Fair enough German names tend to be quite boring like Mix 5 comp is a bit boring
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/xLDgCgt0rWp0
Here, an old report, there they straight up said D-tech doesn’t exist as anything else but external armpr (they being the devs), which yeah it very much does exist as an internal armor (Mix 5).
I did:
Tbf there were more “Mixes”, Mix 5 wasn’t even the best one btw, that was Mix 2, but Mix 5 was the best in terms of cost and weight effectiveness, but it was still 3.2 tons in additional armor weight just for the turret lol
Thus the issue lies with the original armour composition in game as i have been saying. The source gives us 360mm protection against long rods for the up-armoured T-72A, and the extra plate offers 45mm. Thus the basic armour should provide 315mm kinetic protection.
1 Like
I’ve seen this screenshot a lot, but as far as I understand, it doesn’t have a source, right?
Spoiler
T-72A use RHA 16mm plate, not HHA
It’s a british source from when we were enquiring about leopard and it’s technologies for a possible purchase, it was early in the D-tech development.
Based on what, the plate should be BTK1SH high hardness steel.
Its based on the BMVg source from which I took the previously posted snipet… it’s simple 1 + 1 lad
Well, based would be a wrong way of describing it, it’s a figure it borrowed from a 1988/1989 BMVg document talking about the upcoming armor upgrade for the Leopard 2A4, that was later turned into “Armor Mixes”, Mix 5 was finally selected for the Leopard 2A5.
Judging by the watermark, it was found by Object-477 (a Chinese tank enthusiast), right?
What I meant was that there’s no complete document, meaning there’s no certainty as to where it came from or whether it’s accurate. And it doesn’t specify whether it’s a turret or a hull.
Am I correct in understanding that there is no complete source?
The British one? As far as I know, no. The German one? Yes, I have it, whole 300 pages of it.
No, BTK1SH was only used for T-80 plates, as far as I know.
The USSR simply loved the T-80 and tried to make it as good as possible.
In the game, the T-72A has a standard RHA plate, and as far as I know, that’s correct. If you have any sources that say otherwise, let’s look into it.
I believe flame has the full thing
It would be only really useful on reporting B tech 2A4 which it matchs anyway as the later armour comps were not final
Well, there you have it. So, the report essentially provides a fragment from an unidentified British document (it’s impossible to prove it’s from there).
Obviously, this can’t be accepted as a source.
Overall, exactly one source in the report directly mentions the D-tech.
In my opinion, you’re overestimating the evidence in this debate, as the sources are secondary (Tankograd and Frank Lobitz’s book) and don’t state precise armor values.
I’m more skeptical when sources are few and secondary.
If you have compelling evidence, but it’s secret, then unfortunately, there’s nothing you can do.
There’s a difference between knowing for yourself, proving it on the forum, and proving it in a developer report. Whether we like it or not.
I completely understand your pain, as I have experienced this myself, but we can only try to find other ways.
It can be identified and has been used in reports before
It is very possible to prove it is from the national archives
I have a question: why does the T-80UD have less armor than the T-80U, when the UD is newer than the U?
Did you read my other posts? D-tech was a misnomer, that’s why you don’t really find it named a whole lot.
I completely understand your pain, as I have experienced this myself, but we can only try to find other ways.
You’re missing the point, I’m not trying to prove anything to the devs, I’ve given up on that long ago, I’m just having fun with how little they know, but yet claim to know everything :D
In the game, the T-80UD has a different armor composition (35mm medium steel plate instead of 50mm).
It’s also questionable to call the T-80UD a newer tank. It was developed in parallel with the T-80U and wasn’t a direct improvement, but rather an alternative.
1 Like