Can you try to overlay it on the blueprint of the Duplet module?
I think they’re just gonna again say that tests are unreliable or that the in game performance is the same as tests and I am wrong or something. I will try I guess.
Yea NP, it’s a little hard to get it lined up perfectly since the image is actually rotated about 2 degrees off center and the break in the armor after the sloped portion begins doesn’t leave me a lot of room to work with but I got it as close as I could to the diagram, if course it still doesn’t look right.
Also, that diagram you posted has that center plate between the ERA layers at 50mm thick after I measured it
1 Like
Interesting that it’s slightly different from the earlier drawing. Another one I want to request you to overlay is this one:
This is allegedly from an official report, I have already overlayed it on the blueprint image and it matches perfectly barring the angle a little bit. This one shows the full armour so it’s a better comparison for you, and it also mentions the distances of the various layers:
16mm steel + 50mm air (including ERA) + 50mm steel + 45mm air (including ERA) + 61mm steel + 35mm Textolite + 50mm steel angled. All angled at 68 degrees.
This time the image is a bit lower quality so it isn’t pixel perfect but it’s not hard to work with it, also this array from the alleged official report seems to be missing the 11mm air gap between the textolite and outer rolled armor plate but the position and size of the textolite and inner rolled armor composition is still accurate so it’s not much of a big deal IMO.
Still though the entire mounting setup for the ERA is nothing like what’s in game and, again, the plate between the two layers of Duplet ERA is measured at 50mm thick
1 Like
Yeah the ERA floating on top of the plates and touching the plates above it is complete nonsense. The ERA is placed on the bottom plate with about a 10mm air gap above it.
Also nonsense is the 35mm structural steel. All available reports, factory images and the blueprint shows 50mm RHA.
Here is a funny image I found on the russian forum:
1 Like
man it’s super annoying trying to find images of the mounting pieces for the ERA since every image it seems is either the ERA fully assembled or only with hatches to remove the Duplet bricks removed.
I also wanted to check out some of the sources for information and have PDFs of these two literary sources though I didn’t find anything specific about the armor composition on the Oplot, possibly because the way they were made they aren’t searchable PDFs
- Теория и конструкция танка.– Т. 10. Кн. 2 Комплексная защита
- Защита танков — В.А. Григорян, Е.Г. Юдин, И.И. Терехин и др.; Под ред. В.А. Григоряна
Edit: I just noticed on the image above with the ERA brick sliding out of the cavity it’s mounted in, the brick itself and the plate beneath it are at the same angle in the image and you can clearly see there’s a difference in size between the two
1 Like
Does the Oplot-P have 360° horizontal mg traverse?
Yes, it was reported already I believe
Yup, I did report that on T:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/CmZuGekVa4XC
And the second one in hopes of getting it fixed the next update:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/lGSwPrFqljdi
1 Like
I might have something interesting for you.
This is a diagram of Nizh ERA module. For shaped charges to be effective, they need to be focused on the target, this has to be a few mm above the charges, so it does not make any sense to mount the ERA right on the top plate.
Here is the effect of XSCHKV-19 (less powerful than XSCHKV-34 which is used on the UFP and Turret front) on a 20mm plate. It’s completely penetrated:
It’s very likely that the 50mm plate on top of the second layer of ERA in BM Oplot will not have much effect on its effectiveness against APFSDS.
Credit to Andrei BT for images and explanations
2 Likes
Why?
Idk if you understood what he meant: the main reason why second layer of Nizh would be significantly weaker than the first one is 50mm (or whatever mm greater than 15) plate reducing the power of the said layer.
The first layer would be more or less effective because it only has to go through 15mm HHRHA cover (excluding the thin box of insert itself) instead of 35mm construction steel/HHRHR that would significantly reduce the efficiency of heat charges from “knives” (as to reach the round, most heat jets have to go through plating that covers the layer).
And the main argument from devs was that second layer would be weaker than the first one under any circumstances, was the second layer 35mm construction steel / rubber or 50mm HHRHA which is much sturdier and denser.
Idk how much credibility we can take from the photos alone (because devs take only sources from manufacturers themselves or certified researchers/testers), but if a “knife” from model 19 (ХСЧКВ-19) insert (which is smaller and weaker) can cut through a fair amount of steel, provided there is an N amount of space separating the layer of ERA and cover like btvt explained himself, model 34 should have a much, much greater efficency due to sheer amount of extra explosive and larger hollow charge.
Thus the “knife” from model 34 under 50mm or 35mm cover should have a greater efficency against KE projectiles (and technically CE) as the separating plate does not affect second layer efficency as much as devs (and brochures?) state.
But again, the problems are:
- photographical evidence won’t be accepted if made by third parties (I believe Gaijin doesn’t accept such sources)
- there should be a proof solid enough to state there is enough air gap between the separating plate and second layer to prove the efficency of model 34 insert to be much greater than that of stated / modeled by devs.
1 Like
Depends on what plate in question was penetrated. From photos alone you can tell those ain’t RHA, let alone HHRHA, so I’d very much doubt ХСЧКВ-19 has power enough to cut through the same 20mm RHA plating.
I see
Idk why we discussing this, second Nizh ellement in Duplet provides little additinoal KE protection it is a know thing also stated by Btvt. Also ingame model is shit not because of this but because of wrong calculations altogether.
True. But this bit is just a heads up for those who want to prove “how little exactly does it provide”, which again might reinforce ones opinion on efficency of said armor
1 Like
The problems are that they want someone to leak documents xd (joking)
That’s pretty impressive for such a small shaped charge, it looks like the penetration depth is about 100mm or so for XSCHKV-19. I could only imagine how powerful XSCHKV-34 would be in comparison.
My biggest complaint with there not being images or “official documented information” about the ERA being mounted is that it would be clear and easy to see how it was mounted and the thicknesses of the plates for each layer of the armor but everything is either “speculative” or information, diagrams and accounts from third party sources
I think a bug report could be made about the Duplet bricks being mounted on the wrong part of the whole assembly given there’s so many diagrams of how it’s assembled, pictures taken of the ERA in the brackets mounted to the bottom plate for each layer and the explanations of how it’s supposed to work with the requirement of a standoff distance between the brick and the plates above it but it feels like there’s an automated system on the bug report forums set up to instantly reject any BM Oplot bug reports and either tag it with not enough info or not a bug
1 Like
Well this is a 20mm plate as stated. SRC says prolly not RHA. I can’t deny or confirm tho. Regardless, it is much better than I thought. 34 would be very effective, this is why we see close to 80% penetration reduction.