Its not.
T72B 1989 has superior protection due to having Kontakt-5 ERA.
@Panther2995
1- No one shoots from 7 - 8 degrees above.
2- The common ammo of 10.3 doesn’t pen 450 let alone the over 500mm it is when at normal angles.
3- That ERA is only on the UFP.
It doesn’t cover the front of the turret, only the angles.
And side armor is side armor, always unarmored.
That is standart angle from Nato MBT’s.
Which still doesnt change the fact that 1989 has superior protection and has better survivability at uptiers, also at 10.3 there are more than enough vehicles that has 450+ penetration.
It has Kontakt-5 on UFP,side armor and Turret.
Against angled shots it protects much better.
It doesn’t matter; if anything touches the auto-loader, it’s going to send the whole crew to the air.
what? So, are you saying NATO tanks always have the high ground?
False, autoloader loves to absorb shells and protect its crew respectly, i’ve been using vehicles that has autoloader’s including russian tanks and its always a gamble.
Nato tanks does have height advantage which explains the elevation differences.
The difference with a flat trajectory is around 50mm of KE protection - so it doesn’t really matter much on the UFP. The side ERA panels probably help too but otherwise the tanks are identical.
Regardless, the T-72B is still pretty weak at 10.3. I wouldn’t mind it losing 3BM42 if that meant moving to 10.0, though that isn’t even necessary, because currently it’s a backup at best.
1 Like
Yeah, but they are not that tall.
Nah, I don’t think so. I have every Russian MBT, and 9 out of 10 times, the autoloader is going to explode.
2 Likes
Sorry but i dont believe you, i have tanks that has autoloaders from every nation and it doesnt explode all the times.
They are tall enough to let the take shoot from that angle.
In the top picture you are hitting the barrel which messes up the comparison.
Also the driver weakspot extends quite far down, might be worth checking again a bit to the side of the UFP.
It would be interesting to see some changes made to the T-72B, adding an initial version of the T-72B without Kontakt, then a B with Kontakt 1 and somewhat improved hull armor, and then the T-72B from 1989 as it is already in the game.
https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fexternal-preview.redd.it%2Ftkw1A1zEZC-VEoKjF9tdzfbefYvQEKB7LwFp2EwzzQI.png%3Fauto%3Dwebp%26s%3D8c92b921ea22d51917af83767e7a56076424279a
As you can see in this image, there is the armor of the transitional T-72B, which would be the most basic version, which could use the 3BM26 as its best ammunition. Then it would be the T-72B with Kontakt 1, which has slightly improved armor on the hull, apart from the Kontakt 1, and as its best ammunition it would have the 3BM42. And finally the T-72B from 1989, with the armor it has in the game and the same ammunition.
Thats just an visiual illusion from that angle, you can confirm this by checking in game.
Kind of the same problem as M26 pershing . It share the same BR as other M26s with either better armor/gun making the tank itself a bit redundant.
Again BR range as a whole need to be expand further . And BR decompression (welp i am starting to belived that Gaijin are allergic to BR decompression)
Probably not 100% similar angles but close enough.
That said, kontact-5 effectiveness does increase when shot frontally instead of from above.
Kontakt-5 is next gen ERA compare to Kontakt-1 and It offers 150mm KE protection depending on angle.
So uh, you’re shooting through the barrel…
2 Likes
Why it always Russian that need deceased BR lol
I mean facing them in AMX-30 super at 10.3 is bad enough now if it is 10.0 i have to deal with them more often with the same stupid AMX-30 super.
No, the 89 needs to be 10.7
9.0s fighting a T-72B is crazy.
1 Like
there shouldnt be chieftains (in the state they are) facing any T72
you are aware the T-72A and T-72M1s are at 9.3?
yep. and they are just awful to face from beyond mid range