POV: when tank designers from several different countries spend 10+ years designing the most amazing system just for Gaijin to kick it in the balls and say “harder than structural but not high hardness and thicker than 16mm? well, nuclear spall for you”.
2 Likes
because you cannot make russian beer takers to suffer.
Well the soviet bear also suffers a touch from it. On the frontal aspect of the carousel there is a 20mm rolled homogenous armor plate on T-72B+ and T-90.
This plate generates spall and leads to lower survivability.
Its why all T-80 and T-72A/M1 are more survivable when shot in the lower plate from the front compared to the T-72B+ and T-90.
Soviet engineers added armor and in warthunder it means lower survivability
2 Likes
I don’t understand why the arbitrary value of 17mm to create spalling, surely there’s a more accurate method to do this. And on the topic of spalling if Top tier Russia has it turned off on their mbt’s why don’t NATO’s tanks for the sake of balance. Hardly seems fair…
1 Like
Well, im speculating it 17mm where its starts spalling, but i haven’t seen a 16mm structural plate to twst with.
Its the arbitrary limit is per my observation in this range of values 15<=17mm to be specific.
17mm is the internal plating used on the centurion that walls of its fronttal fuel tank next to the driver. So if you are to ask me, its that exact value to make sure those vehicles spall
1 Like
i think the Type 10 have 10mm rolled homogenous armor inside the tank separating the fuel and nuclear filter system. and i am pretty sure it’s spalling like a a nuke when it’s hit.
yep it is
Yes, rolled homogenous armor spalls at any thickness (well as low as 4mm anyways as that is the thinnest plate ive tested) .
Im talking about “Structural Steel” Not rolled homogenous plates (which are hardened and structural steel is not)
1 Like
ah right, i think i missed a few post there, somehow.
Yeah i try to be specific but sometimes i get tired of typing out “structural steel plate” And i start shortening it.
But removing the arbitrarily chosen cutoff for structural steel would make trucks and the like less survivable. In that regard im sure people generally wouldn’t complain much as trucks are very tanky in this game.
Idk why you think, that NATO HQ is stupid. Yes, NATO heavily relies on air supremacy (that why Soviet Union and now Russia havent even bothered to overproduce NATO and went to AA systems path), but in a large scale war artillery is key part. And thats why western countries now thinking about their production capabilities and how they can enlarge it fast enough. You cant solve everything with just BoMb.
1 Like
Not to mention that the add-on armour and the arrowhead still fall off after a few hits.
Reported months ago, acknowledged, nothing done.
:P
Better yet, one of the wedges falls off faster than the other (2 shots instead of 3), whereas both should ideally be taking 5 - 7 hits before “falling off”/degrading to the point of providing no additional protection.
off topic, but they definitely got buffed in the last patch, they feel somewhat usable now.
now they just have to tune down the smoke and get rid of that “need to lead my semi AUTOMATIC command to LINE OF SIGHT” mechanic
Let me be more precise with my wording, the MGS was designed for LIC, not large land battles. Afghanistan just happened to be probably the best place that thing could’ve gone to.
Per the MGS’s wiki: “This led to the development of a new armored fighting vehicle designed for lower-intensity combat, rather than large-scale battle.”
Direct fire support for LIC environments.
Flash news for you, NATO AirLand doctrine never accounted for the sheer complexity of hunting down and neutralizing a modern Air Defense umbrella. It struggled against Serbian AD throughout the Balkans conflict, even after attaining air dominance. A decrepit and aging Air Defense, even over 80% destroyed at the beginning of the SMO (happy to call in a war if/when there’s a declaration of war from either side, just trying to remain formal and accurate), gave Russia fits, and with Western support, prevented Russia from owning the skies on day 1/day 2. Doesn’t matter what planes you fly, Air Defense is king. NATO will not be able to just deploy fleets of F-35’s with conventional weapons and destroy the Russian army.
The SMO has proven that precision artillery, FPV drones, and electronic warfare, when combined with modern ISR, are a lot more crucial to the battlefield than anything else. In keeping this all on topic, the tanks we play are not going to get huge upgrades for tank-on-tank warfare as the SMO continues and after. As aforementioned, these precision fires and ISR are going to shred forward deployed concentrations of gear and men. Tanks will continue to do what they’ve done for 95%+ of the conflict, which is sit back as far as possible and shell infantry and fortifications.
We can pontificate about Relikt and M829A4, but we probably aren’t going to see that happen, so all we have to lean back on is a semi-realistic semi-arcade game that has proven, according to it’s developers, to prioritize gameplay and “balance” over historical accuracy, geopolitical considerations, etc.
Care to provide some sources on the lack of modelling? I’m genuinely curious because all modern penetrators have intentionally designed segments and dimensions. It would be nice to see Gaijin model it properly. This would also help narrow down the technical reasons for the diminished spalling on some of the T-80 models in game.
Again, to conclude the thread. NATO tanks will get the best armor afforded to them based off of what they had, what information is available about those systems and how they can be balanced. There is no Russian bias against NATO tanks.
1 Like
Okay, but how does that stack up against the K-5 canister (what’s left after the explosive portion) plus the composite armor and the hull itself?
Some people forget that Relikt =/= K=5, just want to make sure that’s clear.
Weren’t the propellant fires in the DM43, and isn’t the DM53 the first to be immune? That’s an oversight that could be corrected too, if it can be balanced.
I’ll just ignore your incorrect rambling about your belief that NATO airpower is weak and focus on the topic at hand. Please do the same from now on. Once again, this isn’t the right forum nor the right topic to speak about that. If you really want to talk about it, send me a DM and I’ll be happy to educate you on your baffling ignorance concerning this subject.
A 2min google search could have been enough but I guess that’s too much to expect. BTVT talks about it here and provides sources.
http://btvt.info/3attackdefensemobility/duplet.htm
The topic here in the old forum also talks about it. Conraire had posted all the docs in the old forum but can’t remember where.
And please, read my post better next time, thank you. I wasn’t talking about Relikt here but Kontakt-5.
1 Like
strv122 liked your skill issue and the m1a2sep, leclerc and leo2pso too… xd
Hmmm i guess you mean DM53A1 then yes but the first to use it was DM63.
DM53A1 come after that
1 Like
-
It’s not just NATO. Air defense in general is superior. Similar to the drone vs tank issue, an AD missile is cheaper than a $100 million dollar plane. NATO has great tech, but it’s not beating integrated AD. Period. Don’t care what you think you know.
-
Also, it’s on topic. NATO focused on air power, hence the CAS superiority reflected in game. USSR focused on AD from SHORAD all the way to Theatre AD. One of the reasons USSR/Russia doesn’t suffer at SPAA unlike half the tech trees.
-
Take a look in the mirror before you start accusing others of “baffling ignorance”.
When you act like the expert, expect people to think you have more information that what is available. Again, I asked about the lack of modelling. First you send me some Ukrainian propaganda site (like I’m gonna read that), and then you can’t even confirm it’s a modelling issue. While I waited for you to unload your drivel, I did look up a little bit about the issue, and the searching suggests thus far that the only thing it’s been so far is a coding solution, where DM53 via code just bypassed the full protection value. As it stands, it seems we don’t even have full fidelity composites and ERA/NERA/SLERA, let alone Kinetic penetrators. I also don’t contest that K-5 is defeated by DM53, L27A1, and M833.
Please read my posts more carefully too, I was clarifying for the audience, as the discussion has floated to protection in general, and others have mentioned both Relikt, “KAKTUs”, and M829A4, amongst other adjacent topics. I never directly addressed you as having claimed that Relikt could be defeated by DM53. Thanks.