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.
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
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.
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.
The BR system & ammo choice is what balances things.
Not fictions.
11.7 MBTs are rather balanced.
Just some [namely Leclerc] have wrong armor.
Considering that the ZTZ96 hull composite was bug reported a year ago and it wasnt taken down after a full year, i guess its safe for me to conclude that im ok to post this source here too.
This document covers the composite armour of Type 85-II. As you may know, the Type 80/85 tanks were export designations whilst Type 88 were domestic versions. Type 85-IIM for example was exported to Sudan and they even have a license to produce it themselves. However China had an issue where they watched T-72’s get massacred in the 1991 gulf war and the best domestic tank they have was the Type 88A and Type 88B and they needed new and better domestic tank. Despite the number, whilst Type 88 was domestic version of Type 80, the Type 85 export actually came later than those tanks in the early 1990’s whilst Type 88 was from 1988… So what the chinese decided is that, their new Type 88C (III) will essentially be the Type 85-IIM but with a domestic engine that was built locally, although it did produce less horsepower. In the end the Type88C was renamed to Type 96 (ZTZ96).
Type 88 was actually the very first one to feature this new ‘683’ composite
However when the Type 85 came in the early 1990’s they improved the way its added to the hull and the composite actually extended down to the upper plate front tip.
So the ‘683’ add on composite was used on Chinese Type 88’s , Type 85’s and Type 96 tanks.
Source: https://www.doc88.com/p-3384866818635.html
20mm Modern HH Steel (444-514BHN) x 1.25
50mm Ceramic (Aluminum Titanate + Fibreglass Cloth) x 0.66
15mm Modern HH Steel (444-514BHN) x 1.25
15mm Air Gap x 0.05
100mm Steel (300BHN) x 1.00
25 + 33 + 18.75 + 0.75 + 100
177.5mm at 68 degrees = 474mm LOS
When APFSDS penetrates 380mm at 0 degrees, it defeats 177.5mm at 68 degrees (474mm LOS)
This is why ZTZ96 hull offers 380mm KE vs APFSDS
However… if the ZTZ96 recieved the Russia treatment, youd need 474mm at 0 degrees with APFSDS to penetrate that hull Armour.
So lets look at the facts again
T-72B features 176mm of Steel / 19mm Air / 10mm Rubber / 10mm anti radiation lining
Composite LOS thickness is 574mm LOS
ZTZ96 features 135mm of steel / 50mm ceramic / 15mm air
Composite LOS thickness is 534mm LOS
But somehow despite being only bit slightly bit better than ZTZ96 overall, its armour is modelled to be way stronger than ZTZ96. Russian Bias much?
T-72B should offer 550mm LOS (68) out of 574mm LOS composite
ZTZ96 Offers 474mm LOS (68) out of 534mm LOS of composite
In War Thunder the T-72B composite offers 660mm LOS out of 574mm LOS composite
While I disagree with your “Russian bias” claim, I appreciate the post. Thank you.
Alternatively, according to Willi-Odermatt APFSDS penetration equation…
480BHN High Hardness Steel would offer 1.1855x more protection vs M774 at 2000m.
300BHN Steel would offer 1.05x more protection vs M774 at 2000m.
More Realistic Calculation:
20mm Modern HH Steel (444-514BHN) x 1.1856
50mm Ceramic (Aluminum Titanate + Fibreglass Cloth) x 0.605
15mm Modern HH Steel (444-514BHN) x 1.1856
15mm Air Gap x 0.05
100mm Steel (300BHN) x 1.05
23.7 + 30.25 + 17.8 + 0.75 + 105 = 177.5
177.5mm at 68 degrees = 474mm LOS
