The BM Oplot-T Is... Concerning (And Now The Oplot-M)

[ARC_Convoy_77]

@Ralin

This is taken into account in the game. A similar shot simulation, as in the tests, will yield a similar result. We have a 60mm depression in testing and a roughly identical result in the game (I set it to 500 meters to show that a shell can get stuck in the first plate with a slight decrease in velocity, as it would have penetrated it in testing (60mm depression at 100 meters).
Furthermore, it’s not entirely accurate to equate a 60mm depression in a supposedly infinite steel barrier with the same 60mm penetration of composite armor.

Plates tend to break through from the rear, which won’t happen if you have a meter-thick steel blank simulating a turret. I hope it’s clear what I mean.

Yes I understand your point, however it is neither here nor there, we cannot estimate how much the shell’s remaining penetration is after encountering the turret module in game, because it breaks the first layer as it should but then travels inside the composite almost halfway to the second plate, or sometimes even stops at the second plate. I think it is safe to say the residual penetration on average in game is more than it is in the test footage.

Now yes you can replicate the results of the test footage a bit like how you have with longer distance and by getting the shell stuck between two rows of ERA but this does not really prove anything.

@Ralin

As I already said, the X-ray information is extremely approximate. In practice, when simulating a shot, you’ll get results at the level of the test.

What we know for a fact is that in the footage, if we use the in-game penetration number for BM42, the penetration of the shell was reduced by roughly ~400mm. You yourself have stated in the past that in the game Duplet provides ~292mm of protection. This is what I have used to estimate that it is underperforming by 100mm.

If you are now claiming that in game Duplet actually does stop close to 400mm as in the tests and that the xray numbers are wrong, then that is a different claim that we can talk about.

I also want to mention the tests of OFL 120 where Duplet stopped the round completely. There is much to be said about BM42 being two-cored and better against ERA than single core APFSDS but I don’t wanna start that conversation again. For now, it is underperforming against even BM42. And it should be balanced to be even better than in the test footage to account for its increased effectiveness against modern projectiles. Well once there is sufficient proof of this effectiveness available for gaijin.

[Ralin]

@ARC_Convoy_77

Yes I understand your point, however it is neither here nor there, we cannot estimate how much the shell’s remaining penetration is after encountering the turret module in game, because it breaks the first layer as it should but then travels inside the composite almost halfway to the second plate, or sometimes even stops at the second plate. I think it is safe to say the residual penetration on average in game is more than it is in the test footage.

You can always increase the firing range to slightly reduce penetration and see if it stops penetrating the first layer of steel.

Even from 100 meters, the steel layer may well not be penetrated. It depends on small changes in the point of impact and the firing angle of 1-2 degrees.

So, in my opinion, everything in the game is accurate, down to a margin of error that’s impossible to detect with the naked eye.

And I’d like to remind you that a 60mm penetration in a supposedly infinite plate isn’t equivalent to the penetration of a 60mm plate, but is significantly greater. When a shell penetrates a sheet of steel, it eventually breaks through, so if the barrier isn’t infinite, the actual penetration will be greater.

This means that the penetration results for a real turret should be somewhat higher than those for a mockup with a supposedly infinite layer of steel.

@ARC_Convoy_77

What we know for a fact is that in the footage, if we use the in-game penetration number for BM42, the penetration of the shell was reduced by roughly ~400mm. You yourself have stated in the past that in the game Duplet provides ~292mm of protection. This is what I have used to estimate that it is underperforming by 100mm.

If you are now claiming that in game Duplet actually does stop close to 400mm as in the tests and that the xray numbers are wrong, then that is a different claim that we can talk about.

Who cares who said what if the analysis shows a clear picture?

From a defense perspective, it’s simply a matter of bureaucracy, where and how the values ​​are recorded. It doesn’t matter as long as the actual result matches the desired one.

I don’t want to go into a long explanation of why the reported figures might be lower.

@ARC_Convoy_77

There is much to be said about BM42 being two-cored and better against ERA than single core APFSDS but I don’t wanna start that conversation again. For now, it is underperforming against even BM42. And it should be balanced to be even better than in the test footage to account for its increased effectiveness against modern projectiles. Well once there is sufficient proof of this effectiveness available for gaijin.

There is no evidence that 3bm42 has increased efficacy against ERA.

In a number of studies where other ERAs were tested with it, they showed excellent results.

@ARC_Convoy_77

I also want to mention the tests of OFL 120 where Duplet stopped the round completely.

Firstly, there is no complete documentation on the OFL120 test.

Secondly, those tests used a different ERA, and the data from it will not be applicable.

[Ralin]

For example, here’s one ВЛИЯНИЕ ТОЛЩИНЫ ПЛАСТИНЫ НА ЭФФЕКТИВНОСТЬ ДИНАМИЧЕСКОЙ ЗАЩИТЫ. A design that’s essentially a K-5 that fires two plates one after the other at a 3BM42 was 60-80% effective against it.

This is just a typical behavior. In a game, such an ERA would have 270-360mm of protection, according to research. Are you saying that against regular long-rod APFSDSs, it would need to offer 1.5 times that amount?

[ARC_Convoy_77]

@Ralin

From a defense perspective, it’s simply a matter of bureaucracy, where and how the values ​​are recorded. It doesn’t matter as long as the actual result matches the desired one.

Ok, let us use your logic and test it to replicate the result of the footage

Let us set some base rules for the test using the footage: 3BM42 penetrated only 60mm on a 50 degree plate, meaning it only penetrated 93mm from LOS. Therefore, we can assume that the penetration was reduced by (524-93) ~431mm.

Since the module in the test is steel without composite (assumption), 60mm penetration on the normal should result in the first steel plate breaking in game because the plate is exactly as thick as the given penetration figure, and the shell should stop in the composite, this happens in the game at 100m yes. From this we can only determine that the shell has equal to or more than 93mm residual penetration, but don’t know for sure how much.

Now lets see under what other conditions does this plate also break in order to determine the approximate effectiveness of Duplet in game:

1. BM42 at 2000m (~470mm penetration)
   

   
   
   After multiple trials, it still penetrates the first layer 100% of times. Therefore, using the above math, we can conclude that the penetration reduction is equal to or less than (470-93) ~377mm, already ~54mm below the footage.

2. DM13 at 100m (~470mm penetration)
   

   
   
   After multiple trials, it still penetrates the first layer about 90% of times, it now becomes susceptible to stopping after encountering weird volumetric artifacts, so there’s a few places where it does not penetrate but mostly it is still penetrating the first layer of armour. Therefore, using the above math, we can conclude that the penetration reduction is equal to or less than (450-93) ~357mm, ~74mm below the footage.

3. DM13 at 2000m (~416mm penetration)
   

   
   
   The shell is even more susceptible to volumetric stuff but overall it penetrates about 50% of times. I guess we can say that is about about the result that we see in the test footage. where the first layer breaks around 50% of the time, which means the residual penetration is somewhere close to 93mm.

Now how much does the Duplet module stop in game? Approximately (416-93) 323mm. Which is roughly 108mm less than the results of the test footage and very close to my original calculation of Duplet under-performing by ~100mm.

Of course this testing is very rough, but all analyses point to Duplet under-performing significantly.

[Ralin]

@ARC_Convoy_77

Therefore, we can assume that the penetration was reduced by (524-93) ~431mm.

Aren’t you going to take into account the slope effect, the multilayered nature of the barrier, and the steel hardness modifier?

I also pointed out that the penetration of a supposedly infinite barrier will always be significantly lower than that of a non-infinite plate of a thickness close to the penetration point.

@ARC_Convoy_77

From this we can only determine that the shell has equal to or more than 93mm residual penetration, but don’t know for sure how much.

Complete wrong. 60mm turret plate provides about ~120mm of kinetic equivalent in this case.

@ARC_Convoy_77

Since the module in the test is steel without composite (assumption), 60mm penetration on the normal should result in the first steel plate breaking in game because the plate is exactly as thick as the given penetration figure, and the shell should stop in the composite, this happens in the game at 100m yes.

Penetration must be greater than just 60mm, since I already indicated that 60mm of penetration was achieved in a supposedly infinite sheet of steel, where the shell couldn’t penetrate the inner part of the sheet.

Again. 60mm of penetration in a supposedly infinite barrier > penetration of a 60mm sheet. I can’t say for sure whether this is equivalent to a 70mm or 80mm sheet, but it’s definitely larger.

Is that clear?

@ARC_Convoy_77

Now lets see under what other conditions does this plate also break in order to determine the approximate effectiveness of Duplet in game:

Here’s the non-penetration of even the first 3BM42 plate at 1500m.

Considering that the first steel plate has 120mm of steel protection against APFSDS, we get a Duplet penetration resistance of ~300-310mm in this area.

---

Your mistake is that:

1. You’re not using the normalized penetration of the 3BM42 (457mm at 0 meters)
2. You’re incorrectly calculating the resistance of a 60mm steel plate in the turret
3. You’re not taking into account that penetrating a 60mm plate is significantly easier than leaving a 60mm hole in an infinitely thick blank.

[Ralin]

1000 meters doesn’t penetrate the first layer. That means protection is around 310-320mm even

This is consistent with what was tested.

[Norm_Von_Dolbit]

Why Relict and Kontak-5 destabilize rounds while Duplet don’t when you in one of your messages discussing test shot at a turret module you yourself akgnowledged that shot was deflected justifying using higher angle of impact while calculating residual groove.

Why small caliber shells completely oneshot entire ERA section on Oplot but only damages Relict.

Why Oplot is the only moder Soviet style MBT that got accurate gun handling, while we know as a fact that T72B3/80BVM/90M should all have about the same gun handling. Community Bug Reporting System

[Ralin]

@Norm_Von_Dolbit

Why Relict and Kontak-5 destabilize rounds while Duplet don’t when you in one of your messages discussing test shot at a turret module you yourself akgnowledged that shot was deflected justifying using higher angle of impact while calculating residual groove

I don’t know. But what does it matter if the side impact in the game is equivalent to what it was in testing?

If there’s a destabilizing effect, then the ERA protection needs to be reduced.

@Norm_Von_Dolbit

Why small caliber shells completely oneshot entire ERA section on Oplot but only damages Relict.

The Relic has an 11 (a 12mm plate that protects the module from damage). The side-mounted duplet does not.

[Norm_Von_Dolbit]

@Ralin

The Relic has an 11 (a 12mm plate that protects the module from damage). The side-mounted duplet does not.

How exactly it prevents an 82mm pen APDS from penetrating it? Which it does by the way(penetrates).

[Ralin]

Reducing penetration reduces projectile damage. That might be the issue.

[Norm_Von_Dolbit]

Duplet on the sides is protected by 5mm HHRA so roughtly half the thickness of Relict protection, lets exagerate and shoot at Duplet at an extreme angle so that effective protection is far grater than 11mm HHRA and reducing damage even more than in the case of Relict

As you can see reduced damage is not the issue.

[CollectorOfSins]

I’ve shot rounds in the simulation at the same angle of attack and same round and saw that relikt consistently destabilizes apfsds darts like the bta4, kontakt 5 also does well. Duplet does not destabilize to the same effect. It yaws much less for the duplet. I think this could be a bug.

[ARC_Convoy_77]

@Ralin

Complete wrong. 60mm turret plate provides about ~120mm of kinetic equivalent in this case.

ARC_Convoy_77:

Please use maths to determine what 60 sloped at 50 degrees comes out to. (It’s 93)

@Ralin

Again. 60mm of penetration in a supposedly infinite barrier > penetration of a 60mm sheet. I can’t say for sure whether this is equivalent to a 70mm or 80mm sheet, but it’s definitely larger.

What are you even talking about? A 60mm penetration will be 60mm, in the turret there is still composite material behind the steel, it’s not air that will just suddenly make the steel weak. Even if there is a difference it’s gonna be minuscule.

Provide actual evidence of your theory that the module is multiple steel plates without any gaps or other materials, and how that will be stronger than a steel plate with composite armour behind it. Stop making guesses.

@Ralin

Here’s the non-penetration of even the first 3BM42 plate at 1500m.

Here the projectile has hit 3 layers of ERA, reducing the penetration by 420mm this is not the same as real life tests where the projectile was only effected by 2 layers. Of course it does not penetrate. This is the volumetric effect I was talking about. Here is what I am talking about:

I highly recommend people to do their own tests in the protection analysis keeping the 3 tile volumetric thing in mind, you will find that the ERA provides only close to around 300mm of kinetic protection, and does not match the results of the tests.

The reality is that even with DM13, the ERA does not reduce the penetration enough for the shell to not penetrate the first layer. Each ERA tile should provide roughly 190-200mm instead of 140mm of kinetic protection to achieve the results of the tests.

I would appreciate it if Ralin my friend, you would stop gas-lighting people by providing one off screenshots of volumetric or pixel hits where the steel plate is not penetrated.

@Ralin

• You’re not using the normalized penetration of the 3BM42 (457mm at 0 meters)

Why the hell would I use the 0 degree penetration of BM42 when the plate being hit is at 50 degrees, and the ERA tiles being hit are at 80 degrees, are you saying that because there is a 4mm structural steel cover on the ERA module that BM42 magically losses 100mm penetration?

If you continue to deny reality and engage in dishonest analysis of the armour, I will stop responding to you because I do not like wasting my time.

[Gambittv1]

Also I think the gap for the space in-between the oplots ERA is too big.

Here is the link to the video: https://youtu.be/zhPZOU_iS1E?si=_b5BIa4BeRr0DAp3

[Ralin]

@ARC_Convoy_77

Please use maths to determine what 60 sloped at 50 degrees comes out to. (It’s 93)

This is the thickness of the plate, not how much equivalent it gives, taking into account all the multipliers.

There is actually HHA and a multilayer barrier, which will give several multipliers to the final equivalent, which is not less than 120 mm.

@ARC_Convoy_77

What are you even talking about? A 60mm penetration will be 60mm, in the turret there is still composite material behind the steel, it’s not air that will just suddenly make the steel weak

If you don’t understand that the sheet has the property of breaking from the inside, making it easier to break through compared to an endless barrier, then I won’t explain it to you.

If the plate in the photo were 10 times thicker, there would be no cracks and the indentation would be smaller.

@ARC_Convoy_77

is not the same as real life tests where the projectile was only effected by 2 layers.

How did you determine that?

@ARC_Convoy_77

Why the hell would I use the 0 degree penetration of BM42 when the plate being hit is at 50 degrees,

Because all durability figures in the game are specified for penetration at 0 degrees.

When you aim at something, the game transforms the penetration of the projectile at an angle and the armor at an angle so that you see the equivalent at 0 degrees.

Therefore, all armor durability values are normalized.

Any figures such as 140 mm or 120 mm from the DZ are written taking normalization into account, so if you want to subtract them from the shell’s penetration, which is essentially incorrect anyway, you must do so from the penetration at 0 degrees.

[ARC_Convoy_77]

@Ralin

This is the thickness of the plate, not how much equivalent it gives, taking into account all the multipliers.

There is actually HHA and a multilayer barrier, which will give several multipliers to the final equivalent, which is not less than 120 mm.

Armour

Here are the multipliers for armour. None of these are high enough to turn 93mm into 120mm. Modern HHRA makes it 102mm.

@Ralin

If the plate in the photo were 10 times thicker, there would be no cracks and the indentation would be smaller.

Firstly, BM Oplot’s armour does not have a single 60mm plate with nothing behind it, as you are trying to claim with your picture. It has composite armour behind it which would support the plate when encountering penetration.

Secondly, You have not proven that the module in the tests does not have spacing or other materials between layers. You have just assumed that it was made of steel entirely. As you can see from your own picture, it is possible to penetrate the depth of a steel plate without achieving penetration.

Since the module is supposed to simulate the BM Oplot, perhaps it used a 60mm plate with some composite or air gaps inside. And the projectile penetrated 60mm deep but was not enough to break through as the plate deformed to stop it.

Even if the 60mm plate in the test module was providing more protection, the armour in game is still underperforming, as the first plate can be penetrated by DM13. You are ignoring your own tests and bringing in random theories to justify things.

@Ralin

How did you determine that?

Duplet fires in one direction. If the bottom part of the tile is hit, it will not effect the projectile, only the other two that it encounters on its path, while in war thunder, this is not modelled, and a third tile in the path will effect the projectile no matter how or where it was impacted.

@Ralin

Because all durability figures in the game are specified for penetration at 0 degrees.

When you aim at something, the game transforms the penetration of the projectile at an angle and the armor at an angle so that you see the equivalent at 0 degrees.

Therefore, all armor durability values are normalized.

Any figures such as 140 mm or 120 mm from the DZ are written taking normalization into account, so if you want to subtract them from the shell’s penetration, which is essentially incorrect anyway, you must do so from the penetration at 0 degrees.

This theory does not match in game testing.

[Ralin]

@ARC_Convoy_77

Here are the multipliers for armour. None of these are high enough to turn 93mm into 120mm. Modern HHRA makes it 102mm.

expired data

@ARC_Convoy_77

Firstly, BM Oplot’s armour does not have a single 60mm plate with nothing behind it, as you are trying to claim with your picture. It has composite armour behind it which would support the plate when encountering penetration.

The textolite behind the plate won’t prevent the back layer from chipping.

@ARC_Convoy_77

Secondly, You have not proven that the module in the tests does not have spacing or other materials between layers. You have just assumed that it was made of steel entirely. As you can see from your own picture, it is possible to penetrate the depth of a steel plate without achieving penetration.

it’s completely obvious that there are just 3 layers of steel here.

This doesn’t look like a tower design. Don’t reduce the dialogue to absurdity.

@ARC_Convoy_77

This theory does not match in game testing.

It matches. Our 829A2 has over 700mm of LOS penetration at 60 degrees, but when fired at the T-80U’s 640mm armor, you’ll see a yellow indicator, as 640mm of protection is a transformed equivalent relative to 629mm of penetration at 0 degrees, not 68 degrees.

[30x170_APDS-T]

RedEffect made a GREAT video about the armor plate on the face of the hull, I really wants people to take a look at it (only 75k views…)

- YouTube

It explins that for some reason it is maybe missing on some T84 IRL and Gaijin didn’t put it in. But My point of view is that in the case of ERA we saw that loads of T series died because their relikt and Contakt were empty or filled with isolant or stupid things, but it still is explosive in game.
My point is that production takes out some details and we still put them in game so why not that plate…

[Ralin]

@30x170_APDS-T

It explins that for some reason it is maybe missing on some T84 IRL and Gaijin didn’t put it in

The T-84 has a completely different UFP.

In general, if the BTVT diagram is correct, then the 50mm plate should certainly be there. The problem is that I never provided a full version of the diagram to confirm its accuracy.

However, the problem will remain – since there are photos from tests where the 3BM42 penetrated the UFP up to the rear layer, changing the armor composition will not change the overall protection. The settings will remain such that a hit in the game will replicate the test result.

[CharAznable3]

I think people believe the OPLOT is supposed to be invincible. I find it does it’s job in a it’s remarkably unremarkable.