Russian Bias in 2026?

[Ralin]

@Jεcka

Try 2031

It’s sad. However, there are also “open” brochures/books.

I’m skeptical of everything until I see confirmation of one opinion or another.

@Jεcka

It is a huge difference

Could you, for example, calculate it?

Give some estimates based on the data?

@Jεcka

5 to 10% if no ERA is available.

but this is not so little, considering the overall growth of around 20%.

---

It’s strange that you only see one side of the coin.

I believe the assumptions about the T-90M’s -15 reverse speed and the BVM’s -25 reverse speed are incorrect.
I’m very skeptical that the Su-30SM2 is equipped with the N035 and Al-41 (at least in any production form).

But I’m also skeptical about many other things.

[Whisloy]

@Jεcka

Has nothing to do with DM53’s anti-ERA and why it wasn’t added. Another day, another Whisloy goalpost classic.

Oh yeah next time try to see difference between T-72A and T-72B

[I_Morpho_I-psn]

@Whisloy

Stop makeing up stuff people were upset that was completley usless upgrade compared to DM53 and M829A1.

3BM42M wasn’t a useless upgrade, back then it was the only long rod shell available to USSR (3BM42 has since been buffed to be a long rod but I don’t know when), it was much more consistent

what made it useless is only being available to the T-90A

[Jεcka]

@Whisloy

Oh yeah next time try to see difference between T-72A and T-72B

Again, performance of BM-42M had nothing to do with the russian players whining about DM53’s anti-era, stop trying to make these two different issues connected, when they weren’t - you’re not appearing any smarter.

[SoyBeanInhaler]

Rosji need Su-67 right now and MiG-69

Pleas gif T-14

[Jεcka]

@Ralin

Could you, for example, calculate it?

Sure, any prerequisities?

Like the level of deterioration - are we using the % achieved during RU tests vs BM-22 (>40%), or during UKR tests vs DM33 (~20%)?

Different projectiles will resist the flyer plate differently, after all.

[An_Pigeon]

@Whisloy

So yeah i was right it never existed in the game.

It existed literally in game files mate.

[Ralin]

I honestly don’t understand what you mean.

I asked how much 829a3 was actually ignored and how you calculated it.

I don’t understand what 3BM22 and DM33 have to do with it (I’m hearing about such tests for the first time).

[SoyBeanInhaler]

BM59 is nothing compared to secret Polish ammunition

[Whisloy]

@I_Morpho_I-psn

3BM42M wasn’t a useless upgrade, back then it was the only long rod shell available to USSR (3BM42 has since been buffed to be a long rod but I don’t know when), it was much more consistent

what made it useless is only being available to the T-90A

Not it was completley joke of an addition like +20 mm of pen ? Compared to DM53 and M829A1 it was miserable.

@Jεcka

Again, performance of BM-42M had nothing to do with the russian players whining about DM53’s anti-era, stop trying to make these two different issues connected, when they weren’t - you’re not appearing any smarter.

So what needed to appear smarter ? Use Agava-1 image from tankograd as example that has postscript “Please do not use as example it has been worsened several times” ?

@An_Pigeon

It existed literally in game files mate.

Damn its like MiG-29 flying with R-73 when Apex Predators update was released.

[I_Morpho_I-psn]

@An_Pigeon

It existed literally in game files mate.

Hot Tracks Dev Server specifically

it was not needed at all, the 2A6 already bodied top tier

@Whisloy

Not it was completley joke of an addition like +20 mm of pen ? Compared to DM53 and M829A1 it was miserable.

You didn’t need DM53 levels of pen as 3BM42M was more than enough for all NATO MBTs (except the rare Strv 122).

[Jεcka]

@Ralin

I honestly don’t understand what you mean.

Because I can calculate (although it’s napkin math), the level of reduction K-5 will achieve versus M829A3 based on its performance versus other projectiles (but I asked you for what level of deterioration I should go for, as K-5 won’t affect a WHA/DU long-rod with a jacket/break-off tip the same way it affects a steel rod, after all).

Obviously we can just simplify it, and say that Kontakt-5 here would be 70% as good versus M829A3 as against say, M829A2, so 84mm instead of 120mm - so we go from the territory of “barely perforates” to “perforates 100% of the time at distances out to 2km’s” as the performance of the rod also increases due to increased length.

It’s strange that you only see one side of the coin.

Ah no, I’ve just seen the doc about it. So it’s more like I know what M829A3 does to K-5

:)

[Jεcka]

@Whisloy

So what needed to appear smarter ? Use Agava-1 image from tankograd as example that has postscript “Please do not use as example it has been worsened several times” ?

Ah, so you’re coping, oki.

[Ralin]

@Jεcka

Obviously we can just simplify it, and say that Kontakt-5 here would be 70% as good versus M829A3 as against say, M829A2, so 84mm instead of 120mm - so we go from the territory of “barely perforates” to “perforates 100% of the time at distances out to 2km’s” as the performance of the rod also increases due to increased length.

Okay, 30% is perfectly acceptable.

But the base penetration of the 829A3 is likely lower than that of the A2.

In the document you referenced, the core dimensions weren’t very large; the steel pin takes up a lot of space, plus the flight speed is very slow.

---

According to my calculations, the 829A3’s penetration will be no more than 610mm, so the result relative to the T-80U’s UFP will be roughly the same.

Even your calculations don’t guarantee reliable penetration, especially at range.

[Jεcka]

@Ralin

According to my calculations, the 829A3’s penetration will be no more than 610mm, so the result relative to the T-80U’s UFP will be roughly the same.

610*1.1 increase from the steel tip - 30% of ERA’s potency - > ~670’ish pen versus ~600’ish mm of armor.

For WT, this is as simplified as it goes, as in the game ERA has a fixed level of protection, and it doesn’t ‘degrade’ KEP in any way.

For reference, ~650mm for DM53 versus K-5 with only 40% of its “base protection” + T-80U would’ve resulted in 650mm pen versus 580’ish mm of armor.

[Ralin]

@Jεcka

610*1.1 increase from the steel tip

this is already taking into account the tip…

@Jεcka

versus ~600’ish mm of armor.

But the T-80U has 630mm of armor…

I don’t mind, but you try to calculate for yourself how long the penetrator should be to produce such results at 1555 m/s

[Jεcka]

@Ralin

this is already taking into account the tip…

And how did you calculate this?

Because this is M829A3 without the tip.

[AspectOfTheRAGE]

@Ralin since you’re here anyway, I wanted to ask whether you know a reason for the outer horizontal-drive part on T-64A(1971) to do nothing?

I did some testing and it turns out that destroying this part doesnt disable the horizontal-drive, the ring and manual crank do however.

On T-72A, which has a similar composition, it’s essentially the other way around, where the ring + outer drive disable the horizontal-drive, but the manual crank doesnt.

Is this intentional or can I bug-report it given that on other MBTs the manual drives are not separated from the motorized drives - and having the manual one be what affects the drive-mechanism over the motorized one seems rather odd (in case of T-64A).

[Ralin]

I used LO. Penetrator dimensions are mentioned in that document.

I don’t know why people get mad at those who try to calculate this.

I tried it and don’t understand what penetrator size I need to set to achieve high penetration.

[Ralin]

@AspectOfTheRAGE

I did some testing and it turns out that destroying this part doesnt disable the horizontal-drive, the ring and manual crank do however.

I think it’s worth reporting this.

Do so and send it to me.

Obviously, damage to any part should block targeting.