What primary documents are you reffering to? T-64 A is not T-80 or any T-80 variant wrong tank comparison. T-64 A is the least of your worries, super slow not responsive and no turret rotation. How are soviet vehicles artifically buffed by being one of the slowest on the map?
What about NATO tanks being penned centrally from the side with only 2 crew members being taken out, that in irl is a 100% hangar shot.
Chally in irl has proven to be slow bulky and weight wise it is a complete burden on any army. If primary documents are as accurate as you say then every country that prints them will have 100% win rates.
Gaijin conclusion was that their in-game model couldnt be penned by their in-game model of L27A1 (which btw, has a 2 year old bug report sat accepted that increases its dimensions) and therefore the documentation was wrong.
At absolutely no point was it considered that the documentation was correct and that the armour value of the T-80U was the issue at fault.
The documentation for the record, was Britain firing an L27A1 at a T-80U UFP and it penetrating. That is the entire document. Period. An actual, IRL test firing.
Gaijin has now set the prescedent that they can simply reject any primary documentation they dont like and model things however they want despite repeatedly saying that historical accuracy comes first.
It should also be noted at this point that 13 primary documents were also denied to give DM53 anti-era properities. 13…
But please provide primary documentation that its current armour modeling is 100% correct
What about the rounds that hit the T-Series ammo rack and send the turret into space IRL but in-game result in a “hit”?
No?
You are simply believing Gaijin propaganda.
There is about 50 accepted bug reports to buff the CR2 armour.
Heck its ready rack is only 4 rounds, should be 28…
L27A1 is underperforming
If primary documentation no longer matters, then what is the point of this game? Why is it any different to WoT?
Challenger 2 has proven itself as a very capable tank, even in a certain recent conflict.
If kontakt 5 is in place and the L27 A1 hits the frontal plate it will never pen the T-80u unless there is a height advantage on the chally side. There are gaps between K-5 that it can hit, meaning that it has a much higher probability of penetration since base armor has about 600mm of kenetic protection. If kontakt 5 fails to deploy for whatever reason then yes, not every part is bulit and works 100% time no part or material on this planet does. The probability of this happening is segnificantly lower, please read M829 A1 tests on T80U a round superior to your round before saying it can pen 80U based on one page clerc document.
Ohh yes the recent conflict you are reffering to I happen to notoice at least 3 chally turrets completely seperated without finding hull armor in sight.
Yes T-series explode that is correct cause they carry at least 25 3OF26 and above high fragmentation rounds in autoloader. Drone strikes and side shots will do that.
And once again, you are just parroting Gaijin because it benefits soviet tanks to remain in an overperforming state
L27A1 will pen K5 and the UFP armour below. period
I know shock horror. Soviet tanks arent this OP IRL
They dont in-game half the time.
its as if the rounds dont exist
There is also the documented evidence of a interior plate armour that is coded to stop spall and not make any spall even though that is total nonsense and that they shouldnt even exist
But alas, nothing will change. Gaijin is a Russian Company, so naturally they will have the best vheicles.
That is not gajiin my friend plenty of youtube simulations show that, plus type in google AI and you will find info on A1 tests vs 80U armor. Think about 660 mm round pening more than 700mm modern armor does not make any sense. 3BM-60 which is 745 mm in total length cant do that. When I play the T-series tanks they do indeed explde at least 90% when hit to the ammo autoloader, now ge this, if I only carry 20 sabot rounds then there should be 0 explosion since sabot rounds dont explode like high fragmentation rounds do. As for the interior plate armor I can not coment on that, if anyone wants to jump in on that please do so.
Primary armor of frontal plate on 80 U offers about 600mm of protection against apfsds add kontakt 5 which decrease penetration of about 100 to 150mm then total protection against kenetic round is about 750mm in frontal plate and turret cheeks. Check this out bud. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bfo494lp_dE This does not mean that it will work 100% of the time no technology does. If you look at the layout of the T80U you will find places that are not covered by k-5 frontally that is where it has weaker armor values. I do beleive the famous Swedish test trials mention about hull and turret cheek protection being around the 700mm range.
As for other nations being hit only in ammo compartment not penning crew compartment then they should also not be destroyed it is fair that way. Gajiin does indeed need to rethink ammo explosions. (blow-out pannels)
Any reason why you continue to dodge/ignore people explaining how the document very likely is mistaken?
Multiple people have now pointed out that the UK MOD was very likely mistaken regarding the T-80U’s actual protection levels.
M829A1 is a superior penetrator design to L27, yet M829A1 proved incapable of defeating K-5 armoured targets during trails, yet L27 has no issues going through the same targets at 2000m?
Because its not the first time Gaijin has called British Documents a marketing lie. Its the third time iirc.
The defacto argument seems to be that if its British then it cant be accepted.
But if they can just turn around and say “this primary document is incorrect”. Then what is the point of ever submitting any bug report ever again when Gaijin just picks and chooses what is real and what isnt. Which almost always favours soviet vehicles.
So unless you are saying that the T-80U that they purchased and fired shells at didnt have the correct levels of protection it should have had. In which case, I invite documents being provided… How can they be mistaken?
L27 was developed using an actual T-80 to fire at
This just sounds more like Gaijin parroting
and what about the 13 primary doucments for the DM53? Are those marketing lies as well?
Please provide a single primary source for any of this
That has nothing to do with the validity of the statements made in this specific page.
Because we’ve got contradictory sources here, as I’ve explained and shall now explain a second time:
M829A1 is stated to not have been able to defeat K-5 -armoured targets, M829A1 is a superior penetrator design, how is it that M829A1 cannot do what L27 does at 2000m?
Firstly: Please present a source that shows L27 penetrated an actual T-80U in testing, and at what range/location the penetration occurred. The latter is extremely important given that we’re talking about the UFP covered by K-5 here, and firing trails could’ve easily resulted in portions of the vehicle NOT covered by K-5 being penetrated.
Secondly: Please show me whether that testing was done before or after the other source’s time of writing.
Thirdly: I’d be really helpful if we got the full source instead of the half page without context.
In the vast majority of cases I’ve seen, sources work with an estimated level of protection for adversary vehicles, those estimations usually turn out to be off after some years have passed and better information comes to light.
Soviet MBTs that are performing very well, in fact are documented to be overperforming need a buff because soviet mains are butthurt that they dont have a meta MBT at the moment?
Despite being meta in air, naval and every other aspect of ground bar MBTs?
Prove its a superior design.
and why cant DM53 pen K-5 either, despite being a superior design to the A3 which can?
This is not the case in this instance.
but please provide me any documentation that proves the current IN-GAME MODELING which is what Gaijin used to “prove” that the L27A1 cannot pen it. is correct.
Gaijin did not state that the sources were wrong, or that there were other soruces that contested it. They stated that they fired an L27A1 in-game at a T-80U without ERA and it didnt pen. Therefore the primary source is wrong.
Gaijin used War Thunder as a Primary source for War Thunder…
It was expected that L27 would achieve or surpass that of M829A1, and sit itself somewhere between A1 and A2. You can see how that could happen if you were to fix the penetrator, and then increase its MV.
L27 is stated to penetrate between 678 and 693mm @ 70° angle of attack, M829A1 will penetrate around 770mm under the same criteria.
Could you please stop moving the goalpost every single time?
I’m discussing the single page taken from a source which claims L27 is expected to penetrate the T-80U, I’m NOT discussing DM53, Russian CAS performance, naval balance, whether or not Russian mains are butthurt, etc.
I’ll take it that you’re unable to present any of the sources I previously asked for.
And my question is when that took place, as well as if direct firing trails took place before or after the time of writing of the source we’re discussing.
I don’t know what you’re questioning on the first part, but they suffer reduced reload no matter the loss considering the commander buffs the whole crew.
Lets look at this logically total length of the round is 660mm, pentrator is less than that how can you possibly achieve 700mm of pen? 3bM60 which is about 745mm in total length cannot pen 80u from the front at 0 degrees 2000m range.
