Yes, at a good downward facing angle i.e from a favorable position. Most tanks also don’t get L/55s with DM53, a lot of them actually get L/44s which don’t pack as much power, even with DM53, and their ranges are cut by half or more.
What Gaijin should do is:
Fix ERA to work based on attack angle (the 120mm KE flat value is major bullcrap, it should be just the raw thickness of the plates there)
Add anti-ERA to everything that had it
Downtier some T-series after decompressing
Of course everything I’ve just pointed out is delusional of me because Gaijin isn’t going to do any of it, especially not the decompression part.
We’ve gone thru this MANY TIMES OVER, both on this and on the old forum, they don’t unless the barrel is facing downward into the upper plate or you’re scum aiming at upper portions of ERA blocks.
Nothing has changed about both DM53 & the armor of T-series since the last time I tested all of them, so the results aren’t going to change either.
Within <100/200m, the difference in height and gun-to-enemy-hull is enough to make a reasonable downwards angle alone (without needing any reliance on being in a higher position).
Ehh, ~100m is about right, 200m is a bit too far. I remember doing tests against a T-72B3M in my 2A7V a few months ago on Cargo Port on the highway, 250m was already too far out for DM53.
From what I calculated, downwards angle caused by the difference in height between gun of leopard 2a7 and the hull of the T-80 is around 0.83 degrees at 100m.
I don’t think that’s enough… so I believe it’s more appropriate to say <50m (~1.66 degrees) or more like <30m (~2.77 degrees).
This isn’t as big of an issue as I thought, but tanking multiple shots would be a lot more difficult after the ERA blows up.
The corners of the front plate of the T-80s also are not covered by ERA.
If ERA was effective against KE projectiles - NATO would use it this way. This is just another game mechanic made as a handholding feature for soviet dirt buckets. If not for that - they would be completely outperformed by everything (which they should). Like everybody knows that soviet ERA is just magic armor in the game. If you’re experienced enough with the game - play one match against soviets and pay close attention to your own aiming. Feel that uneasy sensation when aiming anywhere around ERA? Especially driver’s hatch, turret front, hell, even some side shots. That’s it, everybody knows that if you don’t aim at their ERA - the chance of some bull… happening is far from being 0%. Btw soviet trashcan MBTs are the only type of tanks in the game able to tank a side shot in the turret. Guess why?
Let’s say that they get nerfed to their ‘actual’ performance.
One of their main upside (their armour) is gone now.
Wouldn’t that mean that they should be a lower BR?
The T-80BVM would probably be moved down to 11.3, the T-90M would probably go down to 11.3 too, and the T-80UD would move down to 10.0. The T-80UK would go down to 11.3 and the T-80UM2 would go down to 11.0.
Is this what you want?
Conqueror, IS-4M, MAUS and M103 all have armour that can be useful if used properly (not sure why you mentioned Ariete).
I can’t really say the same with nerfed Russian MBTs that stay at the same BR after their nerfs.
And if armour doesn’t matter in this game, why are you complaining about Russian ERA ‘overperforming’?
I would say it’s as fair as the current situation we have in game currently where some vehicles get stuff and others don’t while some nations get stuff and others don’t.
I’m not advocating for this feature to be added or not just pointing out how we have things like the panstir and the leopards getting that nerf so they can’t aim to the side.
This is why I am for either making everything historical or throwing out the historical reasoning we have for some stuff and doing things for the sake of balance.