M829A3 would be overpowered. There is zero reason to add it currently. What does need to change is that APFSDS hitting ERA at a flat angle should be unaffected by the ERA.
1 Like
Yet it won’t change, unfortunately
LOL! M829A2 has never once struggled to pen the side. Stop lying about American equipment.
There is zero evidence of ERA over-performing. Keep claiming NATO are liars, all you do is claim NATO are liars…
@SiberianSnakeSIB
Relikt gets its protection bonus from being angled.
It’s why Relikt is used in bags mostly so it can be angled.
M829A3 would just be DM53+ L/55 pen on a L/44 cannon
1 Like
there is. T-80/T-72/T-90/other shit should get like 1/2 or 1/4 or UFP ERA exploded, even if only one got hit. construction is too weak and just bends(causing smth like chain reaction)
K-5/relict
so sad that NATO ERA is severely underperforming
NATO ERA doesn’t use flyer plates so its KE protection will always be bad.
Its CE protection is different from statcard claims and statcards can’t be used to show protection.
Kontakt 1 is less than half as effective as French ERA for example.
you dont need flyer plates to do so.
take look at NIZH for example - no plate needed, it just cuts the shell.
Spoiler
Well the NATO ones were really just designed for side protection against RPGs. As seen they were never mounted on anything but the sides (except M60 stuff)
I’ve experienced that
No, you’ve experienced aiming badly and hitting roof armor which is universal on all tanks.
ERA does eat rounds but its Gaijin modelling where multiple ERA are ‘stacked up’ statistically and that results in something like 500 mm ERA instead of its actual performance.
It has gotten better or maybe I just play top tier ground that much less.
so if you put Contact-5 and Relict in angled position, only Relict will have x1,5 protection bonus ?
BRENUS ERA still lacks its historical 100mm of KE protection
2 Likes
Relikt has superior angled performance than K5, that is correct.
yeah but that doesnt mean they have 0 ke protection
stuff like the TES ERA has the ability to withstand 30mm apfsds by itself
With an Anti-ERA tip. We don’t need that added to the game.
ig
i wish they gonna buff NATO era one day tho, i dont think even to the slightest that sth add on weight 5 tons but only offer 20% better protection than cold war ERA
This is Duplet-2M, not Nizh-1M. ХСЧКВ-34 = Duplet. ХСЧКВ-19 = Nizh.
Nizh reactive elements are smaller than Duplet elements.
Spoiler
And the tiles are shorter and smaller.
Common misconception that Duplet-2M is just Nizh-1M stacked over and over again on top of itself, but there are some differences in the tiles. Mostly because Nizh-1M needs to fit inside Kontakt-1 cases and Duplet gets dedicated cases. Below we see a size comparison between Nizh and 4S20, in which they have about the same area, Nizh is just taller.
For a final comparison, Nizh, Duplet, and 4S20 on order from left to right.
There’s a quick rundown on the differences between Ukrainian ERA.
Now for the thing of how ERA preforms in game, I think Gaijin really does a bad job with modeling it, and this goes for most ERA. It is heavily dependent on the angle of impact for the performance of the tile. A flat side impact would have the performance drop drastically compared to one of a, say, 60 degree angle. With a dart, there would likely be destabilization of the round at worst, and maybe the loss of some of the fins from a flyer plate, but even so, it’s not that major of a difference, which is why I do say ERA overperforms in game compared to how it should, but it’s a modeling thing more than anything. It should be more dependent on the angle rather than being a disposable 120 millimeter thick RHA block flat and only getting even better at angles and having way too good a 180 degree impact angle performance.
unironically gaijin didnt model NATO era the same