After analysing the situation how devs modeled ERA, namely Duplet, it seems like part of my statements are, indeed, wrong.
As it was already said, ERA is modeled in a wrong way because devs took into account 50mm plating as a piece of Duplet (not sure whether it’s right but I guess it is), however, it is wrong to divide efficency of both ERA blocks equally. The first one should provide ~220mm KE protection (as a single ХСЧКВ 34П should), and the one behind 50mm plate and first layer of ERA, as modeled, is “just” ~50mm KE protection.
Ain’t sure it is entirely right (it feels wrong for an exactly the same ERA block to do just ~50mm KE), but, as bug report mods state with manufacturer info, second tile behind ERA should be only 20% effective of the first tile.
However, issues that remain unclear, at least for me, are:
Questions
whether ХСЧКВ 19A model tiles are used in BM Oplot-T. If so, what are its stats? For some reason, the only info provided by manufacturer covers only ХСЧКВ 34П. There is also info on Nizh-LM that shouldn’t have any KE protection, but it is fairly weird for a smaller and 25% lighter version of 34P to not have any KE protection, even against 23/30mm autocannons. From what I could read online, not the manufacturer’s sources, both models should provide KE protection
whether 0° ERA has proper KE/Chem protection values. I know that different penetrators irl have different anti-ERA resistance, however it is strange something like 3x 34P to provide ~50% more KE protection in comparison to 1x Relikt. I know as well that principle of work of both ERAs vastly differ, however there are no tests (as far as I know) that would state that 3x 34P @ 0° provide only 200mm (or <50% KE protection) against round like 3BM42, as of right now it means things like DM23 can go through it with not so many problems.
the way the (base) armor is modeled. I am not sure the values overall are great (yet it seems they are, in fact, finished), but ERA placement looks so thin, so even 3BM60 can go through upper front plate like it is no problem because holes between them ERA blocks are too large to trigger rounds’ volumetrics.
If someone has any data/proofs to answer questions I asked above, feel free to share it, as it would help quite a lot for future additions of T-84-model tanks and any tank that uses Nizh/Duplet in general!
I actually noticed this weird hypocrisy on dev stream. Bvvd said oplot isnt going to soviet tree because Ukraine isnt using them, only Thailand. Why stingray gets added to US tree then? This tank was never used by US, only Thailand.
Well, afaik Stingray was part of American light tank program that should’ve presented a light tracked vehicle with tank gun for American army. If you know the funny story about the US and their atempts in making light tanks for army, you would understand why this tank is within the US tree, because it was supposed to be adopted by the US army but no interest was involved, however exporting the model we have in-game was successful for Thailand.
Here, however, we indeed get a T-84 model that was supposed to be used by Thai only as these modification, of Oplot-T, were made specifically and only for Thailand. It is sort of Hungarian KF-41 model case whereas KF-41 was developed and produced for Hungary only.
Yuh, but it was made in parallel with them (even though they are independent).
Anyway, as you say, Gaijin just invents double standards whenever they feel like it. If it was added to Thailand only, US mains would cry hard because they aren’t getting proper tracked light tanks for all their existence (as XM8/CCVL are all outside of the US tree or event) yet some small sub-tree elsewhere shall get it
Only Thailand uses the Oplot-T. Ukraine uses the Oplot-M and is so far not a part of USSR.
The US made it, I guess? I think this opens a mini can of worms as could the KF-41 go to Germany as the first batches were made in and designed in Germany (despite only ever being used by the Hungarians)?
I think the US could’ve received the Stingray II or the Stingray-Sheridan / M24 thing instead, but meh.
Yes, 2E42 for example can manage vertical speed of 8,5 d/s, but that’s not available to gunner and only is used to get the gun to the loading angle - same way basically all modern tanks never have 40 vertical, it’s something Gaijin made up.
To further confirm my words about maximum stabiliser speed of 8,5 not being available - pay attention how in the clip where gun clearly is faster the sight does not follow the gun, whereas in actual aiming below with sigjt and gun being linked stabiliser speed is same as targetting speed - 3,5 d/s max.
The problem is Oplot and old soviets(80b/80U/64bv, ext.) are the only tanks where gun elevation speed is locked to FCS. Report for others tanks are “accepted” 2y ago and still isn’t fixed. Classical gaijob
The problem with the video is that it was not edited in professional way, showing what exactly is the munition used, with whole process being on spot, from putting targets to shooting at them to checking results.
I can understand Gaijin, but then again, video is much better of a proof in most cases than some advertisement on which you base characteristics (guess which one I am referring to lol)
It is probably because photos and videos (that they unironically use as well to prove us wrong) include tests that were conducted in Ukraine, and the most powerful KE round in arsenal of UAF (pre-2022) was 3BM42.
But again, they use what they please to use, and proving them wrong is difficult provided the lack of information and possible misinterpretation/misunderstanding of it.
I am reading RU forum right now where Джахед and some other people try to prove local bug report mod wrong because devs calculated Duplet efficency with 50mm angled plate, even though devs don’t model it as part of Duplet, and the fact that manufacturer doesn’t state the inclusion of such plate in the brochure, especially with the difference in results with using OFL 120 F1 (that was trialed in UAE back in 2003) against Duplet proved it to be 100% resistant; yet mods and so on think that the source/nature of provided evidence is unreliable, thus returning to guesstimation that is, yet again, based on what was meant by manufacturer, trials, and devs interpretation of stuff
I’m 100% sure that the current duplet implementation is a bait for documents
I have no other reasonable explanation how devs could ignore everything available in open media about it
