This image demosntrates, quote “the early prototype of filler, stacked plates” that was later changed to homogenous plate in production searies.
It is this part:
The part of technical documentation for this specific part was posted with some editing with comments:
You can note that blueprint shows 3 rows of bolts it is because later Oplot variants have afromentionted section look like this:
A company that was established in 2018 , while ERA used for Oplot(and Thai variant) was made by "Basic Center of Critical Technologies “Mikrotek” ". Not to mention that Oplot itself was produced from 2009 to 2018.
If we to inspect the broshure we can already see the issue with the number of inner elements used -
Additionally it seems that new HKChPWSH elements use aluminum(I found explanation that it is less prone to corrosion resulting in longer shelf life) instead of copper for shaped charges. This and the size of charges indicates that it is less effective than original “ХСЧКВ34”.
In conclusion, if regarding ERA effectiveness there is room for debate and doubt, for 50mm plates between ERA there is none and it is only up to common sense and decency from Gaijin now.
Has anyone encountered this problem?
From the commander’s sight perspective of bm-oplot, after each use of laser rangefinding for automatic superelevation adjustment, the reticle automatically shifts significantly to the right.
I aimed for the gun breech area in the first photo, after lasing it shifted to the right side.
I’m not sure whether it is just game mechanic, but I bug reported it anyways.possible bug
Edit: The experiment was conducted on level ground.
Gaijin employees don’t think the BM Oplot-T is a T-84 lmfao, I remember making that bug report. My request for it to be named ‘T-84 BM Oplot-T’ when viewed from the statcard but they’re as dense as a rock apparently.
BM Oplot and T-84 “Oplot” are different vehiclles. BM Oplot is the lates modernization that we see in the game while T-84 “Oplot” is an earlier modernization that was quiet a different thing, bellow are photos in afromentioned order:
The BM Oplot-T is still apart of the T-84 family, it’s a T-84. Just how the BVM is apart of the T-80 family and is a T-80. All of these can be true at the same time, and I’m aware that the T-84 Oplot and T-84 BM Oplot are different variants.
Gaijin doesn’t go by official designation all the time, the Pakistani T-80UD/DU1 we’ve got in-game isn’t called T-80UD/DU1 in Pakistani service, it’s just called T-80UD. When viewing information from the statcard, it’s meant to provide additional information, the BM Oplot-T when viewed from the statcard should be called the T-84 BM Oplot-T 478DU9-T (or T-84 BM Oplot 478DU9-T).
Ukrainian brochures themselves refer the BM Oplot (non-export variant) as just the BM Oplot, does it not make it a T-84 all of a sudden? If we’re going to follow a strict naming scheme, the T-80UD/DU1 should be renamed to T-80UD in-game, Gaijin themselves went down the T-80UD/DU1 route knowing that’s not the in-service designation, strict designations isn’t a in-game restriction.
BM Oplot and T-84 BM Oplot are used interchangeably in Ukrainian service
How 0.5 better reload will mitigate vurnurable hull? Thats not how “mitigation” works. 6 second reload is only third best and thats not counting the total amount of tanks possesing 5 second reload.
The reload buff would be nice, but the armour still needs a buff, even if they don’t add the 50 mm plate, at the very least the ERA should provide 100mm more protection against kinetic rounds for two layers.
What I’m more looking forward to is the top tier decompression. Perhaps Oplot will not be put at 12.7.
