Drivers port, around the breech as well as lfp.
Hell, even the turret roof.
If it’s anything but a T-80BVM you can lol pen the ufp too
M829A3 anti-era isn’t as effective on Relikt since it’s newer
1 Like
Same would go for the T-90M as well, no?
(I think I saw you yesterday in a Pradesh match in a T-90M actually)
That may have been me lol, got close to a nuke that match.
Prepping for the new MBTs coming to USA and Russia.
I believe that is the case, although T-90M should have improved turret armour over T-80BVM iirc.
Still isn’t a really great ammo layout.
1 Like
It does, but pretty much the same UFP armor though right? As that is the bit I was mainly talking about
it should be, the US knew about the functional principals of relikt well before M829A3 entered development
Deployed early 2000s iirc. So if we’re going on the assumption that development probably began 1990s - yes - I’d be very surprised if the West hadn’t gotten hold of Relikt in some form during the messy 1990s Soviet Union self-imploding phase.
We got hold of ALL sorts of fun stuff during that decade that were later used to make some rather entertaining weapons systems. Well, entertaining from NATO’s point of view - less fun if happen to be using Russian hardware.
yeah and this patent from when M829A3 was being developed specifically calls out dual flyer plate ERA (what relikt is)
3 Likes
in this case why need to buff it? dont understand is this days overperform and nog again buff it?
I don’t know why it was buffed exactly, I haven’t done too much in-depth analysis into it so far as to what the buffs have done.
From the changelog it looks like it was just a small plate that they forgot to add which is like 20mm, but it apparently is a bigger change?
There you go.
In another form from a datamine.
- hull inner Relikt:
- max effective thickness against CE: 500 → 600 mm
- armour modifier against KE: 170 → 225%
- armour modifier against CE: 775 → 900%
4 Likes
So zero change against APFSDS [kinetic] in that, staying 200mm.
Which checks out because there was no change on first dev server when shooting M829 at it.
I can check again, but it was 54mm on the side as it is on live server.
-
Kinetic (KE) MEANS APFSDS
(Nice ninja edit masking the fact that you didn’t know KE = Kinetic) -
Go away.
I was not even responding to you.
1 Like
@Crazed_Otter
Telling Americans to go away after they refute Russian equipment shilling is something…
Weird of your post to repeat my take that Kinetic means APFSDS… people can read my post to see that.
Dev server version 2.56.0.32: M829.
Relikt protects ~56mm on the side armor [flat], same as live server.
Hull front [T-80BVM]
477 + 62 = 539mm of non-ERA armor.
743 - 539mm = 204mm of ERA protection. + 21mm if there’s no 10mm HHA plate beneath the armor.
Identical to live server.
Live server T-80BVM front:
Edit:
What has changed however, is side mounted ERA is being fixed [at least a bit], thanks to @Nowel’s post after mine:
Relikt isn’t being buffed against Kinetic.
Right now protection is identical between dev server & live server.
I don’t know what “hull inner” means, but it’s clearly not Relikt itself, & it’s not the armor array of T-series tanks.
Uhm… yes it is. The screenshot they shared of the changes shows against KE 150% being increased to 225%. A flat 75% increase of its performance against LE rounds.
1 Like
3 Likes
…aaaaaaaaaaaaand he’s going to flag all of our posts now because he’s been shown to be quite incorrect.
1 Like
Thank you for this.
So it’s the side ERA that’ll see the results of this change, but not the front ERA due to its already extreme angle…
The side ERA was under-performing when angled for years on live, so I guess they’re finally fixing it.
I’ll add a citation to your post in mine.
The armor of live from the screenshot that shows 277mm at 65 degrees is ~62 - ~90mm effective protection from Relikt.
180 - 215mm from the armor plates, and 62 - ~90mm from the ERA itself. Which is incorrectly low for Relikt.
@Crazed_Otter
Warning us that you’re going to flag all of us is hilarious.
Edit added in armor information.
