T-80U has exactly the LOS thickness it should,. which was proven in the topic you’re referencing.
What’s allegedly incorrect is flat protection of composite armor, but who’s shooting T-80U from 68 degrees down onto them using a Tiger 2?
That is of course s discussion for that topic.
Not so much the gun but the autoloader. The autoloader on the Oplot-T is legacy so the issue is is that the Oplot-T can’t take newer long-rod APFSDS-T rounds but rounds like the BTA4 are backwards compatible so it can use them. It also makes a lot of sense for them to use the BTA4 since both the VT4 and Oplot-T use the same 125mm munitions, it eases logistics tremendously. Building on your statement.
builders dont work by themselves ofc, i lay the groundwork
No. Its not 280mm for ERA. Its value for entire module.
You cant add this value separately
I have asked you to highlight the source where it says 280mm for the entire module, this would make no sense cause the module is supposed to have 1 60mm plate and 1 50mm plate. Whose RHA value would be equal to 240mm, unless two layers of ERA provide 40mm protection, this is a very bad faith claim.
Please list the sources used.
I told you as it is set up in the game. 292mm for the entire module. Therefore your calculations “add 280” will not work, regardless of the material between the ERA the resistance will be the same.
No, I mean the resistance without the 60mm sheet for the ERA. It is already considered passive tank armor.
Module is:
For this, the resistance is set to 292 mm
Please mention the source where it says the module (Cover, ERA, Separator, ERA) as implemented in game should have 292 KE protection.
Please also mention the source where it says the separator should be 35mm unarmoured steel instead of 50mm seen in factory photos.
This was already mentioned in the detailed answer in the report that was sent here.
I am simply explaining that without refuting this, you will not change the armor.
You stated that the manufacturer indicates as such, I have asked you three times now which source exactly says this because it is not written in the developer response that you linked. I cannot refute anything if I don’t know what they looked at that told them such information.
You didn’t read carefully. All sources mention that the resistance is specified for the “ERA Duplet complex”. And not for “two elements of the HSCHKV”. Do you feel the difference?
This is the brochure they are referring to that mentions “Duplet complex”
Neither the top image, not the bottom visualization of this “complex” shows the module being included in its protection data, only HSCHKV elements. It also shows elements where there are no 50mm separators between the elements and no separate protection value is mentioned for these. It would stand to reason that 280mm protection is not for the UFP module but the entire Duplet complex, which includes 2-3 layers of Nizh ERA elements.
It literally says “ERA Duplet-2M with elements of HSChKV”. These two concepts are clearly separated.
Again. Explain how it is possible to calculate the resistance only from HSChKV without all the other layers of steel, etc. that are part of Duplet?
Do you think that the Kontakt-5 protection is mentioned without taking into account the fact that before the ERA initiation the projectile penetrates a 17mm cover? Obviously not.
Uh, not to interupt you, but here is the train of thought on how devs modeled UFP w/ ERA on Oplot:
sees brochure (states 60%) => sees shooting at practice (leftover penetration ~70mm (or whatever it was) of base armor) => compares numbers from brochures and firing tests => aligns brochure with live practices => to make numbers appear right*, include in-between layer of matching material => done, brochure = live test = in-game
*however, noone can prove that there was, indeed, damper of rubber/construction steel/whatever it is, because manufacturer does not include it themselves to the brochure, and the theoretical damper comes from patent, which only tells of possible materials used as damper, but does not precise its volume/size
Sure maybe 15mm cover should be included in the Duplet complex, however on the turret there is no separator between two elements of ERA, and this is shown to be the same protection in the brochure. There is no 50mm plate on the turret separating these elements which increases the protection to the level of the UFP. Since the brochure mentions same protection values for both hull and turret ERA, and they both have 2 elements of nizh when looked at from 0 degrees, we should conclude that the 280-292 protection should be for just the ERA elements, and should not include the extra 50mm RHA plate on the hull.
it is ~10mm steel above and under each element, and rubber or another separator between
Although I’m not sure about the rubber between the steel boxes. It is on the diagram (but it is unclear where the diagram came from), but nothing like this is visible in the photo
That’s great, yes so if 280-292mm protection is provided by two nizh elements (including covers) and rubber dampener, then on the hull the protection should increase as the ERA is separated by 50mm steel instead of rubber dampeners. Because replacing the dampeners with a thick steel plate will increase the effectiveness of the armour.
When a shell penetrates a turret module, it penetrates about 40mm of steel (4 plates of 10mm). This is comparable to the best expectations for the UFP.
Considering that with such penetration, the 3BM42 penetrates the main armor of the turret by 60mm resulting in an angle of 90 degrees (so in fact it is more, remember about the cosine of the angle), this matches the game
By the way, do you understand that the Nozh on the turret (second layer) is much more effective than in the hull? Do I need to explain why or do you understand?
The ERA module alone has far more than 40mm of RHA, with what appears to be closer to ~120mm (60mm + [ERA] + 50mm + [ERA] + unknown thickness of the cover conservatively estimated as 10mm)
Or did I misunderstand what you meant here?
The problem here is not 50mm steel that is not “there”. On the turret, as Ralin stated, ERA tiles are separated by rubber + RHA that should have different specs other than that of in the hull. It is practically impossible to rate how much KE/chemical protection each tile in the segment has to offer, because conducted test with 3BM42 showed almost entire projectile stop, with leftover penetration of ~20mm to the turret. You can’t tell whether 2, 3, or all 6 influenced penetration reduction, for that reason data for those on the turret was taken from the hull that is much easier to count.
And again, hull has different structure to that of turret (as per dev sources/measurements), thus there is no 50mm RHA plate but some dampner. If I got right what you mean by your comments.
60mm plate dont count for module protection in game. i already say it.
So 40mm againt 50+cover and turret second layer Hozh works much better than UFP
