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.
Don’t insult others.
As for protection, IDK the properties of modern HHRA steel.
IDK if WT’s 1.25 multiplier is accurate.
What I do know is every tank in WT from 1978 onward uses that multiplier from my preliminary research.
& NERA’s multiplier is higher than the wiki claims.
@AlvisWisla My question to you, is do you actually think the T-72B LFP can withstand a hit from a M829A2 Round from 2,000 meters? Yes or No. Remember The U.S Already had T-72s with K5 on them and tested their round rounds against them.
3 Likes
T-72B can’t withstand a hit from M829A2 on LFP OR UFP in WT at 2000 meters, and likely not IRL either.
War Thunder’s protection map doesn’t like ERA so I’m gonna do a practical test & get back to you on K5.
Update: 1.5km, K5 protects.
That’s… rather hypocritical coming from you, especially since you went after @MythicPi just little over a day ago.
Not that I was insulting anybody there.
As for properties of modern HHRA, at least the datamine are:
“RHAHH_tank_modern”: {
“armorThickness”: 1.0,
“armorThrough”: 1.0,
“restrainDamage”: 0.3,
“secondaryShatterDamageMult”: 0.0001,
“ricochetAngle”: 70.0,
“ricochetCosinePower”: 3.0,
“ricochetDamage”: 0.4,
“armorQuality”: 1.1,
“tandemPrechargeArmorQuality”: 0.5
Here’s the HHRA used by the Ariete:
“RHAHH_tank”: {
“armorThickness”: 1.0,
“armorThrough”: 1.0,
“restrainDamage”: 0.3,
“secondaryShatterDamageMult”: 0.0001,
“ricochetAngle”: 70.0,
“ricochetCosinePower”: 3.0,
“ricochetDamage”: 0.4,
“armorQuality”: 1.25,
“tandemPrechargeArmorQuality”: 0.5
NERA multipliers aren’t uniform, fx Leopard 2A5s NERA is worth 0.65x its thickness, whilst 2A4s is worth 0.41x last I checked it out (if I remember correctly). At the same time, Puma’s is worth whole 0.1x
2 Likes
Why is everyone talking about real pen values here? Nobody knows that (all confidentiality). It’s a game where 11-12 BR isn’t balanced. The Russian tanks are very well armored, all the others except Sweden cannot keep up. There are 2 possibilities either you annoy them or they buff all other nations the upper hull. Then there would be fair play.
If someone says something else now, I have 30,000 battles in RB 76% and have been playing the game for a very long time. I did a test for the last 2 days, played 30 games 12.0 RB Russians, won 25 of them by a large margin and lost 5 games. We overran most of the games with the Russians and that’s not supposed to be OP? please… I just want the game to be fair play, because when people play up to 12.0 and are overrun by (Russians) it doesn’t have to be!
Then Gijin shows that there is no such thing as fair play and the players are frustrated.
6 Likes
I just want a fair WarThnder on 12.0 RB. The aircraft ammunition was also made the same for only nation in the last patch is not realistic but fair paly. Gaijin could finally do that with tanks too, so that everyone gets unfairly the same armor values for the upper hull, see Sweden and Russians. Then it depends on the better player and not on any OP nation.
M1A2 & M1A2 SEP have more armor than T-80BVM.
HOWEVER, that armor relies on gunner sight parallax & real world inaccuracy of systems that War Thunder cannot really simulate without forcing players to use a flight stick to move the turret, and force gunner sight.
Also, win rate is mostly team skill.
I’ll refer to Germany 9.0 when it had all the good players a number of years back.
On top of that, this game isn’t going to ever be arcade, so your wish for parity among armor isn’t going to occur.
Yes they can. Gaijin just needs to kill for realism (armor) and just put in fair play (that everyone is unfairly equal. They did the same thing with plane ammo too. So they could do it with tanks too! That would make the whole game good do.
What? Ammo is vastly different.
Updated 2.27.1.62
Fixed a bug that caused missing fragment damage to helicopter/aircraft parts when fragmentation shells with a caliber of 20mm or higher exploded in the fuselage and wings. This bug caused the damage to be reduced after we implemented the realistic fragment distribution mechanic, since the fuselage and wings allowed the fragments to travel from the inside of a target to the outside without dealing damage. Now the fragments will spread correctly and deal the same damage as before Realistic Spread was implemented.
For aircraft missiles with a laser seeker or semi-automatic guidance system (SACLOS), a missile launch window visualization has been added in third-person mode to clearly show the guidance zones available for launch.
For AGM-12С, AGM-12B, AA-20, AS-20 and AS-30 missiles, the smoke plume has been changed to be less bulky and more transparent according to the visual references, making aiming more comfortable.
Fixed a bug that caused the cost compensation to not take into account the automatic purchase of “Crew Replenishment” after a battle.
Fixed a bug that caused information about active boosters not to be displayed correctly when copying the battle log ( report ).
Added a timer to ground vehicle, helicopter, and aircraft sights that counts down the amount of time it is still possible to fire a beam-riding missile without affecting the guidance of previously fired missiles.
Due to the patch, almost all splitter effects are now the same, but that is now bebalenct play but no longer unrealistic.
The German ammo was the best for years because Gaijin felt comfortable having it as a reality. Now all types of ammunition are very strong, so the game is more balanced and it now depends on the better pilot. You could also do the same with the tanks, but not steal the ammunition but steal the armor value right away.
Ammunition is based on the most accurate equation based on ammunition characteristics.
It’s not fictional.
The question is, do we want a half way realistic game or rather a balanced game? I want a lot dear fair play.
1 Like
The BR system & ammo choice is what balances things.
Not fictions.
11.7 MBTs are rather balanced.
Just some [namely Leclerc] have wrong armor.