They are artificially inflated.
1)The side ERA frequently entirely eats a ~90 degree shot from an M829A2 round, usually without actually even breaking.
2) Their ammo carousel which is horrible design flaw with the ammo CHARGES pointed straight up in a circle around the legs of the crew, almost as wide as the whole tank and 1/3rd of its side profile…acts like armor frequently. (Such as the occasion which brought me to the forum where the BVM shot center mass through a corner had his crew protected by ammo charges that just turned red and ate the APFSDS round…where he proceeded to turn and shoot me.)
3) Their spalling is reduced, and the opponent spalling is actually increased. (All of the compartment separation panels in M1 generate new cloud spalling despite being only an inch thick and made of steel instead of RHA.)
4) Their opponents are all given the rounds which do not get the ERA defeating tips. (M829A3, which is from 2003)
There’s more but what I’ve put here is sufficient on its own.
If the US had equivalent iteration technology to the T-80BVM it would be
M1A2 SEPv3 using M829A4 (which doesn’t make that much of a difference over the M829A3) They both defeat ERA the same way.
It would be the same weight for heavier protection. (Accomplished by converting multiple tons of wiring.)
It would have an APU so the electronics would still function with the engine off/damaged
It would have the CROWS system (additional Thermal hunterkiller option)
And if we wanted to be spicy, we could give it the 2018-19 addition of Trophy APS to invalidate those pesky ATGMs.
So yah… the Russians are being carried hard in technology, and still getting artificial buffs on top of it.
I’d rather they strip them down to reality and reduce their BR.
2- Ammo explodes 100% of the time if you intentionally aim for it instead of relying on spalling from crew shots.
3- Which boosts ammo cook off chance as more spall hits the same ammo.
4- Because guess what? That would cause imbalance. ERA defeating can come, but it has to be at a BR that’s reasonable, and all nations must be equal in this regard.
SEP V3 is a 2020 tank.
And we don’t even have T-90M yet.
Which is why I said give SHARD to all 120mm gun users when the BRs are ready since its chamber pressures are below limits, and gives people access to ammo equivalent to M829A3 when added.
Which is why I said give SHARD to all 120mm gun users when the BRs are ready since its chamber pressures are below limits, and gives people access to ammo equivalent to M829A3 when added.
SHARD is irrelevant. Many rounds already in the game have been designed to defeat K-5 at ranges exceeding even the biggest maps WT has to offer, incl: DM53, L27A1 and Type 10 - all via various methods. However what those methods are, is non-important, Gaijin could and should just give them a flat modifier that reduces the effectiveness of ERA when coming in contact with them (they’ve had one back in December of 2020 for DM53 and removed it not even after a week, they also never patched it into live game either, lol).
SEP V3 is a 2020 tank.
And we don’t even have T-90M yet.
Looks at BVM with the TPKK sight which is the 2020/2021 version of the tank. M’kay. Unless you wanna make it the 2018 version but then give it Catherine-FC. Not that TPKK is even correct, Gaijin gave it a resolution 2 times higher than it has in real life.
SEPv3 also started deliveries before the BVM, in 2017 from what I remember where the other only in 2018 - 2019, so your argument doesn’t stand ground regardless.
Actually the ERA underperforms unless you hit 2 at the same time and the game acts like you went through 2 layers of it instead.
The real issue here isn’t the ERA but the base hull armour of Russian tanks overperforming crazy.
Furthermore if they added M829A3 without anti era tip, it would still penetrate fixed T-80BVM hull armour through RELIKT at close range
Like bro… L27A1 barely penetrates T-72B frontal hull and there’s no Kontakt-5 and 3BM-46 can’t even penetrate it at point blank range. It’s just nuts crazy. Like BRO, the hull was designed to stop 3BM32 at point blank range, never mind making 3BM46 look like hopelessly trash round that still lacks penetration to defeat it
A couple post of match replay (or video record of those match) would quickly prove any statement regarding Ammo explode / burning thingy.
But as Gaijin could alway change this without mention it to any player. It would be best to have those replay/video as recently.
No, they only allegedly defeat out to 2km. However, perforation not being simulated [or if it is it’s not detailed enough yet] means they can only pen out to 700 meters currently with M829A2, and 1200 with DM53.
Most of my shots missed ERA beyond 1400 meters.
Also the fact Doom thinks Americans are so unskilled & violent they’ll boycott cause they can’t pen BVM’s UFP in a video game is unironically xenophobic.
Had a match the other day, dueling the other team at 2000m. I could do no damage, except to the one guy side on, I kept having to repair. Note I was in the Chally 2 vs T-80s. It was BS
Nii Stali, the designer of the T-90 straight up states M829A2 can brute force its way through the armour of a T-90A w/K-5 out to 6km’s, that’s without any counter-ERA mechanisms that stuff like DM53 (which also in actual real life trials proved to be more capable against passive armours than M829A2 in Denmark) employs. In fact Bundestag themselves stated back in 2021 or so that DM53/63 are no longer capable of providing utter overmatch against Russian armours in a duel situation (where duel ranges in Europe can be up to 3km’s in some places) due to Relikt. That should be enough of a hint for you really…
We really do not need your “estimates” in face of the information provided by the Russians themselves.
And I really don’t buy your “tests”, last time we tried that DM53 fired from the L/55 was next to useless at near point blank ranges, IF you are penetrating at 1400m with M829A2, you’re not hitting ERA.
Update: M829A2 works out to 700 meters currently.
Which indicates that perforation either isn’t simulated or isn’t detailed enough.
I don’t have 2A6 to test DM53 in-person yet cause I dislike it, but when next major drops I’ll get it due to reduced RP required.
But, until big maps are common again, 100 - 300 meters is really what’s all that’s needed.
And breech shooting range is 1300 meters for T-90s cause of how big it is.
So why hit UFP when you can hit their breech?
Read the entire post before replying next time.
Cause my post is what’s called skepticism.
Added points aren’t moving goalposts either.
Please stop using buzzwords.
If that were the case, it wouldn’t be eating the APFSDS projectile protecting the crew. Go back and reread…
Wut?
But it’s okay that USSR gets a round that Point-clicks any US Hull… “equal”
SEPv3 is a 2018 tank.
What do you think the T-90 M is going to bring over the T-80BVM?
I don’t even necessarily want M829A3… I’d rather just have the M1A2 SEP variants with the upgraded hull armor. I like it when tanks can tank a hit where they’re meant to, I just don’t like:
That interaction only going 1 way. (M1 has to go for the Drivers hole weakpoint on BVM or just get nothin…whereas BVM with 3BM60 just has to avoid the turret cheeks…)
The ERA on the sides of the BVM enhance its KE protection from highly angled APFSDS shots… not any APFSDS shot. And it should actually disappear after shrugging off the shot, not just turn red and absorb the next one.
T-80BVMs just being able to charge across the field brazenly because they have stupidly high odds of surviving what would be suicidal for the Abrams and other MBTs in game is a symptom of a much larger issue.
You’re below the target thus hitting a 69 - 70 degree plate instead of 67 in its resting position.
The “resting position” (or if you had bothered to read our convos before, the constructional angle of the armour) is 68 degrees, where it still wouldn’t penetrate. It doesn’t drop significantly enough even at ~100 meters because APFSDS angle drop is too small.
Here’s M829A2 vs T-90A at the “resting angle” as you called it yourself:
