each layer acts differently in each array configuration. And this is also not how the Russians did it. that’s why you don’t see numbers and values from Russia sources that look like NATO modifiers.
1 Like
Which would only be the T-72B 1985 [referencing alleged real-armor], as everything with serious armor is 1989 or newer in-WT besides the allegedly real armor of T-72B 1985 with K1.
Since someone mistakenly missed context;
In WT, they currently have the same armor arrangement.
My post is not addressing BOTH of their in-game armor arrangements, it’s addressing the real-world claim of M900 & all Soviet tanks during its creation.
Did you even bother to look at how T-72Bs armour look like in the game?
Because it sure as hell doesn’t have the 1985 scheme, and whoever told you it does, lied to you.
Sir, everything you said references NOTHING I said.
And what you said is stuff I already said myself, including the post you replied to.
I’m sure it doesn’t. We will just willfully ignore you saying “everything with serious armour is 1989 or newer in WT besides the T-72B”… checks T-72B… yep, look like the 1989 scheme, so either they don’t have serious armour, or T-72B doesn’t have the 1989 scheme, you choose.
Lol.
I’m not referencing the WT armor of T-72B 1985, you’re the only one that did.
Casting back to nonsense as always. Get called out, say you didn’t actually say it, get proven wrong “but i’m not referencing that!!!”.
The most ironic thing of all is how you ignored my post from a few hours ago about how 1985 and 1989 schemes are identical in terms of KE protection, so per your logic, either the latter is magically better, or neither of them has serious armour.
3 Likes
Prove to us that T-72B 1985 in-game doesn’t use the same armor as the 1989 version then.
Since I’m apparently wrong with my statement that both T-72B 1985 & T-72B 1989 use the same hull armor arrangement.
The irony is you agree with my in your same post while calling me wrong.
So which is it?
What are you even talking about? Hello? Is this an English 101 lesson because your question makes zero sense, and doesn’t even address anything I said.
Quite pathetic to flag my comment, ain’t it?
In any case, your reqest makes zero sense, it doesn’t address anything I said, nor does it make any effort to answer any of my arguments. It’s just a generic “uhh, source??”.
Where you got the idea that I’m “agreeing” with you is a mystery to me, I guess people just see things differently.
And just so you know (because apparently I missed a context that wasn’t even there to begin with), I don’t agree with sartt’s statement of “known to defeat all armours”, it’s been used on the forums before and has been collectively shunned because it doesn’t actually mean anything, yet, regardless of that, the 1989 scheme wouldn’t offer increased resistance compared to 1985 one. Both of them have identical amount of steel in them. So, either the designers magically pulled out increased protection out of the same amount of steel, or they’re quite similar if not identical in terms of kinetic protection.