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%
Hey i dont mean to burst your bubble @Sombralix but
Your entire analysis is completely wrong.
Textolite acts differently in different array configurations.
You cant blanket statement all Textolite in arrays like this. You also did not mention anywhere about mass efficiency.
Which is a mandatory discussion to be had when discussing the efficiency of these arrays.
Which is how the soviets calculated the protection of these arrays.
You cannot apply the Nato modifier structure to the materials within these arrays because it does not work correctly.
Gaijin has every Russian vehicle correct except for the hulls of ALL T-72B variants and ALL T-80U (Bv array) Variants. This just so happens to be 11 tanks. The T-64B, 64A, And T-72A/M/TURMS all have the correct protection.
You must calculate the protection using the Areal density of the arrays and having the mass efficiency modifiers.
You also did not mention that Composites in game are all calculated as an equivalent against the ammunition thats used. but are not displayed as a LOS equivalent against longrods, they are displayed as a flat pen equivalent.
I am writing a 21 or so page essay on the correct analysis that I will be submitting here in a week or so when I finish the conclusion.
Ive seen this interpretation before and it sprung me to learn about how its actually calculated.
Once you take all your values listed and pit them against real values and Mass efficiency modifiers all of your numbers fall apart.
Yet all the values i calculated match what gaijin has pretty much, the issue being is that instead of them being applied at 68 degrees LOS, you need that penetration at 0 degrees, which is what causes them to overperform.
What you are saying is true about the los being applied as flat. but you can mathematically calculate the protection of the arrays. which you attempted, but this is not correct.
I prefer that estimate compared to 660mm LOS in game…
Either way my estimate was 550mm LOS
My figures are at least feasible and realistic compared to whatever this is ingame causing top tier to be comprised of 2 teams both featuring russian tanks with the teams being 60%+ russian tanks
