I mean sure yeah the entire section broke off and probably fused. But that doesn’t really mean anything in regards to how much degradation of penetration should be observed.
I think it is, the tested module used in hull contains the 50mm steel armor between the two layer of Nozh ERA.
Nozh has different type used in different position
Do we know if this module performed differently than the turret armour or the same?
surely different with different structure, but I’m not sure about details for my bad memory
1 Like
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/pyEaMrQZoOSC
Lets see if this will receive a good response.
1 Like
best of luck, at this point I might start to advocate for it to just be moved to 11.7. The ufp just makes it unfun to play against tt rounds. That 50mm rha plate would be so clutch.
1 Like
For the 50mm plate, no one has made a report with the new blueprint image btvt uploaded showing the plate.
I am thinking of making one but I am still not a 100% sure regarding its classification, and I don’t want to spread it unnecessarily.
1 Like
I was asking around earlier about any other possibilities to get the ufp over 700mm of armor but that seemed like the most probable, other than fixing the era.
1 Like
Bug report about the machine gun. Not much but still is an inaccuracy in oplot’s modelling.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/CmZuGekVa4XC
Picture of the duplet era’s first layer capsule opened. Literally seems like there’s steel behind the era block.
3 Likes
Well as expected it was closed. Again they didn’t even read it cause they thought the source I provided to prove that UAM’s Duplet is different than regular Duplet is actually the source I want to use for Duplet’s values. What amateurs.
1 Like
I think this happened because you don’t prove anything you say.
“They weren’t used, others were used.” You have to prove it, not just write it down.
You must clearly demonstrate why other elements should be included.
You can look at Duplet elements and read the name of the element. It is very easy to tell that these elements are different.
It should look like this:
You show the elements of the HSCHKW, then prove that these are the ones used in Oplot-T (not just in BM Oplot, but in Oplot-T).
And only then do you talk about what other data should be used.
UAM was established after the delivery of BM Oplot-T tank was already started to Thailand. It is physically impossible for these tanks to be equipped with UAM’s supposedly 70% lighter but somehow improved Duplet-2M system. Although I will try to find something that confirms the model 34 elements used in Oplot-T.
1 Like
Wellcome to russian bias where every vehicle its OP as F… Oh wait it doesnt
That is “marketing lies”, “misinformation” and other words that are connected by gaijin to that
I don’t know why, but I had a feeling they weren’t going to do the Oplot’s armor right. I didn’t see the developers making the Oplot superior to even the T-80U, and yet they made it even worse than the T-80UD, which is precisely the model the Oplot is based on. It would be like the Leopard 2A7 having less armor than the Leopard 2A4.
1 Like