I already know about what was discussed there, I thought maybe you have something interesting
Sadly, I don’t. There are no sources on the web (at least easily acessible ones) covering model 25, and it appears to be a very rare species given it is stated in one (afaik) source of all concearning Nizh ERA.
9 Likes
I guess since such a firm reply is given regarding the performance of the ERA, the only hope is to get info about the missing steel plate. Which should still make the tank well armoured without buffing the ERA.
1 Like
Soviet tech tree tanks on average are worse than ZTZ99A overall
Are we smoking something? Do you honestly believe the T-80BVM and T-90M both are worse than the ZTZ99A? Or is this you comparing a vehicle of a higher BR to one of a lower BR? Last time I checked, the T-90M and T-80BVM clear the ZTZ99A insanely out of proportion.
OPLOT armor is yet to be determined, though on last dev it was performing better than BVM’s and MBT-2000’s armor
MBT2000? Sure, but the T-80BVM? Lmao
The Oplot-T literally had gaps you could shoot through in between each ERA block, the frame of the UFP was also entirely penetrable, the only thing making up for this is the fact getting a breach shot on the Oplot-T was incredibly hard when compared to other 12.0s.
Now he’s going to flag my post, like every other post which disagrees with him lmao
1 Like
Old image and it was refuted when it was first posted as well.
Here’s the actual ZTZ-99A: The LFP has been entirely corrected and is the size of a T-90’s LFP.
- This plate hasn’t disappeared anywhere, it’s still there.
- Plate made of structural steel
- This plate is taken into account in the protection of the entire module.
No, you’re absolutely right. It’s gotten WORSE with the addition of new munition for top tier tanks, here is a updated image I’ve made of penetrable areas against the 3BM60 at 500 meters fired from a T-80BVM.
The T-84 BM Oplot-T is apparently getting the China treatment this update as well, anything Russian doesn’t apparently have good armour/ERA according to Gaijin and uploading primary information is also apparently propaganda…
3 Likes
Structural steel in tank armor
Sounds very plausible
5 Likes
Your areas are over-lapping strong armor.
Also T-80BVM has average armor, and has been average since introduction.
People intentionally aiming for the strong parts gave an illusion of strength.
perhaps it is worth replacing it with rubber according to the patent?
Rubber
💀💀💀 Yeah, I’m not continuing this discussion.
4 Likes
This is just part of a test rig that doesn’t even have a Duplit on it.
But anyway, it doesn’t matter.
Since when patent defines how the actual module is made?
Patent is basically a general description with a bit of relevant information and graphics/pictures
@ Джахед Most likely, the tests were conducted under the patent, where there is rubber. But as the patent says, it can be replaced with other materials and their list. Everyone saw the photo from the factory, there is about ±50mm of partition between two doublets, which were considered “rubber” as in the patent (35mm of structural steel was given recently). But nothing to prove
Also just a thought, so I might be wrong, but in the dev explanation they try to replicate the results of the firing trials video using the war thunder model. However they are firing BM42 at Duplet + composite armour array in game, which is stopping the round, while in real life the round was stopped completely by the ERA with only a minimal penetration on the steel plate behind.
That’s not true. The answer clearly states that the penetration IRL tests is specified at 90 degrees.
If it says that the penetration is 58 mm at 90 degrees, then that’s 155 mm along the trajectory of the shell for UFP (58/cos(68°)). That’s basically the entire 60 mm rear plate behind the Duplet. In the game, the 3BM42 stops in the same place. You can check it yourself when you get the chance.
The same applies to shots at the hull and turret. An even smaller angle than in the tests was chosen for the hull (29° for the game and 20° irl), . If, as in the game tests, an angle of 20 degrees had been chosen, the 3BM42 would not have reached the tank’s hull armor at all.
Moreover, the game’s Duplet resistance exceeds that stated by the manufacturer - 60.8% of DM33 from 10m, not 60% (moreover, the manufacturer obviously indicated data for 100m or more, so in fact the game’s resistance is even higher).
1 Like
I saw a photo somewhere above with Oplot without ERA blocks, but with a cover/damper/who knows what over the main part of the hull front. Is it possible to assume purely in theory that the cut/lost steel plate was simply moved higher and serves as an additional damper between the Duplet blocks, or maybe then it would be more correct to say that there is not a Duplet on the hull front, but two tank hulls (one of which is thinner and consists of only one plate conditionally matching the characteristics and composition with the removed sheet from the hull) on each of which a Knife is installed. Just for comparison, I have not seen anything like this when installing Duplet on the turret and sides. What can say that this plate, in theory, is not part of the Duplet complex, but is a design feature of Oplot specifically for installation on the hull front of ERA? Again, no need to pounce, I’m just making assumptions/theories… is it possible to partially confirm this with a calculation of the hull weight that BTVT did by conducting a similar calculation for, say, the turret or another part of the hull, or is it impossible to find reliable data for such a calculation?
1 Like