I had 420 mm pen APDSFS fail to penetrate side armour of T-95 medium tank, does that mean its american bias now?
Bombs are in general modeled poorly/ wrong.
Cherry picked data, and that can happen with any kind of tank.
Evidence cannot get more cherrypicked than that.
the diference between a long rod and a short rod isnt really that ones is longer than the other rather the design and the diameter of it, a 3bm15 is a short rod while a 3bm42 is a long rod, both have around the same length, but the latter have a different design the diameter is homogeneus through the body and the diameter is sligty smaller, while the bm15 looks like this:
although the flat penetration of this design is close to that of an long rod design they massively underperforms at higher angles of attacks, and the l27 is a long rod design
1 Like
You’re meant to test it from hull’s height or in other words - at the constructional angle of the armour, which in this case is 68 degrees.
My mistake then. Thank you for telling me that.
it shouldn’t because of spall liners on western mbts but oh well
I made it clear many times that main armor spalling is not the problem here, the carroussel is. the carroussel doesn’t spall when apfsds hits it, and on top of that it also stops spalling from the main armor, which it shouldn’t.
2 Likes
Well yeah, then they would all identically not spall to an extent based on proven effectiveness of spall liners.
As for the mild steel around the structural carousel… I can’t comment cause I don’t work in metallurgy.
1 Like
The thermal imaging is a particularly damning indictment. We had TOGS on Chieftain in the 1980s - by the 1990s excellent thermals and fire control was almost a given on Western tanks.
Looks like they were struggling with the basics even by the time the USSR self-combusted.
Edit to add - @aDSD response below.
1 Like
Gaijin just need to address ammo detonation (burning) issue across the board. make it deadly like in irl.
Of cause people are confuse when things like this happen from time to time.
He fire total of 7 APFSDS shot take 6 to finally kill around 2-3 hit ammo (mind you there also other moments in video that show ammo getting hit but didn’t detonate and not just Soviet vehicles too . But this one is the most obvious)
Yes ammo not detonation things apply to everyone.
But it is obvious that some vehicles that are likely to get hit in the ammo will benefit from this buff more than others.
3 Likes
The thumbnail of that video is literally perfect. One of the saddest top tier vehicles, stuck at 11.3 while it’s at most 10.0 worthy.
This makes me believe Gaijin is actually incapable of creating “biased things”, since so many bugs like ammo not detonating and volumetric hell are present basically everywhere.
1 Like
He did say that some vehicles benefit from this more than others;
- BVM for example benefits like crazy from this because it has no turret stowage
- Leopard 2s benefit from it very little because most of them only take 16 rounds thus leaving the hull stowage empty
So for some vehicles it makes no difference, while for others it provides a chance of basically becoming invincible thanks to RNG - especially since Gaijin made their spall liners just 1mm below the spalling threshhold (which is 7mm), and the carousel armour is 20mm HHRA - which has a lower spalling modifer than normal RHA (totally ignoring the fact that the harder the steel is, the more fragile/less ductile it becomes and thus will spall more…).
If Gaijin was to make things totally equeal between nations, they’d start implementing SCBD/LOVA propellants that many NATO nations make use of, thus bringing their detonation chance to a flat 0.
And before you say anything, I wrote suggestions on SCBD/LOVA propellants before - 4 DIFFERENT TIMES, all were rejected and I was never told why even after asking suggestion moderators.
3 Likes
You need to manually adjust the lasermarker on the ground next to the tank. When the bomb hits the ground and explodes from below, you won’t ever have these kind of failures. 100% kill chance. For moving targets you aim a bit in front of the tank. Also fuse delay 0.5 - 1.0 seconds to make sure its really on the ground. Impact fuse often fails, if it fuses on a periscope of roof MG and does no damage^^ If you set a fuse delay, you give these bombs a bit more time to bounce and still explode on the ground.
Just press the lock button a second time. Then the target remains locked, but you can readjust & fine tune the impact point.
Soviet army adopted a scout vehicle with thermal scope in mid 80s with 1PN59 “Benefit” scope. T80U had very good fire control system even without a thermals for 1985. Not even mentioning automatic tracking on some soviet-russian tanks. T-80U, T90 had Agava 2 installed in 1992, but Agava 2 was mentioned first in 1986, with the talks about Obj. 477, it was also proposed and tested for Obj 187 (better T-90A from 1989). Theres also predecessor to Agava 2, the og Agava, and while comparing to other thermals of the time it was horrible, it’s first prototypes appeared in 1982. There’s also “Benefit-2” sight from 1987,which was also tested on T-80U in same year . It’s not about them not having technology, its about them not being able to finish plans to make mass production for Agava 2 until 1990, when country is collapsing, many good prototypes are getting cancelled. In second half of 90s NOCTURNE sight was made, which was based ln Agava 2 and better than it. In 2010 there was Irbis sight made, a bit later thermal version of Agat sight. Even later there were Irbis K2 made, which is in use on T-90M ans T-14 (most likely), Irbis K2 is gen 3 thermal, unlike Irbis being gen 2 thermal.Theres also Boomerang series of thermals imagers for T-15, Kurganets, but its commander one, dont know what exactly gunner has, though i dont think I need to explain both platforms this is mounted on are extinct. The real provlem was commanders not having thermals for a long time.
Though, due to difficulties with mass producing and upgrading at the time (USSR collapse, economy crisis), even Uralvagonzavod decided to better take Belarus sights like ESSA, Sosna (which would be modified to Sosna-U) which had french Catherine FC thermal imagers, same found on Leclerk, if i am right.
Have made a lot of edits to add or correct info, if someone wants pictures of sights, I can provide on sight asked. Probably gonna stop for now, though I can say I have found plenty soviet-russian thermals and vehicles or prototypes with them mounted on.
1 Like
I take your points and appreciate your knowledgeable input.
However if you had a frontline British, US, German, French formation facing down an equivalent Soviet formation - the former would have thermal sights far more widely available to them. From tank-hunting teams w/ ITVs to MBTs to Recce vehicles - across the board.
You’ve even noted yourself that the 80U - probably the most capable USSR tank in the inventory of the 1980s (thus given to the best Category A formations) - was not routinely equipped.
Whether the technology was there in prototypes but not fitted or unable to be manufactured en masse is kind of a side-issue. After all, it’s pointless have the world’s best weapon if you can’t get it into the hands of the soldiers who need it. The Soviet soldiers of the 1980s did not have the same tools in their hands as the NATO soldiers who sat across the border from them.
Still, I retract my earlier comments.
8 Likes
Love this, why there are random comments about this is interesting, but the actual photographic evidence of Russian tanks currently being used to mop the floor by other Russian tanks and lend lease/donated NATO tanks kind of debunks the “Russian bias” theory, it’s really just the strategy of the use of the weapon system. However, I will say Russian tanks if “Russian bias” does exist are still severely under-teired because there are not any real equivalents in other tech trees. Also kinda love that this is “controversial” it has almost 500 comments but my post about adding a new weapons system gets 0 lol
Swinging back onto the subject of the thread. I present the latest exhibition of ‘Russian Armour not working in RL as it does in War Thunder’.
I’m going to bet that when the T-90M gets added - it’ll probably have the same ‘totally not borked armour model that enables it to tanks hits it really shouldn’t’. I’m not going to bet any money because I know what the outcome will be…
Thats an ATGM, the very thing created to fight tanks, any tank is prone to them.
For those wondering;
This only confirms that BVMs sight shouldn’t be third generation if we’re going by Gaijin’s own rules (they made 2PLs thermals 2nd generation due to their resolution being below the “specs” they use).
1 Like
“According to the specifications, the Catherine FC thermal imager (note the date of manufacture – June 2016) allows you to create images with a resolution of 768×576” The resolution of thermal imager used in ESSA, Sosna and Sosna U sights is high enough.
from ukrainian site, can provide link if necessary.
Dont know why PL has just 2 gen. KLW-1 Asteria is gen 3 thermal with 640x512 resolution.
1 Like
Gaijin classified thermals of second generation as between;
- higher resolution than 500x300
- lower or equeal resolution than 800x600
Third generation cameras for Gaijin begin with 1200x800 resolution.
This is a problem with Gaijin per se, not with the camera’s themselves, since IRL you don’t classify the generation of it just by the output resolution, but by noise, amount of detector elements etc.
That’s why I said; “if we’re following Gaijin’s own rules”.