If you take a look at stock T-72B3 or T-90A and at stock T-80BVM, you’ll see that the latter has Relict, not C-5.
However, it has identical protection values (120/450 instead of normal 250/600) despite being next generation reactive armor with two backplates instead of one like in Contact.
I tried shooting HEAT and HEAT-FS there and they all give identical protection levels (340-360 mm against CE). In those terms C-5 of T-80U series is more effective than Relict of T-80BVM if you shoot at the top part, where it’s simply more dense.
Is it naming mistake or Relict means nothing unless its multi layered like it is on upgraded T-72B3/T-80BVM?
(Though if so, how then it has 600 mm protection on the hull if the model is clearly one-layered? I understand if it’s upgraded, it has all right to do so as it’s placed much more differently and densely)
I wanted to make a bug report but people said it’s actually Relict, it just doesn’t function like that, so it has same protection as Contact-5. It’s just weird, why two backplates then?
its been known forever, era bricks provide stacking protection if you hit multiple at once, they vastly overperfom on shallow angles too, heavy era needs that angling to be effective.
and whilst russian era is overperming everybody elses is underperfoming by large margins.
Issue is none of us know 1. how it works 2. how effective if it even works. Gaijin currently uses a uniform formula for rounds and that will have to be changed against a single round and the entire ERA thing has to be changed, all based off absolutely no realistic support barring claims, not saying the improvement of the tip doesn’t exist, but just that there are no sources on how and to what degree it works.
I’m just trying to figure out whether devs are wrong or not by giving side and turret roof Relict identical values of protection to Contact-5. But I guess I attracted some simpletons who want to brag about it not being weak enough even this way, not those who know exact answer
I’ve asked people and they say it may be like that because stock side/roof Relict is add-on while front hull and improved side Relict is either built-in or multi-layered, which is only true for the latter… Hull has just one layer according to the model and it gives more protection than stock side.
Ill make a bug report, maybe with some chance I’ll find a good moderator who will give the answer I need
I have never seen it once to my memory. Devs are entirely removed from any social media besides whatever the employees inbetween them and us wants them to see (which is clearly not a lot)
If you poke them with a stick they’re more than likely to reply. Once I’ve asked why we have Pages of History majority of the time only covering USSR and USA figures, the Developer responsible for this replied to me in a very unclear way as I had to look for his past replies on the reason why we never see contemporary or Axis figures.
The developers have seriously neglected functions, so it’s possible that this is a fault. For example, the ERA on the sides of the Challenger 2 TES and EOS should be the same, and not only does it provide poor protection, but they also provide different protection, even though they are the same ERA model.
After all, whether the Relict could stop 250mm of KE in reality is another matter. Personally, I think it’s too much, but hey, at the end of the day, gaijin does what he wants.
The T-80BVM’s skirt ERA is simply a naming mistake, it uses 4S22 plates on the skirt for the base package and 4S24U baseplate + applique in the ERA upgrade
It shouldn’t be. If you look at the upgrade package you can see the quite clear swap to Relikt on the upgraded skirt package.
