_______Update on testing Russian Bias on T80BVM: the problem is High Hardness Plates

Background information:

After posting “I calculated Russian bias. Shocking results. Please Read” yesterday, I got a lot of responses. In the replies, RazerVon had been strongly opposing the notion that russian bias exists. He posted a video of testing BVM vs T80U with 3bm46. In that video, the ammo detonation rate was significantly higher than my experiment’s test results. I contacted RazerVon to do another test. In this test, we only counted direct hits to ammo. We excluded any shots that missed the ammo. This was different from my first experiment where I tested for the death rate on first shot through center of mass rather than ammo detonation chance.

Here are the results on a stationary BVM with relikt, 29 rounds in ammo storage.
T80BVM survived 4/20 shots directly to the ammo. 20% survival chance.
Of the 4 shots survived, each time, 2-4 ammo pieces turned black and disappeared.
What is suspicious is how did so many rounds lose all their hp and not detonate. I don’t know how to shoot at only 1 round of ammo in a circular storage system so I am unable to test whether the chance of detonate of a single russian round is the same or does the number of spall impacting a round before it lose all its hp will change the detonation chance.

For the Leopard 2A6 test, the leopard brought 17 rounds, so there is only 1 round in hull storage. We shot at the round in hull storage for more consistent test results.
Leopard 2A6 survived 1/20 shots at the ammo, 5% survival chance.
The ammo turned black and disappeared.

From the screenshot below, you will see how High Hardness steel of BVM side armor reduced spalling significantly when compared to Rolled homogeneous steel as that of the Leopard. We did a few tests and found the upper plate of the Italian mbt Ariete also had similar lack of spalling to the BVM because Ariete’s ufp is also High Hardness steel. It was nowhere as protective as BVM, but the spalling was less that of rolled homologous. It appears thick (60mm<) High Hardness steel on any tank will result in severe lack of spalling.

Now the debate should be is the coefficient of spalling on High Hardness steel the result of bias or did Gaijin overestimated the effectiveness. I don’t have stats to support either case. All I can say from data collected is High Hardness plates reduce spalling by an unbelievable amount, see screenshots.

I think a reason BVM had 52% survival rate for center of mass shot experiment is the lack of spalling that reaches the ammo when I shot near the ammo.

I will upload the entire testing replay at 1x speed if everyone insists. I’m reluctant because screen recording through 40min of replay is a bit much.

Special thanks to RazerVon for the help and research.

Using an online protractor, the degree of spalling on BVM is 20.
The degree of spalling on 2A6 is 95
You can download the screenshots and measure for yourself.

Spalling of DM53 through side of BVM

Spalling of 3BM60 through side of 2A6


We need explanations please


Can you not simply take two rounds in the T80BVM so that you can shoot at just one round?

This is pretty good evidence though that russian bias does exist and the modeling favors russian tanks where it shouldn’t. More rounds hit but less detonations.


There is no such thing as Russian Bias. You can do all the tests you want, but testing means nothing really. You can’t perfectly land all shots the same place, same angel everytime. I get one shot regardless of where a leopard hits me.

And even the american tanks. I’m not going to be dodging bullets like a Ninja, that’s not how you’re good at this game.

You’re good when you spot and hit first, but when none of your rounds matter versus any tank then how are you supposed to play. I haven’t used the BVM yet, but I reached the T-72B3 and its absolutely trash in every possible way. I get one shot by everything, I hit tanks in their most vurlnable spots and nothing happens to them, especially leopards.

You can’t test things in a game that’s so inconsistent its purely based on their poor programming, I once got scratch by a bullet in the front wheel and somehow the fragments made it in some spastic way, they usually do.

But testing you make sure the bullets hit its intended target, which they dont 99% of the time, people just hit where they feel like hitting, and the fragments do whatever.


The forum and my poll show that there is a problem. The BVM is like a Chater Tank (OP). The tank is completely programmed incorrectly. I have scored over 1000 kills with the tank and played against it in 4000 battles. After so many thousand hours of operation, one can easily assume that the tank is too strong (OP). Everyone in the forum is screaming that he is way too strong. Are we all wrong? hahahaah they haven’t even played a round of this tank, it’s just a ridiculous statement.


So Russian bias isn’t real and it has todo with coding of a certain type of metal? Can it be tested on older tanks as well?

Not sure that metal is the problem, must be the ammo code.
I’ve had the same problem a lot with the IS-6, with it’s ammo not exploding while they aren’t protected by metal sheets.

Considering he said certain types of metal reduce spalling, it seems there is junk code in the metals.

Yes but spalling is what I would consider a side problem. The main concern for me is the fact that, when hit, the ammo doesn’t explode and it seems to happen only on certain tanks.

Happens on literally all of them. I can’t count how many times early British solid shot just turns ammo black with no boom.

That’s normal since there is no explosive filler in the projectile of solid shots.
On more modern round, I never once had a problem to destroy a centurion by simply aiming for the front ammo stowage.

Nope, this disproves “Russian bias”.
High hardness armor is used on a number of Italian vehicles including Ariete’s front plate.

@FHX_Beaver @ehj78
High hardness armor above 40mm is hard to find off Soviet tanks, and the thicker it gets the less it spalls.

This is a theory but it might be due to the fact that the side armor is around 80mm thick so gaijin’s spaghetti code thinks it is light tank levels of armor. Another theory for ammo not detonating might be due to each piece of spalling counting toward the percentage for ammo racking a tank, and gaijin thought about that so they made it have a 15% chance with each pellet. However, due to the side armor counting as “light tank” side armor it doesn’t create the spalling needed to ammo rack it. This is all theories though. I still think gaijin really needs to work on russian tanks being so survivable and user friendly still because it has made top tier a slug fest for everyone in their nato tanks against russia.

I get it for the spalling, but why does the ammo explode so rarely ?

Cause it “Wet ammo”
even tho russian tanks tend to detonate anytime something hits the irl
crazy to see that wet ammo in action


Well yes cuz even dating back to the Gulf war, the ammo carousel was THE main flaw of the soviet tank design.

But why does it also happen on the IS-6 ? Cuz clearly it doesn’t have wet ammo stowage.

It’s not wet ammo in the files. Stop spreading this myth.

People missing ammo with their main penetrator is the big reason.
Cause spalling fragments in general won’t cook ammo off if only 1 - a few hit.

1 Like

Yeah that’s the conclusion we had on the other thread too but that’s realy counterintuitive to me.
If the ammo doesn’t explode, then it shoudn’t be marked as destroyed.

even if you hit it with main pen it still doesn’t set it off

and there excuse was “the Russian tanks have wet ammo”

1 Like