AFAIK, noone (even devs themselves) provided cutaways of armor sections made by Kharkiv plant itself, specifically front armor. There are drawings made by 3rd parties but they are never to be accepted. Prove me wrong if there are some I missed.
Then there are real photos that again cannot be taken into account because “impossible to tell what it is in fact”.
Then there is no documentation stating exact materials and numbers for them materials used in armor layout, again, only approximate guesstimations applied based on previous tank models (T-80UD and T-84U) and some photos (where, it turns out, you can tell the materials and size).
So, as @ARC_Convoy_77 stated, it is impossible to prove one wrong, but devs are “right” simply because lack of information makes devs in-power to model armor however they wish, taking into account whatever results they want to “approximately” gauge efficency of ERA/armor, thus trying to tie them results to rough numbers provided by manufacturer.
This is where I want to say (If neither side has evidence, then why should one provide it to refute the other? Perhaps then we just need to change what is accepted as truth? Especially since the layer is visible in the photo and I am sure that many have seen that drawing from the Thai manual under the secret)
P.S. But I know why this will not happen without documents, specifically in the context of this tank…
No, not really. Neither is absolutely right. It is devs who are more right (say, 90% right) than players (say, 50% right) due to evidence being on the dev’s side.
Want to prove devs wrong? Make one, or preferably all, of the listed tasks to do so:
prove manufacturer states plainly elements in brochure (no dampner, no support plate)
find cutaway/document listing all layers of armor, their material and dimensions
I don’t know if you’re being sarcastic or am I missing something, what 90% evidence do we have for a 35mm unarmoured plate compared to 50% evidence for 50mm RHA provided by the factory images?
Similarly for Duplet complex, I don’t know where in the brochure it says that the UFP ERA effectiveness includes a 50mm plate with 90% certainty.
Building on this, as seen in factory images, the ERA module includes the 60mm plate on the back of the module, this is integrated into the whole module. Why would the brochure mention protection provided by two ERA elements and one plate between them instead of two when the ‘module’ contains two plates.
It makes much more sense that the numbers provided are for two ERA pieces + 15mm cover instead of the 50mm separator plate between them being included in the calculation.
That’s the thing bro: you ain’t getting things fixed, because “available” sources support dev’s claim
And them “forbidden” sources might support your claim.
Spoiler
Dear Gaijin, I never supported/support leaking documentation tagged “confidential” or “limited/internal use only”. Any possible leaks covering Oplot are coincidental and are not tied to me.
Even if 2 ERA plates + 15mm cover and 50mm steel plate only provide 60% reduction of BM42, this should be modelled with the 50mm plate present and ERA ke values being reduced instead of including the total protection by these elements in the ERA tiles only, because as Ralin said, when these tiles are exploded, the base armour is left very weak. RHA should not degrade according to how it is modelled in war thunder.
Making the Oplot the first tank in game to have its RHA value degrade by including the protection it provides in the ERA tiles, it recieves a nerf that no other tanks receive.
I am not trying to prove you wrong, but as it was stated:
prove it is 50mm plate, not 15 or 35 mm
prove it is RHA or HHRHA (I like calling it HHRHR with how devs came to conclusion of armor)
prove the ERA tiles in brochure are not considered with said plate
Again, is it really just textolite + 2 HHRHA plates: only docs stating it word in word answer the question.
Idk if you have seen what was going on on RU forum, but there are 3k comments on this subject, and devs did not buldge on this subject, even if you provide your own measurements and photos. The only thing that shall make them things different is official documentaion stating things differently.
I can believe in schizo theory that Oplot is made on purpose this way to try get hands on unauthorised/classified docs, but again, there are people trying to prove Type 10 has better turret vertical traverse speed for last 5 years, providing videos and so on, yet they don’t change stuff until they see document from MHI themselves stating that.
So, I wanted to mention something for those who are trying to calculate resistance by millimeters of steel.
Don’t forget that the number you see when you aim a shell at the armor is a recalculated number relative to the shell’s penetration at 90 degrees.
So that you understand: APFSDS penetrates more armor at an angle.
For example, for the reference DM33: 481 mm at 0 degrees and 600 mm at 68 degrees (I’m attaching a screenshot from the calculator, if you don’t believe me). All values in the card are normalized, i.e. you are given the thickness of the barrier relative to 90 degrees. To get the correct LOS penetration, you must divide the penetration by the cosine of the angle.
So, 292 mm relative to DM33 for Duplet is already a normalized value. I.e. this is relative to its penetration at 0 degrees. But in fact, at an angle of 68 degrees, the Duplet reduces penetration by 365 mm (600 * 0.608).
Therefore, when you move on to mathematics, “so, let’s take 65 mm of steel, calculate them at an angle of 68 degrees, then we will get a lot and this means that the HSCHKV does not protect.” This is not true. You must either calculate normalized at 0 degrees, or everything relative to 68 degrees.
And this is how all ERAs work. 120 mm for Kontakt-5 is a normalized value, not LOS.
Normalization is needed so that the player does not have to think every time how many millimeters of penetration his projectile has at a certain angle.
This is why for old APFSDS, when targeting sloped armor, the equivalent resistance figure is written above.
Again, for those who think that the data in the brochure is given only for the HSCHKV.
Any ERA is a set of explosives and various dampers. It cannot work correctly without it. If there is no damper between two elements of the HSCHKV, they will work simultaneously and there will be no anti-tandem effect.
Therefore, in my opinion, it is absurd to think that the data in the brochures is given only for the elements of the HSCHKV without taking into account steel.
This does not work for any ERA in the game:
Kontakt-5 does not give 120mm + 17/0.374 (cosine 68) * 1.1 = 170mm.
Relikt does not give 250 + 40 / cosine 68 * 1.1 = 367mm
Although following the logic that you want to apply to Duplet, we should also add the steel equivalent to the resistance of each ERA in the game. By the way, please note that the calculations in the paragraph above are incorrect also because I add steel at an angle of 68 degrees to the normalized ERA protection, which, as I have already said, is incorrect.
The manufacturer, of course, declares some average data for ERA, because it is impossible to measure its protection at each point for each angle. However, this applies equally to any ERA.
The data from the manufacturer should generally be interpreted as follows: For the UFP and forehead turret - this is the resistance at the design angle. For the sides - the resistance at the course angle (20-35 degrees, sometimes written separately)
For Nozh and Duplet its ±20 degree for hull side and ±35 degree for turret and UFP
The company УПМ им. В.О.ХИТРИКА is not the developer of ERA “ХСЧКВ 34”. This company was registered in 2018 and produces ERA “HKChPWSH” which most likely have never been installed on a tank.
We cannot say with certainty that ERA “HKChPWSH” is equal in effectiveness to ERA “ХСЧКВ 34”
We also don’t know what the ERA Duplet-2m module looks like.
It still remains unclear why a tank with 3 layers of steel + 1 layer of textolite + 2 layers of ERA has less armor protection than a tank with 3 layers of steel + 2 layers of textolite and 1 layer of ERA
