But as shown on the screenshots in my previous message, Type 10 has same protection eqivalent as 3BM42 in the same place with same conditions.
But that’s a different percentage of protection against it.
You have over 100% protection against 3BM42 and less than 100% against Type 10.
Thats just difference in penetration, the “Equivalent protection against specified ammo” is the same for both - 605mm.
(Sorry for the revival of this one, haven’t read this page in a while and this was the first new post for me)
The ERA on the sideskirts should be 4S23 K-5, not Relikt. It seems as if it’s an issue with display logic, as once you apply the 4S24 kit you have the correct numbers.
You’re also going to see lower kinetic protection for additional ERA, as they’re the lighter 4S24 compound typically associated with the Karkas kit and named as Kaktus. 4S24U is what was designed to be used with reflective plates, usually found on the turret and hull.
So what? How does this contradict the idea that ERA provides different percentages of protection against different projectiles?
This is fully implemented in the game.
Getting the exactly same Equivalent protection for any two rounds would be a mathematical miracle, and ingame we have the exact same protection for ALL rounds. The protection offered by armor is fixed value but ERA is % based. Just for the sake of simplicty lets take imagined numbers -
3BM42: 300(Armor) + (50% of 528) = 564
Type 10: 300 + (50% of 712) = 656
Even if efficiency for Type 10(and any other round) is different there is no way you’ll get the same final Equivalent protection for all of them.
What you referring to is that ingame ERA % effectiveness for each round is adjusted in that way so that final Equivalent protection is the same as for 3BM42 but it is not how it should work.
In the game, ERA provides protection in millimeters rather than percentages of APFSD.
This is a perfectly normal assessment, since the percentage is directly related to the “flat” value.
I don’t understand what you’re doing. You yourself complain that ERA gives the same percentage of protection against different shells in the game (although this is not the case). And then you come up with these calculations yourself. A priori, ERA cannot give the same percentage of protection against very different shells.
Let’s take some hypothetical figures in X-rays (they are far from accurate):
280 mm of flat protection.
That’s 61.2% protection against 3bM42 (280/457) and 45.5% against Type 10 (280/615).
Literally different % of protection from different shells
What nonsense is mixed up here. Incorrect shell penetration, incorrect base armor.
1 Like
Whatever excuses you make and screenshots you provide of one off non pens, you cannot explain why in game tests do not match the footage. When encountering 2 ERA blocks, even DM13 at 1000m penetrates the 60mm plate of the turret armour in game. In real life DM13 would be almost completely stopped by Duplet. You cannot get around the fact that equal to or more than 400mm of kinetic penetration was stopped in the test footage. The armour in game simply does not provide the same protection. It is about 100mm less.
1 Like
No, I already said that 60mm HHA at an angle slightly more than 50 degrees in a multi-layer barrier provides much more protection than 57mm (457-400)
Cheers
Do you ever get tired of bad faith arguments?
3BM42 penetrates more than 500mm at 50 degrees both in game and real life, you have yourself made this clear several times in the past.
Only 93mm residual penetration means more than 400mm was stopped, close to 430mm (524-93).
But let’s say because the test footage had the module with multiple steel layers so it’s stronger than the 60mm turret plate in game. You said that maybe a 60mm penetration would actually be stopped by 70 or 80mm plate without support.
Let’s say that it’s 80mm (pure speculation), since BM42 has 524mm penetration at 100m, this means the actual residual penetration was 124mn exactly. So still 400mm was stopped.
There is no way around the numbers, 400mm or more was stopped. You magically want to give the test footage more residual penetration than what was recorded and still 400mm was stopped. In reality it was 430mm.
Also since I know you are just gonna bring up some other poor excuse that doesn’t make sense, I would like to point you towards several other issues with the vehicle in game, such as the misaligned AA Machine gun, its limited traverse limits, the remaining armour holes, and the inability of Duplet to stop ATGMs that it should be capable of stopping. Most of these have already been mentioned on the ru Forum. Perhaps you can use your CM role to fix the vehicle in these other ways if you are unable to comprehend how its armour works.
What should a single nizh block of protection be? Like at 160 or 180 of ke protection and 550 to 600 for chemical.
If we take the test footage at face value, it should be roughly >200mm KE protection.
However, if Ralin’s theory- that the 60mm plate provides more protection due to multiple plates behind it, holds water, which I will concede, does make some theoretical sense (idk about 80mm tho), then the protection should be between 180-190mm against KE.
As for protection against chemical munitions, I don’t really know. Right now the ERA seems to be broken and doesn’t stop warheads it should be able to even with the nerfed tiles. Neither have I done as extensive research on the chemical protection as I have on KE. So I don’t really know what those values should be.
1 Like
I love your explanation and i hope they do fix it.
2 Likes
Some random video i found about duplet ERA.
Heres the site of the creators and has some information about duplet.
- Commander gun still bugged: Community Bug Reporting System
- Missing UFP armor plate between the two stacks of Duplet. How is the ERA just floating?: Community Bug Reporting System
- Duplet side ERA not deflecting APFSDS rounds, even Kontak-5 does it better: Community Bug Reporting System
Community Bug Reporting System - Gaijin still thinks Olot-T use Duplet-2M: Community Bug Reporting System
- Gun elevation somehow worse than t80ud despite having an upgraded stabilizer: Community Bug Reporting System
Community Bug Reporting System
So many issues. Nice double standards Gaijin
3 Likes
Let me reiterate: the game displays normalized armor penetration/resistance at a 0-degree angle everywhere.
Therefore, you can’t calculate penetration at an angle and then try to pass it off as a normalized result.
Are you even going to take into account the coefficients for steel and multilayer barriers?
Perhaps if the penetration rate was 93mm in a wooden barrier, you would also equate it to steel?
You simply can’t correctly calculate the residual penetration of a shell. Until you learn how, you’ll never succeed.
I repeat, a 60mm turret plate provides equivalent protection of 120mm+, so the ERA protection is: 454 - 120 = 334mm at best.
This isn’t a theory. I literally told you how it works in the game.