Like i said, treat them like you would any other russian bot. Simply dont reply and theyll get board and leave.
2 Likes
УПМ им. В.О. ХИТРИКА and БЦКТ ‘Микротек’ are two different companies.
HKChPWSH elements were never installed on the BM Oplot tank (we don’t even know what they look like in real life).
The BM Oplot tank is fitted with ХСЧКВ 34(KhSCHKV-34) elements from company БЦКТ ‘Микротек’, and completely different specifications are claimed for them.
2 Likes
Because Gaijin revisits vehicles after initial release only in two cases:
- Additional information was provided, which we unfortunately so far don’t have.
As I mentioned Gaijin rely on the results of the domestic trials. Issue with those is that those are basically estimates, and estimates varry, unfortunately Gaijin decided to go with the lowest possible one. Furthermore the current Duplet performance matches the broshure you are using.
457 (3BM42 pen from 0 m at 90°) * 0.6 = 274, while ingame Duplet at 68° provides 279. - Like in case of Abrams - sizeble outcry, which, unfortunately, we won’t be able to make.
Oplot is not the only tank that suffers from “being abandoned” many top MBTs also have bug reports pending for years.
1 Like
“Completely different”
What are the chances that anything will ever change? In my opinion, we might as well shove these documents right down Gaijin’s throat, because it won’t change a thing anyway. I have some materials on this issue, but I don’t even see the point in posting them here, since it’s completely useless. It’s like talking to a wall
When one is added to the soviet trch tree
If Ukraine will be added (probably in Soviet tree or a European tree), strong emphasis on if, we will probably see a revaluation of the Oplot. I don’t think they’re interested in fixing it right now.
We are a very small minority of the player base and currently its issues only effect small amount of players. I think the technical moderators have just been instructed to not accept any reports about the armour. Even currently accepted reports have not been implemented.
Maybe if they wanna market a new tree/subtree they’ll improve its performance.
1 Like
Or just it’s because it is in a minor nation.
2 Likes
Yeah unfortunately they don’t treat it the same as major vehicles that a lot of people play. Although Abrams is def an exception to that.
The reason behind the double standards is most likely just that it’s not important enough (probably along with bias against certain nations)
It is a nonsense.
Then why is every report about armour ignored. I even posted one as you suggested trying to match the effectiveness of the in game model to the test footage on the turret, but it was not accepted. I can’t think of any other reason for this.
Well, that is, they are not ignored.
Reports based on assumptions are not accepted. If the data doesn’t contradict the game data or is vague, it won’t be accepted.
Furthermore, the developers know literally everything they use as a source.
The only thing that can really be reported with sufficiently accurate data is the turret’s durability.
1 Like
potato, potahto
And it still was not accepted
I didn’t watch how you compiled the report, and I wasn’t the one responding to it.
I didn’t say I thought it was reviewed correctly or that report was clearly written.
I had sent you the entire text of what I reported before doing it. If you want I can send it again. Maybe review it and I can make changes to post it again.
Shouldn’t all Russian MBTs basically have this coverage considering ERA has far lower effectiveness around the edges of it? But only the Oplot does seemingly.
Some interesting analysis in this video. Of course it’s nothing “official” but it does affirm a lot of previously made assumptions in this thread.
Firstly, It explains how segmented core APFSDSs avoids the bending effect caused by ERA and makes them more effective against ERA. (So the assumption that Duplet is more effective against monoblock projectiles like OFL120F1 and 3BM60 than it is against 3BM42 may actually have truth behind it. The principle behind this assumption is clear.)
Secondly, it shows how some ERA are more capable of defeating the anti ERA tipped APFSDS such as M829A3. Basically the detonated ERA is long so they are able to effect the body of the APFSDS. We know that when Duplet is detonated in game, the entire row or at least half of it is fired. This is definitely as long as relict and longer than Kontakt 5. So it should be able to effect anti ERA APFSDS just like Relict can. However gaijin has modelled it to be weaker against such projectiles just like Kontakt 5.
2 Likes
I analyzed these two screenshots of the in game model:
If you overlay them, you can see something interesting
There’s ERA missing in these two spots, right next to the big soviet driver weak-spot, making the weakness larger than other soviet vehicles. There’s clearly enough space for more ERA there:
Another thing I notice is that there appears to be enough space for another layer of ERA on the UFP’s top layer:
I don’t know how gaijin modelled the placement of the ERA but if these two changes are made the weak spot can be significantly reduced.
2 Likes
One more thing of note:
The ‘ribs’ between ERA on the in game model are perfectly straight pieces, but in images of the real UFP, they are thicker on the bottom:
This leaves extra space between the ERA and the ribs that can be easily penetrated, increasing the chances of shots penetrating the UFP, even with something as bad as DM23:
7 Likes