Well, that’s what we actually get in-game
Lower enough to make it identical to Relkit, how curious that both arrays produce the exact same amount of protection when one has almost quadruple the volume, additional spacer inserts and far more standoff.
Sure my guy.
All of that matters of course, but if you understand how Nizh actually works (a lot of people fail to comprehend the principles of Relikt and Nizh/Duplet ERA functioning, which matters a lot), you will also understand why Nizh is worse when calculated closer to 0° angle.
And that somehow makes it identical in performance to relkit?
I’m going to hard doubt that.
Gaijin chose to copy and paste relkit values onto it because they don’t want a better ERA in the game.
Btw we have an image of the UFP module blueprint which clearly shows the 50mm plate
Image deleted due to potentially classified nature
You are exactly right, BM42 is better at dealing with ERA, Monoblock projectiles such as BM60 will have a much harder time against Duplet/Nizh. In 2003 UAE trials, OFL 120F1 was almost completely stopped by the ERA, only leaving a 20mm dent on the base armour. But ofc different APFSDS types are not modelled in game, of course since Oplot is not a Russian vehicle, they will give it the worst possible stats instead of making some kind of compromise considering better performance against monoblock projectiles.
Also btw don’t believe the 60% number so readily, in the test footage it was never mentioned how much of 3BM42 penetration was decreased when fired on the hull, neither are there any Mikrotek documents saying 60% reduction of BM42. The pamphlet that states 60% reduction of BM42 is by a different company and specifically states that these are numbers for a different lighter weight ERA, not the same as Duplet that is used on tanks in service.
6 Likes
After re-analyzing the test footage of BM42 fired at the turret mockup by most likely a T-80UD, I wanna say that the ERA is definitely underperforming in comparison to the footage.
This is the angle the round was fired at. It’s hard to tell exactly what the angle is, but it’s close to the angle of BM Oplot turret cheek, as if it was facing the firing tank. Around 60 degrees.
At 100m and 60 degrees 3BM42 has 550mm penetration in war thunder.
Footage states that a 60mm residual penetration on the normal was observed. This means 120mm residual penetration when taking into account the 60 degree angle.
550 x 0.22 (22% of 550mm) is 121mm
This means Duplet on the turret should stop slightly more than 78% of 3BM42 penetration according to test footage. This lines up with official brochure and articles stating 80-90% penetration reduction of sub caliber rounds.
Regarding BM42 penetration on the hull armour, the tests do not state how much residual penetration was observed, we can only see a low quality image, where we cannot see if shown is the 50mm plate behind the first layer of ERA, or 60mm plate behind two layers of ERA.
Additionally we don’t even know if this module was made according to patent where the 50mm steel plate is missing or according to BM Oplot specifications.
Text
Video of footage: https://youtu.be/9TCJIpUjW2M?feature=shared
6 Likes
So they should have similar protection of BVM?
or little bit less?
If calculated according to test footage, 430mm protection against kinetic munitions from ERA + whatever the non ERA hull armour comes out to (3 steel plates 50+60+50mm, 15mm steel cover, and 35mm Textolite. It should be well above 800mm kinetic protection. Way better than BVM or T-90M.
Ofc devs claim that the 50mm plate between the two layers of ERA is a ‘dampener’ and its protection should be included in the ERA values. Quite an outrageous claim but even if this was done, the armour should still be above 700mm against kinetic munitions.
Also keep in mind the performance of the ERA against 3BM42 is reduced and 430mm kinetic protection (78% penetration reduction) is actually the lower end of the value, if we look at OFL 120 F1 tests, the penetration reduction was way higher.
5 Likes
that very good explanation thanks you.
1 Like
I believe it was already pointed out that the trialed Nizh insert in UAE against OFL 120 F1 was model 25.
There were probably tests of model 34 and 19 as well in UAE, but because we have no available pages online for it, OFL 120 vs model 34 is more of a theory than practice
I have heard this before but don’t know where it was stated that it was ХСЧКВ 25, the only fragments of the report we have state “ХСЧКВ” without specifying the exact model. Also since 25 is a prototype version of 34, shouldn’t the performance be comparable or perhaps even worse?
One of those bug reports covering ERA has a complete page, where it states “ХСЧКВ 25” (saw it myself).
Wouldn’t be so sure about it. I have never seen any proof of model 25 being a prototype of 34, so I take that statement with a heavy grain of salt. There might be some other page stating that, but AFAIK there is none.
Model 25 is overall a mysterious one. Of all sources ever pulled out concearning ERA, or Oplot in general, UAE trials doc is the only mention of it.
I guess we would have to wait and see if this report ever becomes available publicly.
Even still, the penetration reduction should be at least 78% of BM42. I know ralin said in the other thread that the penetration reduction in the test footage matches 60% of BM42 but idk how he did his calculations. Clearly the turret ERA stopped 78% of penetration if the round left a 60mm impact on the normal according to the footage info.
Obviously a dampener between ERAs was used. We don’t know for sure which dampener was used in trials, but because we have that “60%” number for Duplet, and “50%” for Nizh that is supported with 15mm steel plate, devs simply pilled up numbers together via calculations and the only problematic thing – dampener – was a product of guesstimation because patent does state materials bit doesn’t state thickness, as well as developer of ERA doesn’t state composition of ERA complex except of ERA tiles themselves.
Even disregarding the dampener/50mm plate as shown in blueprint, tests show 78% reduction of BM42 penetration. Ralin was claiming that tests align with in game values, but they clearly do not. KE protection should be around 430mm including front cover and dampener on the turret armour.
We dont see this detal in the tank
Which detail do you mean?
Also welcome to the forums!
Well, that’s for the turret section. You can’t know for sure how many tiles actually affected projectile: 1, 2 or 3. After all, ERA block on the turret has up to 6 of them tiles, and even then, it would hit at least a couple of those.
In-game, if APFSDS hits 2 of such tiles, it also looses quite a lot of pen. Probably not as much as it actually should, but again, hull armor layout ≠ turret armor layout
From where the shell came and where it hit, 2 tiles were hit by the shell, look at the image where residual penetration is shown, it’s at the bottom of the ERA mount, it could not have hit 3 tiles on its way. To hit 3 tiles, the shell has to be fired from a very high angle above the target tank.
From line of sight, the entire front arc of the BM Oplot tank is designed to have 2 tiles hit the shell before it makes contact with base armour, the probability of hitting more than two tiles is very less.
78% reduction is for two tiles plus covers and dampeners in the turret ERA mount. This again matches with the brochure values stating 80-90% reduction in penetration including these elements.
For the hull, the reduction should be at least 78% because it has the same ERA at the same angle. As stated before regardless of whether you consider the 50mm RHA plate as a dampener or not, the armour is underperforming.
2 Likes
However, isn’t it weird that an entire section disappeared, not just 2 tiles?
If even one tile is struck, at least the one next to it will fuse, and so will the ones below and above them (from the photo, the lower twin row was struck), and the one below the lower line was also fused, thus influencing the thing as well.
Ofc the upper ones did 0 influence to it, but the fact is the same: not just 2 tiles fused, but an entire section