I made a similar one but it was rejected, yours has more detail tho, fingers crossed.
1 Like
I will point out some mistakes in your calculations regarding the turret tests using my own calculations. The turret module tested is at about a 60 degree angle instead of 50. This can be seen on the photo of the module after being shot, in the circled bit you can judge the angle to be closer to 60 degrees, although it is not an exact measurement, but more of a guess.
So in my opinion, LOS penetration at 60 degrees is about 120mm.
Your figure for 3BM42 penetration is also wrong, you’re using the value in game for 0 degrees, but BM42 performs better at higher angles, at 60 degrees, its penetration is actually 524mm.
(BTW the real life penetration of 3BM42 is actually stated to be 550mm at 100m.)
524 - 120 = 404mm penetration reduction achieved by the turret ERA.
So in the end, the reduction is still about 80% (~77%) however the kinetic reduction value for the tiles should be closer to 400mm.
Currently in game, two layers of ERA, their covers and the separators between them provide about 290mm of kinetic penetration reduction.
It can be safely said that the ERA is underperforming by 100-110mm.
4 Likes
Lmao they denied my report because OH GOD AI HELPED ME. Dublicated it with clean links on broshures. Community Bug Reporting System
If they will deny this too on the basis that links are still acquired with help of AI I’m unistalling this shit game lmao.
5 Likes
Not a bug
3 Likes
Updated the title to now include the BM Oplot-P as it does relate to the T in-game (both being specialised for their respective countries).
yep, bye bye guys
i love the oplot and its just a better tank than the chinese alternatives in a vacuum, but with china you know for a fact theyll get those orders on fast and have good scalability.
2 Likes
Yeah tbh the only real problem with Ukrainian tanks is the Kharkiv factory’s ability to fulfill orders. Now, more than ever cause of you know what.
Although we have seen some interesting Frankenstein projects come out recently like a T-90M turret mounted on a T-80U hull with what seems to be a Duplet or Nizh module on UFP.
@ARC_Convoy_77 @TPS_Hydra
Update on the whole armor thing, based on support’s reply to my last and other reports, the image is next:
-
Separating plateS(!) - each ERA section has own separation plate inbetween ERA layers, they are present in the game, issue is that at least visually they are not 50 mm.
-
Based on the reply to my last report - ingame the protection value on the ERA is not representative of how it really works(“it is not static” as per Bug Report Manager) and varies depending on many things including angle. To my understanding Gaijin tweaked numbers in such way to match resulting armour effectiveness against 3BM42 specifically. So basically armor works as it should…but only against 3BM42…since ERA provides absolute protection and not % based.
It means since there is no other round tests awailable (unfortunaly there is virtually no info on OFL F1 test except few pages from report floating on the internet) - ERA effectriveness can’t be changed via reports under current paradigme. (unless you somehow can calculate and proove othervise but again only using 3BM42 test)
Only thing that may be changed is thickness of separation plates, but we need to somehow know for sure what is their current material and thickness in game to be able to properly report them.
Updated: Forgot to mention, Report Manager said that we should base our reports on final resulting protection and not x-ray absolute numbers (in case of ERA if I understood correctly).
5 Likes
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/y2MtSUmAWj0n
Try №3, trying to prove ingame calculations wrong, using calculations of effective armor of pure HHRA in UFP using favorable (for ingame model) concessions.
3 Likes
We already know this plate exists in game, it is modelled as 35mm structural steel (55% weaker than RHA).
They have made the in-game protection based on the UAM borchure with some new ERA element that is lighter and allegedly made from aluminum, providing less protection than the actual elements used in Duplet. The new element says 60% reduction of BM42 penetration. This is what they have used to model the protection in game.
This is not true, I have done tests comparing the in-game results to penetration test footage available on the turret. In game, BM42 always penetrates the first layer of steel behind the ERA and either stops in the cellular armour or the second steel plate located behind the first cellular layer:
In reality this round was degraded so much that it stopped on the first steel plate, only digging in 60mm on the normal, or about 120mm from LOS.
Firstly, it is still under performing if we look at it like this, BM42 has about 230mm of penetration left after ERA, in reality it has about 120mm (Like I said, ERA is under performing by about 110mm) and secondly, all other ERA in game like K-5 or Relikt have their values set according to their IRL performance specifications, not according to how it performs against certain rounds in test footage. We can calculate the reduction it provides against BM42 and how much the tiles should be adjusted according to it. After that it will have the same result as in the test footage, BM42 will be stopped by the first layer of armour.
ERA and plating aside, is it true T-90A got its spall liner because devs treated anti-radiation lining as such?
Because if it is so, there T-84 can benefit from such changes as well (given how spall liner likes munching spall even from the most powerful APFSDS in the game)
Try to make report based on this
anti-radiatioion lining won’t woprk as spall liners(most likely)
In real life ERA provides % reduction that varies on the round it defends from. Ingame we have absolute protection number that varies only on the angle. You can even see it in broshures, nobody stating that specific ERA provides set amount of protection, it’s always %.
I mean, I ask because this ^^^
Idk if T-90A was just missing these liners and they decided to finally add them, or T-90A by default had none of them to begin with and something else turned up
As they commented it wasn’t supposed to be seen on the public DEV, they are planning to indtroduce such type of liners obviously since they are working on them.
1 Like
Idk if anyone’s tried this but I wanted to see what the armor values for each component were using Ansel and what I saw was interesting to say the least, It seems the Duplet bricks for the UFP are on the upper layer of the armor for the composite array which, to me, makes it appear they’re floating in the composite array.
The plate that people are debating on whether it’s 50mm steel or 35mm rubber and anything in-between is also there in game as a 35mm structural steel plate which, FYI, has a x0.45 armor modifier compared to RHA which effectively makes it about 42mm thick at LOS.
I made a little diagram comparing the composite in the game to the diagrams from btvt.info and other players talking about this and, besides the hull armor composition, the way the armor is modeled in-game doesn’t look right at all though I’m sure the bug report managers would vehemently disagree.
Edit: I guess I could also add that if the plate between the ERA layers was a 50mm high hardness rolled armor plate the additional armor protection from the material armor modifier and the extra thickness of the plate would add over 120mm of extra protection from the math I hopefully did right on my graphing calculator I haven’t used in 6 years
Yeah I am aware of this, we know Duplet or an ERA similar to regular Duplet can stop OFL 120 F1 much more effectively than it stopped BM42, almost to 100%. Because BM42 has a segmented core it does better against ERA than ammunition like the OFL, BM60, etc. Which are effected to a greater extent.
Can you try to overlay it on the blueprint of the Duplet module?
