I am close to giving up, you cant fight against “find documents or we will make it bad”
Is there any hope for the Oplot? I’m late on this but last I saw it was 12.0 with armor worse than that of russian counterparts with nothing to make up for it other than reverse, which is countered by it’s bad depression, so it’s not even a hill peek vehicle like the leo2s. Also has worse ammo than other MBTs at 12.0. I feel like it will play the exact same as leopard 2a5 but worse.
The developers have modelled it as they wish with assumptions made that have no basis (150-200mm less effective than it should be) and refuse to accept things such as factory images to improve the armour, the only thing that will change the Oplot’s armour is some kind of unclassified official documentation of the armour profile of the UFP and its effectiveness. Which either does not exist or is almost impossible to find.
4 Likes
Actually I’m not sure why I even compared it to the leopard 2a5, this will be nothing alike, but probably worse either way. this is just 11.7 material if even. At least it would go with the new rank 7 line-up Japan has. The original leak had it in 11.7, I’m not sure why they decided to move it to 12.0 if they keep this armor and with these features.
1 Like
Throwing this into the mix. For UFP, Greater than 900mm protection against kinetic projectiles. According to protection values derived from 2003 UAE tests of Nizh elements supplemented by domestic calculations of base armour. This was posted in forum for Ukrainian ground forces. Apparently it’s from tests by Pakistan on BM Oplot vs VT-4
3 Likes
Some more information I found from an official brochure and additional documentation:
- Protection values for Duplet stated as 80%-90% reduction of penetration by sub caliber APFSDS projectiles (unlike the never before heard of ‘HKChPWSH’ elements mentioned in the brochure used by the developers, this brochure specifies the use of known elements such as ХСЧКВ 34, 19, and 19A)
Source: https://ukrinmash.com/uploads/files/5822eef7180ca.pdf
- Confirmation of up to 90% reduction in penetration of sub caliber munitions including 125mm and foreign made 120mm (most likely referring to 2003 UAE trials against DM-43 analogue)
English translation of highlight: “The Duplet antitank missile defense system has proven its effectiveness during numerous tests by firing at the entire range of 125 mm caliber BPS rounds, as well as modern 120 mm foreign-made ammunition, fully confirming the declared characteristics. It provides a reduction in the characteristics of armor-piercing fin-stabilized subcaliber projectiles and cumulative weapons, depending on the type, by up to 90% of the standard.”
1 Like
One more document:
Translation: “Tests conducted at the Kharkiv Design Bureau showed that in relation to the ERA equipped with the 4S22 index EDZ (K-5), the effectiveness of armor protection of the tank’s ERA equipped with the HSChKV type UKZ, according to the 3BM42 index BPS increased by 2.6 times”
Therefore, Nizh elements should have 2.6 times of KE protection provided by Kontakt-5. In war thunder this should be equal to more than 300mm of KE protection. This number also makes sense in terms of claims about Duplet (including Nizh elements, separators, covers) stopping 90% penetration of Sub caliber munitions such as BM-42. On the hull, if we take Duplet stopping around 600mm of KE penetration (included in this number is the 50mm plate between two DZ layers), combine that with around 300mm+ provided by 60mm RHA 35mm Textolite 50mm RHA, then these numbers also line up with Pakistani analysis stating BM Oplot UFP having more than 900mm KE protection.
1 Like
Ok a bit of a offtopic, but I wonder. If Duplet and Nizh are so damn good at protecting agains chemicle/kinematic projectiles… why in the ongoing confilict we mostly (if not only) see tanks/IFVs with slaped kontakt-1??? I get that producing a tank difficult and expencive, but producing the ERA blocks is not…
Well, some speculate there are possible Nizh inserts in K-1, however we mostly see original Nizh casing slapped on armor.
It also depends on how many ERA inserts are available. It is unknown whether Nizh is produced in quantity to cover the entirety of armed forces, thus it is not like every tank receives it.
Another possible explanation for K-1 over Nizh is huge stockpiles of said ERA. Instead of producing new, why not use the stockpiles that would be used anyway. Idk if K-1 is still produced in great quantities in Ukraine, but there are probably a good amount of K-1 left to use over production of new ones.
2 Likes
They don’t change anything based on the classified documents. Past leaks have brought 0 changes, except for possible troubles in the lives of those who did it.
1 Like
This is a fan-made table by object 477, which greatly discredits your choice of sources.
3 Likes
You can see that in this table the manufacturer simply lumped together the effectiveness of different generations of shells (this is clearly visible in the section with cumulative shells, where in one row it says PG-7V, PG-7VR and “tandem ATGM”, protection against which even in theory cannot be the same) and simply wrote the best values for obsolete ammunition.
Yes, for PG-7V and 3BM15 this is true, this does not contradict the fact that for modern ammunition the % of protection is less
This is not very useful information. Firstly, Kontakt-5 has been improved many times, so it is impossible to say with which version the comparison is made. It is not clear for which types of APFSDS this is meant.
And don’t you think that such a comparison, where the authors do not mention the characteristics of their product, but only compare it with competitors, is not an objective source. (Do I need to explain how marketing is built?)
By the way, it is funny that in another infographic, Mikrotek says that the Nozh is already 4 times better.
2 Likes
Then how can you configure the Duplet dynamic protection with one active element using booklets and information from another dynamic protection Duplet 2M, which is also produced by another company? When I asked why Relikt cannot be configured according to the above chart, I heard in response that the developer does not configure dynamic protection based on information from the manufacturer of another dynamic protection. Why can’t you configure it like this in the case of Relikt, but you can in the case of Duplet? (Only based on the fact that the names are similar and some of their officially known indicators coincide?)
1 Like
This brochure is for a fictional element “HKChPWSH” this element has never been seen being used in Duplet or Nizh modules or indeed been seen in real life. Neither is this company related to the manufacturer of the BM Oplot. The brochure I provided mentions the exact elements used in the real life ‘Duplet complex’.
In this case, because the brochure used by the devs is of questionable origin, all we know is that 80-90% reduction of penetration of sub caliber shells is observed. If it was defeating only 60% of BM-42 the brochure would have mentioned 60-90%. This is again supplemented by the two other documents provided, where Nizh is stated to be 2.6 times more effective than Kontakt 5 with 4S22 elements. And the last document mentioning Nizh’s effectiveness against modern NATO 120mm projectiles.
If you want to argue about the version of K-5 used then we can look at different version to see which one is most likely used in the test.
I have clearly shown you on her example that the data you have provided is crude and inaccurate.
This is a clear example where it is clear that there is no such thing as the same resistance level of PG-7V and Kornet, which means that your source simply provides the highest values (for PG-7V).
I have already heard what you said, but the manufacturer of Duplem-2M directly says that its ERA is better than the previous one.
This comparison is useless. Imagine if someone suggested using the comparison data of Nozh and Kontakt-5, made by Russia?
I think you would say that this is not reliable.
Do you understand the difference between the fact that Mikrotek has nothing to do with Relikt and probably didn’t even have access to it for comparison, and the fact that in the case of the doublet the new version is declared as improved?
Moreover, I gave this example, as I already said, in order to show that in the sources cited above, protection from completely different ammunition is combined and 90% of the HEAT has nothing to do with protection from Kornet or tandem TOW-2, for example
No such comparison exists by Russia, it was done in Ukraine because Ukraine has both elements and actively uses them on their vehicles.
You would trust comparisons made by russia between Kontakt-5 and Relikt. In same way comparisons between Kontakt-5 and Nizh should also be respected.
It exists and shows completely opposite results.
It seems to me that any such comparison will be biased in its favor
Should we also assume that test data by Russia that shows Relikt being twice as effective as K-5 is also biased and we should nerf Relikt’s performance accordingly?
The data for the relict and contact are separated and the protection is indicated separately for each type.
So you don’t see the difference between comparing two protections developed by one country and two different ones?
In my opinion, the comparison of the Nozh and Duplet between themselves can be trusted.