By the way just realized that regardless of what is inbetween two layers of ERA, there at the very least should be about 10mm of HHRA that serves as divider between layers (extaly red lines, not what inbetween them). @Ralin what do you think? From what I can tell we are missing those, strangely we have 30mm structural steel that is IN the socket, but not the socket walls(well in this case roof and floor).
Yes, you might think so based on this photo, but a 10mm HHA is a small margin, and ultimately it doesn’t matter, since the overall stability is still unchallenged.
A 50mm HHA—now that would be something, because it’s a significant change that might (!) (and I emphasize, might) give us reason to reassess the durability of UFP.
I wish Bug Report Managers could read @ARC_Convoy_77 @_KrulciferUa
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/4uQ1STEUSXQm
Vro what the fuck is this 😭😭
Gaijin picking technical moderators from elementary school
I’m not surprised, because they’ve already accepted and implemented a report for the BTR-3E1, where they gave it the vertical guidance angles from the BTR-3E which has a completely different combat module. (Community Bug Reporting System)
(That document literally stated the name and included a photo…)
@ARC_Convoy_77
The calculation contains an error.
In my calculation, I based it on the “base” UFP armor protection value of ±340mm (60mm steel, 30mm textolite, 50mm steel) that we see in-game when fired at with a 3BM42 shell at a 68-degree angle. Based on this, the formula matched what is in the game: (60 * 1.1 / cos68) + (30 * 0.2 / cos68) + (50 * 1.1 / cos68) = 339.022mm (there is no specific modifier for textolite in the table, so the closest one in terms of effectiveness was used).
With a similar calculation for Object 262 with its UFP package (50mm steel, 30mm textolite, 50mm steel, 30mm textolite, 50mm steel): (50 * 1.1 / cos68) + (30 * 0.2 / cos68) + (50 * 1.1 / cos68) + (30 * 0.2 / cos68) + (50 * 1.1 / cos68) = 472.495mm, which is less than the ±510–520mm at 68 degrees that we get in-game.
Also, as an example, for the T-64A with its UFP package (80mm steel, 105mm textolite, 20mm steel) at a 68-degree angle, the formula (80 * 1.0 / cos68) + (105 * 0.2 / cos68) + (20 * 1.0 / cos68) gives 323.005mm. This does not match the protection against the 3BM42 shell (which is ±260mm in-game), but it does match the protection against the 3BM22 shell (which is ±320mm in-game).
Therefore, my calculation shouldn’t be considered correct.
I’ve said many times that the resistance of multilayer barriers can’t be calculated simply by dividing by the cosine and adding the layers together.
Resistance will vary depending on the number of layers, their thickness, the distance between them, etc.
https://web.archive.org/web/20130424013015/http://morozov.com.ua/eng/body/oplot_mbt.php
That’s the link you used,
this is what comes up
huhhhhh… Do they even bother to read correclty anything that is not russian-profitable ?
What do you think are the chances that the BM «Oplot-M» (which was not sold to Pakistan) will get the previously requested (and likely also not sold to Pakistan) «Zaslon» APS? 🌚
Image for illustration purposes only.
No images of it being installed = chances almost 0. Maybe in 5-10 years when game will be dying then maybe.
But that didn’t stop them from adding an unsold tank (not the first time, by the way)…
Probably with a Ukrainian variant
the fact you can overpressure an Oplot by hitting the ERA on the turret with BMPTs Atakas is the most hilarious show of incompetence ive seen yet when it comes to tank modelling and that is saying something.
from what I know it has never been mounted on Oplot, most likely (If it ever comes to game) It will come as a variant of T-64BV in a Ukrainian tree/subtree:
May even be an event vehicle.
BTW, in game, BM Oplot only has the multiplier for a multilayer barrier applied to 2 steel plates, not the 50/35mm plate found between the ERA. If this plate were to be included in the composite armour module, it would also have this multiplier (As it should, since it is being contacted after the projectile has already hit the 16mm cover and 1 layer of ERA), and the armour would improve slightly.
Another issue ive been thinking of with the implementation of Oplot in the game:
Since Duplet’s protection is divided 50/50 into two layers, while in real life only one layer does majority of the work, a projectile that would have been stopped by only one layer (Maybe an older APFSDS round) now destroys both layers. In a realistic scenario, the second layer would remain, still providing majority of the protection that would have been provided by both layers.
For example, For a projectile such as 3BM22, it destroys both layers of duplet in game and exposes the internal composite armour:
While in reality the 16mm plate + First layer of ERA + 50mm plate between ERA layers should easily defeat 3BM22 (As it did in tests against Nizh, only a small dent was left on what would be the 50mm plate in our test)
Additionally, since the layers provide 50-50 protection, a projectile hitting only one plate will not be affected as much as it should be, this is especially bad because it enlarges the Oplot’s driver port weakspot a bit:
Why do you think so?
Your reasoning isn’t entirely correct.
The first layer behind the 15mm plate should provide greater durability, not because it’s the first, but because it’s behind the 15mm plate.
Changing the armor distribution is a debatable improvement.
You’d lose both layers less often, but you’d also lose the first layer to small projectiles and be left with virtually no protection.
This only makes sense if the durability is revised and a 50mm plate is added.
