Updates in light of Ukraine war

[zovs66]

Mostly just informative, but I thought interesting.

https://youtu.be/VyHVWqO7NnI

[zovs66]

Same content provider but for the AT4.

https://youtu.be/Y6LHFdDdhcM

[zovs66]

And just for a bit of humor

https://youtu.be/toGMjVVhkiM

[SaS TrooP]

I would not be that over reacting :P
As I play SPMBT, CIWS and VIRSS systems seem to be quite ineffective for top attack ATGMs like Javelin - like already in the game.

I would generally not say that Russian CIWS is not working completely - rather than NATO supplied weapons strike the top of the vehicle so often that its covering angles are way insufficient.

About that ERA protection... oh boi, problem appears to be that many Russian vehicles are empty. There are pictures of literally egg-fillers put into those bricks but could be propaganda - either way though, brick is empty. This kinda shows the scale of corruption or low readiness of many units, not neccessarily that certain gear does not work.

What I would recommend however is to probably "bring back" the deadliness of MANPADS systems. It was modified couple of updates ago and now it is super hard task to shoot down aircraft/chopper with these missiles, even after a couple of hits. This does not apply only to Strieła like systems that always suffered from poor warhead load, but MANPADS in general. Recently replayed one of Lundstrom's scenarios with Swedish Army and engaged Hinds with RBS-70s. Not a single one was downed with a single missile, while several were hit 5+ times to even assure any dammage (!)
I believe Ukraine War pretty decently proves that underpowering those weapons could be wrong...

[DRG]

What we ( I ) had assumed was modernized T-72's had ERA on the hull sides but it increasingly seems that they do not and the frustrating part is much of the type of info we need is rarely easily available

There is NO era on that rear hull


There is a bulk area here that *MIGHT" conceal ERA blocks



but putting reactive armour behind rubber matting like that would direct some of the force back to the vehicle if the block was hit


I don't think there is ANY ERA on the hull sides

It may have been tried early on



But does not seem to be the case now along with any increase in steel hull side armour over time

Still digging for more info

[DRG]

FINALLY some clear, usable information

https://thesovietarmourblog.blogspot...72-part-2.html

The hull side, hull roof, hull belly and rear armour of all T-72 models are identical, regardless of the variant. As stated earlier, the armour of the side of the hull is 80mm thick. The armour on the sides of the engine compartment is 70mm thick. The side armour of the hull is more than enough to withstand 20mm armour-piercing ammunition fired from various aircraft as well as 20mm and 25mm APDS rounds from autocannons.

NOTE the incident in the video involved 30mm autocannon

The side armour is thickest at the top half and thins down to just 20mm at the lower quarter of the side hull profile. The upper and lower sides are not the same plate. The upper side armour is a single rolled steel plate whereas the lower side armour is actually a part of the belly armour plate. The belly plate is a large stamped piece of steel, bent into a tub shape and welded to the upper side armour. It joins with the upper side plate at an angle of 32 degrees from the vertical axis. The lower side hull armour has a height of 250mm or 270mm if the thickness of the plate itself is included. The upper side hull occupies around three quarters of the area of the side hull profile and the weaker lower side hull occupies one quarter. This thin strip of the side armour is usually not visible as it is completely concealed behind the roadwheels which add a modicum of spaced armour. The roadwheels cover a height of around 350mm of the lower part of the hull, and thus cover the entirety of the lower hull sides and also cover a part of the upper hull sides as well. The short height of the lower side hull armour makes it statistically unlikely to be hit and the additional protection provided by the roadwheels offsets the reduced thickness of the armour, so overall, it is not a flaw in the protection scheme of the tank.

It is without a doubt that the sides of the tank were only sufficient for a very limited period of the service life of the T-72. Being only 80mm thick, the side armour plate could offer only a fraction of the protective value of the front armour, and this was not a trifling issue. The number of hits sustained by a tank's sides were statistically significant, as shown by the analyses conducted by Dr. Manfred Held in "Warhead Hit Distribution on Main Battle Tanks in The Gulf".

There WILL be changes made. SO HAPPY there are 181 of them in the OOB's and that only counts the ones with T-72 in their names

GRUMBLE

[Aeraaa]

I believe the biggest problem of the game is its binary logic: If Pen>Armor= always pen, otherwise never pen. Real life AFVs have all sorts of weakpoints that can offer chances of penetration to guns that on paper should not penetrate. It would be better if pen and armor values are translated to a chance to penetrate, where even weaker guns have a chance to cause damage/knock out an AFV.

Of course, this is a change that is probably quite significant and will likely not be implemented any time soon (if ever). But it will make things more unpredictable and will reduce the chance of 21st century armor behaving like KV-1 in Barbarossa.

[DRG]

AH HA!!!

https://thesovietarmourblog.blogspot...72-part-2.html

The video below shows a T-72B in Grozny retreating with some of its external sponson fuel cells alight. As you can see, the tank is not disabled by the fire and is perfectly capable of moving under its own power to a safe location where the crew can put out the fire with the fire extinguishers carried inside the tank.


Thats why that one was burning in that video in Ukraine the external fuel cells were ruptured

[DRG]

Originally Posted by Aeraaa

I believe the biggest problem of the game is its binary logic: If Pen>Armor= always pen, otherwise never pen. Real life AFVs have all sorts of weakpoints that can offer chances of penetration to guns that on paper should not penetrate. It would be better if pen and armor values are translated to a chance to penetrate, where even weaker guns have a chance to cause damage/knock out an AFV.

Of course, this is a change that is probably quite significant and will likely not be implemented any time soon (if ever). But it will make things more unpredictable and will reduce the chance of 21st century armor behaving like KV-1 in Barbarossa.

That is why there are a HOST of randoms built into the penetration code so it IS NOT black/white pen/no pen in the game even remotely

IT IS NOT Pen>Armor= always pen and never has been

[Aeraaa]

Originally Posted by DRG

AH HA!!!

https://thesovietarmourblog.blogspot...72-part-2.html

The video below shows a T-72B in Grozny retreating with some of its external sponson fuel cells alight. As you can see, the tank is not disabled by the fire and is perfectly capable of moving under its own power to a safe location where the crew can put out the fire with the fire extinguishers carried inside the tank.


Thats why that one was burning in that video in Ukraine the external fuel cells were ruptured

And that is why BDA should not be performed by YT/twitter professionals...