Well yeah, depends on ammo.
Like perforating APFSDS pens more than advertised, so its equivalent armor value is lower.
Which is why both in-game, and the dev blog, cite 500 - 550 equivalent.
That’s the key word, equivalent. Meaning using perforating APFSDS.
However, that does not mean it is that thick.
Just as America’s M1A2 turret is over a meter thick does not mean it has a meter of protection against perforating APFSDS ammunition.
But it does indeed have over a meter of protection against AP. [T32 munition from T29]
1 Like
The protection display in War Thunder simply tells you how much penetration you need at 0 degrees to penetrate 90mm LOS of armour at 60 degrees
Back to this
In game:
T-34-85: 45mm at 60 degrees = 90mm LOS
T-72B: 241mm at 68 degrees = 644mm LOS
Issue here is, it should be 500-550mm LOS, not 644mm LOS for T-72B
215mm thick composite at 68 degrees - 574mm LOS
Shouldn’t be offfering this much steel equivalent protection
241mm at 68 degrees - 644mm LOS
I even showed with gaijins material modifiers we get around 196.55-205mm, Nowhere near their 241mm value (at 0 degrees)
4 Likes
The wiki is likely out of date, or has the wrong modifiers, or we’re misunderstanding the modifiers.
1 Like
Basically gaijin took russian 550mm LOS source but instead of making it LOS along 68 degrees, they made it that you need that much with apfsds at 0 degrees, causing all russian top tier tank armour to overperform severely
5 Likes
They need to fix this as a priority. Top tier would become 70% more playable and people will stop rushing like mad with Russians knowing that most of the time they will one shot kill and western tanks will bounce. It’s just hilarious at this point
3 Likes
Worst part is…
If T-72B’s 574mm LOS of composite offers 644mm LOS of steel, thats composite efficiency of 1.122x
If Leopard 2’s hull composite had 1.122x efficiency, it would offer 841mm KE vs APFSDS…
But it doesnt
B-Tech (1979) = 350mm KE
C-Tech (1987) = 420-450mm KE
7 Likes
Only Russian and I think maybe Chinese tanks get positive KE modifiers to their composite armor. All NATO tanks get negative modifiers, and some NATO vehicles have modifiers that make their composites literally worse than Rubber, such as the Puma IFV, the Late Leo 2 mantlet and inner cheeks, the Merkava’s, etc…
10 Likes
Um, the alleged 644 offers 514mm of effective thickness at 65 degrees vs APFSDS as shown in my screenshot tho.
500 flat protection
Has anybody got a reliable source for the T72B(1989)
Yeah. The blatant bias has always been infuriating.
2 Likes
There is no bias, but you yourself are biased… You think everyone is like yourself?
Sombralix was wrong on that BTW.
I investigated this.
At flat T-72B tho, 183mm of material turns into 241 equivalent, or a ratio of 1.3.
Checking Ariete P. It has 114mm of material on its UFP.
It has 142mm of equivalent. That is a ratio of 1.26, but it lacks rubber.
NERA example, I’ll use ZTZ96 since it has a flat plate.
90.4mm material [based on wiki calculations], 170mm equivalent. Ratio of 2.1.
138.5 on Leopard 2A4 turret port side, 351 equivalent. Ratio of 2.53.
Moral of this story: We don’t know how the wiki works.
3 Likes
You have shown no evidence to counter the information he has provided. Using Gaijin’s blatantly questionable in-game numbers, system and mechanics does not lend any creedence to your argument.
I won’t take you or any other detractor seriously unless you provide just as many receipts.
4 Likes
Sombralix used the same method, so IDK.
1 Like
2A4’s turret is well over 600mm’s thick. meaning it has an overall efficiency of about 0.5
4 Likes
Sort-of.
It’s also mostly air & composite plates, hence NERA classification.
Whereas the Soviet hull is mostly steel.
And all of them provide more flat protection than their calculated thickness based on the wiki data.
1 Like
none of them do, only russian armour does(which it shouldnt)
1 Like
I calculated based on the 0.1 x NERA thickness for the NATO ones. NERA thickness isn’t the thickness of the plates either, it’s the air-plate combination thickness we’re told.
The calculated number is significantly less than the protection it offers.
Wiki might be out of date or we’re missing something.
And the effective thickness should be higher than the thickness flat cause of multiple material-gapped plate properties.
Only as supplementary at best and definitely not as primary data for his arguments.
Surely you read his initial post and the ones after that contained paragraphs of data both in picture and typed form? The man has provided a treasure chest of information, surely you didn’t just skip it?
