I corrected myself, its 1 km, look in the Edit.
Thats depressing footage. Ingame its not possible to penetrate these tanks whatsoever with this kind of ammo…no…they even bounce off Nato top shells.
But I guess the whole perception of russian hardware is about to change in recent media. Even on call of duty WWIII forums ppl start to discuss that alot video game narratives grant Russia too much credit. I mean Russia rolling over all of Europo until they even hit New York…these kind of story arcs are now highly questioned by alot gamers, cause how could this be even remotely possible irl?
I bet also in WT this might change eventually, give it some time.
2 Likes
none of that footage actually shows if the round actually went trough…
Well - at least one of them is missing a turret. That might give you a bit of a clue that something bad happened…
Joking aside - if the dart didn’t penetrate cleanly you’d get an awful lot more of a mess and spalling on the outside of the entry hole. After all, a big chunk of metal has struck another chunk of metal at supersonic speeds - that energy (if stopped by armour) has to go somewhere.
In some cases you might actually see remnants of the dart itself embedded in the armour - having been stopped before it could punch through. Either way the action of the armour deforming or generally bending the dart (as modern armour is supposed to) makes quite a distinctive witness mark.
actually a shot that is fully stopped wouldnt really show much from the outside, most of the shatters of the round and armour would actually be inside.
not really, it could have been destroyed by anything actually by anything actually, unless there is a clear picture the hole, anything else is speculation,
If the round and armour fragments are INSIDE the tank then I think that counts as a round penetration - with all the damage that entails. Look at the diagrams I’ve posted above to see how a dart is usually deformed by armour - the whole point of armour is to stop the high-velocity projectile from impeding into the tank interior.
Edit to add - here’s a pic that shows the difference between a penetration and a defeat of a dart round.
The big deformation circled in red is where the armour has done it’s job and deformed the projectile. It’s a very distinctive pattern. Even if talking about multi-layer composites - you’d still see a bulge/cut/deformation in the armour array as the energy of the round was a) reduced and b) redirected in a different direction to the original strike angle.
1 Like
they are inside of the armour array, they have a multi layered array, so no and outer layer prenetration isnt nearly enogh proof for a complete penetration, and the diagram shows nothing, they show critical ricochet and shatter angles, non of those would apply top the t-series tanks as all have a 68º slope, those diagrams shows well over 78 or 80º, so no thats not an argument either, as an apdsfs wouldn’t deform like that to begin with, they normally dont “deform” at all while they go trough a single armor layer the round desintegrates as they are going trough armour, after they go trough the first layers the round starts changing its direction, but even then the tail section would go pretty much straight thanks to inertia.
1 Like
Oh yeah, it already did. Never has an army been humiliated that much in recent history. Ranging from the 40km+ convoy stalling out, troops literally starving because supplies never reached their position, empty ERA bags, farmers stealing the latest hardware available, getting their nuclear airbase bombed by cardboard drones, losing the Moskva to a country without a navy, and the list goes on and on.
3 Likes
Yeah - sorry but your understanding of armour is not quite in line with reality.
Aren’t you the guy who was arguing that Ka-50s were fine without their tail sections?
All those photos were of shots that missed ERA, proving everyone that you’ve “disagreed” with correct.
On top of all that, all those photos are repeatable in War Thunder.
T-80U where the round shot through the shipping/towing hook? I did that using HEATFS before the nerf, and I do that with APFSDS today.
What looks like a T-64 or T-80B turret? Yeah, that’s easily done in battles today.
And of course the famous hull shot that didn’t set off any ERA. If you avoid the armor bug, you pen.
@dedale_stargate
T-series tanks spall identically to all other tanks that use the same armor.
says the guy that actually thinks that a hole can only mean a complete penetration…
What dart? What HEAT-FS?
Modern Warfare 2 and 3 plus some other classics like World in Conflict haven’t aged that well have they?
Speaking of which, really must see if I can boot that last game up. I spent waaaay too long playing…
3 Likes
DM33, and whatever it’s called on Type 90.
HEATFS use to have 650mm of chemical pen.
@Crazed_Otter Would you continue playing World in Conflict?
Right, so it was either 4+ years ago when DM33 could penetrate 540mm, or that never happened… or it was both that and pre-Soviet armour (pulled out of the ass) buffs.
HEATFS use to have 650mm of chemical pen.
Refer to above.
I’ve yet to see your evidence that the destroyed tanks referenced above WEREN’T knocked out by the kinetic round strikes clearly visible in each image?
Or does the burden of proof only apply when it is convenient? Genuine question btw.
russian bias on ground is kind of true
but using winrates as evidence like some here did isn’t exactly a good idea
remember, most tanks in top tier NATO teams are, in fact, squadron or premiums
Using just the winrates is misleading, yes. Using WR, K/D & K/B however isn’t. On average NATO and Russian vehicles have comparable K/D & K/B above 11.3 with some quite notable outliers, but Russia has on average ~10 - 20% higher winrate depending on what nation you compare it to.
Verdict? Their tanks are quite comparable to NATO ones in performance given both are played by equeally skilled users (and are helped out by dumb artificial buffs). The problem arises when you start to look at the broader picture which includes support vehicles & CAS - i.e, the line-up.
Ka-52/Mi-28NM are by far the best helicopters in terms of game-ending potential, and Pantsir is overall the most capable SPAA in the game because it can do both long and short range defence; their fixed wing CAS isn’t as cancerous as US’s, but is good enough to land them second spot.
TL;DR
- Russian MBTs and support vehicles are very good
- their helicopters are outstanding
- their fixed wing CAS is good
- combine them into a single line-up and you have a recipe for a disaster.
1 Like
Then explain why USA doesn’t have a higher win rate when they have the best tanks, best CAS, and on-par with the best helicopters?
Sweden.
best CAS
Goalpost.
and on-par with the best helicopters
You’re delusional if you think the 64D is comparable to the Ka-52 lmao.
I however do love that you always go and rant about how we are the “Russian lovers”, but you for some reason defend them the most out of all. Stockholm syndrome, ain’t it.