I never tried to prove there is bias. I just notice that many mismodelling tends to favor russia at top tier, that’s it. proving there is bias requires me to go in the devs head, which, suprisingly i can not do…
Ammo cook off is 15% just like most MBTs (expect for chally 2 and abrams at 50%) nothing to prove again, most people focus on it but it is to me a false problem. Except of course : why do chally and abrams have 50% instead of 15 anyway ?
As for armor, not qualified enough, just saying more modern 120mm would help going through it. I’ll read conraire and sombralix calculations and judge for myself when I have more time.
Where we disagree is spalling. A bit of metal up to 20 mm wide launched at at least several hundreds m/s by the main projectile not penning a 6mm plate requires some new laws of physics simply out of this world. If this spalling could go through that plate, more ammo would be hit, therefore making this 15% chance of ammo cook off less of a problem.
It’s like you didn’t pay attention to the things they were debating there. Because they weren’t disproving him on anything that is important to what we’re arguing about here, which is:
And nothing like this stated in that article anyway.
I love it when people just ignore 90% of the stuff you write.
Actually, maybe we need to come at this the other way.
What proof is there that Russian tank armour WILL protect against insert X NATO shell here.
For example, we’ve seen lots of modern Russian stuff being knocked out by old/legacy APFDS that are used by Uke T-64s. If an elderly Mango round can defeat Kontakt1/5/Relikt - it isn’t a massive jump to suspect that contemporary NATO munitions (munitions designed expressly with Soviet armour in mind) should be effective.
For example - Mango penetration on the lower-front of glacis plate on 72B3.
Seriously - the ammunition available to Uke tankers was pretty limited (Soviet-era Mango rounds at best - possibly some of the Polish/Czech updates that came along with their donated 72 models). These three are clear examples of penetrations by such rounds BEFORE Western tank rounds were in country.
So if in the real-world - Russian frontal armour isn’t much good against Soviet-era rounds. What hope in hell would they have against modern NATO ones?
I’m bumping this up. When the Russians got their hand on a Magach with M111 APFSDS, they founds out T-72A is incapable of stopping it out to 2km’s - in the game the very same tank’s armour can stop the round at pretty much a Point Blank range. They had to weld the additional HHA plate to the glacis in order to give it a chance of surviving at 800 meters, here you can do that at 500 meters without said plate!
I hope you realise that it is because volumetric being a bugged mess, right?!
Again, then why dont u go cry on the forum when it happens to a non-soviet tank?
Cherrypicking/confirmation bias again.
I agree that it should not work like that.
But then why the hell you make a comment like that in a russian bias conspiracy thread?
The same thing goes for overpressure. It is still bugged like crazy, and how long is it in the game?
Don’t worry - we’ll be onto random excuses involving Lizard People, NATO mosquitoes and the Ghost of Margaret Thatcher riding a broomstick next. (Okay - maybe the last one isn’t an RT talking point yet).
It has nothing to do with volumetric…
It’s just spalling not being modelled right.
And this mismodelling favors russian tanks. Spalling in a western mbt’s spreads all around anyway, while it get absorbed by the carroussel armor in t-80’s. Note that the problem is not that present in t-90’s. Also let’s consider the fact that spall liners are missing in western mbt’s
Cool. I’m done here then. If Leo 2s Project Manager’s statement is not enough, or actual footage, or Gaijin’s own tech mod - nothing ever will. These people are stuck in an endless dream where nothing can ever graze the glorious Red armour (contrary to basically everything).
if the photos are dated and if we know the state of apfsds stocks in ukr at said date, you can just take “worst case scenario” and take the ammo with the most pen.
Is this ammo less powerful than the mentionned nato rounds ? if yes, then you got your answer.
Seriously though - having a quick trawl through the extensive database of Russian destroyed MBTs. It’s almost as if there’s some recurring issue there.
This was apparently a T-80BV. Some spalling MIGHT have occurred near the ammunition but I dunno.
That the card that asks for source. If you wanna tell, that something isnt right - then you should back it up with source. I see no sources, that backing his calculations, so i have zero reasons to believe him more. Quite simple
And? I know it. But i dont see actual penetration on this photos, nor we dont have info what created that hole (if it was penetrated). ATGM, RPG, HEAT or really APFSDS?
He’s using the exact same method that Gaijin does (take plate, apply modifier, boom, armour)!
The only thing he does differently is that he applies the LoS 0 number to the armour, which Gaijin doesn’t (I underlined it for you, but obviously, you ignored that).
They’re basically modelling their LoS 68 protection as LoS 0 protection. That’s what Conraire was showing there, and you cannot even comprehend that. That’s the reason why they’re overperforming my dude. Everything else I’ve shown was pretty much just supporting evidence to this - those rounds are more than potent enough IRL (DM33 fx), if they weren’t, the Soviets would’ve never started to use ERA - because if their base armour can stop the round already, why add ~2 more tons of useless weight to it?
