The BM Oplot-T Is... Concerning

[Ralin]

@ARC_Convoy_77

I have already told you that exaggerations should not be considered, for example, I don’t believe 90% of BM42 is a realistic value. But it is the official stated value by the manufacturer and academic reports.

its not. Pls show it.

@ARC_Convoy_77

As we saw in tests, Duplet reduces BM42 by 78%. Here are my calculations if you missed them: Was the OPLOT-M armor supposed to be like this? - #35 by ARC_Convoy_77

I disagree with your assessment of the angle. It’s much more acute. About 70 degrees, maybe 75.

@ARC_Convoy_77

These numbers are for Nizh module, not Duplet, it only has a single layer of ERA tiles and presumably a steel plate beneath it from the diagram. In game we don’t have a nizh module.

@ARC_Convoy_77

You yourself claim this brochure has incorrect data

The data there is incorrect only for other ERAs. It’s obviously created for advertising purposes, or it’s unclear where it came from. For example, at the time this table was created, Ukraine couldn’t have had the Relic for testing, meaning the data was simply made up for some reason.

The Blazer is no longer found anywhere, and they couldn’t have had it either, meaning they were using some old data.

I have no reason to doubt the ratio of protection between the Duplet and the Nizh, especially since all other sources confirm this.

@ARC_Convoy_77

The website does not even state which ERA element is used in this modernization, ХСЧКВ-34, 19?

19 Never used in UFP. Your knowledge of the subject is very superficial, which leads to misunderstandings.

@ARC_Convoy_77

Please try to understand that the protection values in game are not realistic. 3BM42’s penetration was reduced to 120mm (60mm on normal) from 550mm (in-game value for 60 degree angle at 100m.)

Do you have data that the 3BM42 should penetrate 550mm?

I’m simply astounded. You have no knowledge of the matter, no sources, yet you looked it up online and are telling me what’s wrong with the game. And you’re even citing outlandish figures.

In the game, the 3BM42 penetrates 524mm at 60 degrees at 100m. Where’s the 120mm less?

@ARC_Convoy_77

Here I have created a visualization of the UFP armour with accurately measured lengths and spaces according to blueprints and ERA dimensions.

These two do not work because the projectile breaks them on impact before they can work.

Moreover, do you know how many mm of steel HEAT knives penetrate? On average, 0.5-0.9 times the crater diameter.

Multiply 34мм by that. And remember, uranium/tungsten scrap will be twice as difficult to cut.

@ARC_Convoy_77

Laslty, Even if you disagree with this analysis, please think about supporting the addition of the 50mm plate, whose existence has been proved through the available blueprint drawing

Photos of the UFP penetrated to the rear plate behind the ERA have already been shown.
Everything else is irrelevant until this fact is refuted.

[Savage-SRC]

@Ralin

Moreover, do you know how many mm of steel HEAT knives penetrate? On average, 0.5-0.9 times the crater diameter.

Multiply 34мм by that. And remember, uranium/tungsten scrap will be twice as difficult to cut.

With such calculations in mind, the default Nizh complex would be nearly useless.

As you stated before, Nizh complex is 15mm front + 50mm back plating (there is also some plate between Nizh insert and add-on armor, say 5mm), thus resulting in approximately 70mm of RHA (even though it would rather be HHRHA with 1.3x efficency).

With that in mind, these 70mm are @ 68° angle, thus resulting in 186mm of LoS armor.
And again, according to previous calculations, 204mm LoS protection for whole thing, 186mm of which are from extra plating, which results in…

18mm KE protection from insert itself?

Yeah, it does align with Nizh insert hollow-charge penetration values you can calculate via your approach, but at this point one question arises:

What’s the point of Nizh if it can stop only a couple dozen mm of KE penetration and its CE protection is almost equal to that of K-1?

And with that in mind, try to calculate insert efficency in Duplet this time.

Numbers don’t align with such train of thinking, do they?

[ARC_Convoy_77]

@Savage-SRC@psn

I tried this approach. He replied in a manner that tile would fuse and jets from Nizh would be much quicker than the entirety of projectile going through the dampener/steel plate, thus only like 2 knives would effectively influence the projectile, with the rest loosing most if not all energy to going through the dampener.

Well as you can see in the visualization, when the ERA fuses, the penetrator is affected by a total of 4 charges if we disregard the first one. All 4 of these charges are going through either 0 or 15ish mm of steel. Only the last two jets are going through more steel. The ERA does not fuse before the dampener has been penetrated, the argument that the APFSDS is not fast enough does not really make sense cause even if we say that it is paused in time, still, only two charges loose effectiveness compared to the first tile.

[UMBRAL_STALKER-psn]

Don’t you think the side duplet era is underperforming? Even though it has the same stats as relikt, it doesn’t behave like it (interfering with the trajectory of the rod). Inaccuracy?

[Savage-SRC]

@ARC_Convoy_77

All 4 of these charges are going through either 0 or 15ish mm of steel.

Sure, but you forgot to calculate how much do these knives pen, and something tells me they shouldn’t even leave a proper scratch on projectile with what Ralin states for knives hollow-charge effect.

[ARC_Convoy_77]

@Ralin

I disagree with your assessment of the angle. It’s much more acute. About 70 degrees, maybe 75.

Duplet is mounted on the ERA block at about 60 degrees, not 70 or 75, it is fired upon by BM42 at an angle where the projectile encounters the ERA block at almost 0 degrees horizontally. I don’t have access to tools to check it right now.

@Ralin

I have no reason to doubt the ratio of protection between the Duplet and the Nizh, especially since all other sources confirm this.

ARC_Convoy_77:

Other sources such as?

@Ralin

I’m simply astounded. You have no knowledge of the matter, no sources, yet you looked it up online and are telling me what’s wrong with the game. And you’re even citing outlandish figures.

In the game, the 3BM42 penetrates 524mm at 60 degrees at 100m. Where’s the 120mm less?

ARC_Convoy_77:

You can try to insult me all you want. Just because I got the values of BM42 wrong doesn’t mean my assessment is completely wrong.

I don’t have 24/7 access to a computer so I looked online for penetration figures of BM42 in game, I found the wrong one.

Even with 524mm, the penetration reduction is ~404mm of BM42 by Duplet.

60mm on the normal. At approximately 60 degrees. Not 70 or 75, you can clearly see the angle it’s fired upon in the tests.

Minus the 10mm rha dampener in game, the tiles should give around 190mm protection each in game.

@Ralin

These two do not work because the projectile breaks them on impact before they can work.

This does not matter since it also happens on the first tile. We are comparing the effectiveness of the second layer to the first layer.

@Ralin

Moreover, do you know how many mm of steel HEAT knives penetrate? On average, 0.5-0.9 times the crater diameter.

Multiply 34мм by that. And remember, uranium/tungsten scrap will be twice as difficult to cut.

The main reason Nizh/Duplet works is because it deforms the projectile and changes it’s trajectory; it almost never cuts it unless it’s a very old projectile of steel. The deformed projectile is unable to effectively penetrate the base armour.

@Ralin

Photos of the UFP penetrated to the rear plate behind the ERA have already been shown.
Everything else is irrelevant until this fact is refuted.

I literally did not ask about the penetration but ok. Why do you refuse to support the addition of the 50mm plate even if you want to subtract its values from the ERA tiles?

[Ralin]

@Savage-SRC@psn

With that in mind, these 70mm are @ 68° angle, thus resulting in 186mm of LoS armor.
And again, according to previous calculations, 204mm LoS protection for whole thing, 186mm of which are from extra plating, which results in…

18mm KE protection from insert itself?

You’re forgetting that the APFSDS is better at penetrating sloped armor, and your calculations are incorrect. 204mm is a normalized value. In fact, against the APFSDS at a 68-degree angle, it would be greater.

[Savage-SRC]

@ARC_Convoy_77

I literally did not ask about the penetration but ok. Why do you refuse to support the addition of the 50mm plate even if you want to subtract its values from the ERA tiles?

The answer appears to be in a form of “even if devs agreed to make it 50mm HHRHA, it wouldn’t change the fact 3BM42 reaching the back plate, thus addition of extra plate would just make ERA provide 0mm KE protection as it shows combined protection”.

[ARC_Convoy_77]

Yes but that also means that when the ERA is triggered, the effectiveness is not reduced. Just like any other tank in game, RHA should not be degraded unless it is added as a feature to all tanks.

[Ralin]

@ARC_Convoy_77

Duplet is mounted on the ERA block at about 60 degrees, not 70 or 75, it is fired upon by BM42 at an angle where the projectile encounters the ERA block at almost 0 degrees horizontally. I don’t have access to tools to check it right now.

What matters is the angle at which the armor was actually penetrated. And that angle is much greater. You should be looking at the penetration angle, not the initial shot angle.

@ARC_Convoy_77

Other sources such as?

UkrOboronProm Catalogs, Data on Duplet-2M and Nozh-1M (I know they’re slightly different, but the concept is essentially the same. The ERAs are extremely close and, at best, differ in material, and the correlation is the same. 90% for Duplet-2M versus 3BM15 and 80% for Nozh-1M)

@ARC_Convoy_77

Even with 524mm, the penetration reduction is ~404mm of BM42 by Duplet.

60mm on the normal. At approximately 60 degrees. Not 70 or 75, you can clearly see the angle it’s fired upon in the tests.

You’re doing some really weird math and mixing up the numbers. 60mm at a normal angle of 70 degrees (my opinion) is 175mm LOS.

The initial shot was fired at ~60 degrees relative to the ERA.
524 - 175 = 349. That’s 66% of the 3BM42. In the game, you have 64% for the 3BM42.

@ARC_Convoy_77

This does not matter since it also happens on the first tile. We are comparing the effectiveness of the second layer to the first layer.

This is important because the ratio changes. Five knives are active in the first layer, while two or three are in the second (one already penetrates more than 15, but theoretically can still reach the projectile).

@ARC_Convoy_77

The main reason Nizh/Duplet works is because it deforms the projectile and changes it’s trajectory; it almost never cuts it unless it’s a very old projectile of steel. The deformed projectile is unable to effectively penetrate the base armour.

I was saying that the effective power of such a knife is very low, its own armor is a huge problem for it, as is causing serious damage to the tungsten core.

@ARC_Convoy_77

Why do you refuse to support the addition of the 50mm plate even if you want to subtract its values from the ERA tiles?

I’m not against it at all, but in X-ray, it will interfere with identifying the bottom layer of the ERA, and it won’t change anything other than the visuals.

People will continue to make incorrect calculations and get the impression that the HSCHKV doesn’t work, because that’s where they decided to calculate each module layer separately (for some reason, no one else has ever had this idea for any ERA in the game).

[it_not_FUBAR]

Maybe refining the internal structure of the era will help

[jwalsh448896774]

is the side duplet supposed to deflect rounds like on the t-90m? Because in my experience it rarely if at all ever deflects.

[Savage-SRC]

Hmm, if it is indeed so, mind explaining more in detail how did you reach 204mm normalised protection in these calculations:

@Ralin

In this case, the figure is for the T-72A.
340mm of base armor * 0.6 = 204mm. This 204mm includes the HSChKV, two covers above and below it, and a welded plate of about 50mm.

So, the HSChKV-34 + 60-80mm of steel gives 204mm.

Because I can’t stand where did you take 340mm normalised T-72A base armor, or does it mean it’s 340mm total armor with Nizh included, of which 204mm stands for Nizh?

[Ralin]

@ARC_Convoy_77

Yes but that also means that when the ERA is triggered, the effectiveness is not reduced.

What do you mean?

[Ralin]

Look. 340mm of protection for the T-72A is the equivalent of a 0-degree angle for modern ammunition. The old MBT armor table even specified which ammunition it was protected against. The M774 was considered modern, the 3BM22 was old. It offered more protection against the old ammunition.

340mm of protection doesn’t mean that many millimeters of steel are present at a given angle.

The game calculates the protection at an angle, then calculates the % protection against ammunition at that same angle, and then takes that % from the ammunition’s penetration at 0 degrees. This way, you get a more consistent view of the protection.

Otherwise, you wouldn’t understand why you can penetrate 528mm at 60 degrees, but if you’re shooting at straight armor, 457 would be yellow for the 3BM42.

---

That’s why I used the normalized 340mm and calculated the same normalized protection for the Nozh: 204mm. For example, I remember that the DM33, which penetrates 481mm at 0 degrees, penetrates 600mm at 68 degrees.
Accordingly, the knife would provide 204/481 = 42.5% protection against it. In fact, when fired at 68 degrees, it would reduce penetration by 600 x 0.425 = 255mm, not 204.

[ARC_Convoy_77]

@Ralin

What matters is the angle at which the armor was actually penetrated. And that angle is much greater. You should be looking at the penetration angle, not the initial shot angle.

ARC_Convoy_77:

This angle is increased because APFSDS trajectory changes when it encounters sloped armour that it does not have enough energy to penetrate see here:

this is not modelled in game, the impact angle of the projectile was still 60 degrees and when the projectile could not penetrate this plate, it changed trajectory outwards and appears to have a 70 or 75 degree angle. 60mm on the normal was observed with a 60 degree impact angle. If the impact angle on the base armour was 70 degrees, then it would have to be angled where the entirety of the ERA block would be triggered.

See if this was the angle of impact, the projectile would have also hit the ERA block that was not triggered. The projectile was roughly aligned with the ERA bricks, around 60 degrees in this case.

@Ralin

Data on Duplet-2M and Nozh-1M (I know they’re slightly different, but the concept is essentially the same.

Yes the concept is the same but the elements have the same small charges as model 19 elements, these should just not be compared to model 34 elements.

@Ralin

175mm LOS.

LOS should still be 120 as that was the impact angle on the armour. If the projectile was modeled to change trajectory in game, then we could try to calculate the changed penetration, however the projectile impacted at 60 degrees and only achieved 60mm on the normal.

@Ralin

and it won’t change anything other than the visuals.

@Ralin

What do you mean?

Even if you think 50mm plate does not provide any extra armour because the second ERA provides low protection due to it, it should be modelled separately.

In game, no tanks have weakening of RHA armour when it is impacted. By including the values of this RHA in the ERA tiles, when they are impacted and detonated, the RHA value is also reduced. This would not happen if the RHA plate is modelled separately from the ERA. Unless RHA degradation on impact is added as a feature to all vehicles, BM Oplot should not receive such a feature.

[Savage-SRC]

@Ralin

The game calculates the protection at an angle, then calculates the % protection against ammunition at that same angle, and then takes that % from the ammunition’s penetration at 0 degrees. This way, you get a more consistent view of the protection.

Can you please provide an example with actual numbers, not just words?

Because from these words alone I hardly understand the formula, because that way statcards gives like 20% of proper information.

[Ralin]

@ARC_Convoy_77

this is not modelled in game, the impact angle of the projectile was still 60 degrees and when the projectile could not penetrate this plate, it changed trajectory outwards and appears to have a 70 or 75 degree angle. 60mm on the normal was observed with a 60 degree impact angle. If the impact angle on the base armour was 70 degrees, then it would have to be angled where the entirety of the ERA block would be triggered.

See if this was the angle of impact, the projectile would have also hit the ERA block that was not triggered. The projectile was roughly aligned with the ERA bricks, around 60 degrees in this case.

It doesn’t matter at what angle the shell hit the ERA. What matters is the angle at which it penetrated the armor. That’s where we should calculate the LOS.

For armor, it’s about 70

@ARC_Convoy_77

Yes the concept is the same but the elements have the same small charges as model 19 elements, these should just not be compared to model 34 elements.

You have no reason to believe that only “small” charges are used there.
However, this makes no difference; the ratio is the same.

@ARC_Convoy_77

LOS should still be 120 as that was the impact angle on the armour. If the projectile was modeled to change trajectory in game, then we could try to calculate the changed penetration, however the projectile impacted at 60 degrees and only achieved 60mm on the normal.

You have no reason to believe that the angle of arrival was 60. In my opinion, the core was deflected by the ERA and entered at an angle of 70 degrees.

@ARC_Convoy_77

Even if you think 50mm plate does not provide any extra armour because the second ERA provides low protection due to it, it should be modelled separately.

In game, no tanks have weakening of RHA armour when it is impacted. By including the values of this RHA in the ERA tiles, when they are impacted and detonated, the RHA value is also reduced. This would not happen if the RHA plate is modelled separately from the ERA. Unless RHA degradation on impact is added as a feature to all vehicles, BM Oplot should not receive such a feature.

In the game, the protection between the layers is already distributed evenly, which can easily be reflected by 50mm RHA.

You won’t get different numbers because if you’re simulating 50mm RHA, the second layer of ERA will be almost ineffective in maintaining the numbers. You’ll still get roughly 140 and 140, but for the first layer, the greater contribution will come from the HSCHKV, and for the second, from the RHA.

[Ralin]

@Savage-SRC@psn

Can you please provide an example with actual numbers, not just words?

Here’s an example. The 3BM42 offers less protection, despite having the same amount of steel.
The reason is that the 3BM42 penetrates at a greater angle than the 3BM22, so when normalizing the 0-degree equivalent, the armor value appears to be lower, even though the actual penetration is greater.

[ARC_Convoy_77]

@Ralin

It doesn’t matter at what angle the shell hit the ERA. What matters is the angle at which it penetrated the armor. That’s where we should calculate the LOS.

For armor, it’s about 70

ARC_Convoy_77:

It hit the armour at 60 degrees, the angle appears to be 70 degrees because when the projectile was defeated, it went outwards (followed the angle of the slope)

@Ralin

You have no reason to believe that only “small” charges are used there.
However, this makes no difference; the ratio is the same.

The only render of Duplet 2M elements show small charges, same as in model 19. This also makes sense because the weight matches with smaller charged model 19 element. Nothing suggests this will provide similar protection to model 34.

@Ralin

the core was deflected by the ERA and entered at an angle of 70 degrees.

ERA is angled at 68 degrees in the vertical plane. The only way the ERA could effect the trajectory is make it go upwards, the angle of impact to the base armour would still be 60 degrees.

Again, this change of trajectory is not modelled in game. Even if the trajectory changed by the ERA, the reduction in penetration due to this change of trajectory should also be included in the armour value. LOS penetration is only 120mm, it does not matter how or where the trajectory changes in the ERA tiles. The projectile was fired at a 60 degree angle and was only left with 120mm penetration.

@Ralin

In the game, the protection between the layers is already distributed evenly, which can easily be reflected by 50mm RHA.

You won’t get different numbers because if you’re simulating 50mm RHA, the second layer of ERA will be almost ineffective in maintaining the numbers. You’ll still get roughly 140 and 140, but for the first layer, the greater contribution will come from the HSCHKV, and for the second, from the RHA.

I don’t know if you are intentionally ignoring my point but please try reading what I wrote again. I am saying that even if in your opinion, the overall protection would remain the same, this plate should still be modelled because when the armour is impacted in game, both ERA tiles trigger and that spot is left without the armour provided by that 50mm plate (because it’s included in ERA which just detonated). This kind of degradation of RHA armour should not be modelled for BM Oplot because it is not modelled for any other vehicle in game.