antaress73 Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 Without the bug, should the ERA on the US tanks be able to protect its sides against AT-14, AT-13 and AT-10 then ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 Soviet Hero, please test the T-90 against AT-7 and let us know the results. The numbers AKD dug up suggest HEAT resistance of 540mm for the T-90 upper hull. The AT-5a penetrates 600mm so I don't see a problem there. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stagler Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 To be honest. This is probably to do with the ERA bug. As I said in a previous thread. I lost a T-90MS to a BMP-2 launched AT-5 - also frontally. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 The OP acknowledged the ERA bug. The question is if the base armor package under the ERA is correct. The ERA bug is what makes this testable. An AT-7 test should give us an answer. Anyone with the release version of the game could do it, BTW 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexey K Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 It this ERA bug admitted by developers? Is fix pending? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AttorneyAtWar Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 (edited) It this ERA bug admitted by developers? Is fix pending? Yes it will be fixed by the 1.01 patch which will I believe will be released this week. Edited February 10, 2015 by Raptorx7 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 It this ERA bug admitted by developers? They deny everything! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kieme(ITA) Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 It this ERA bug admitted by developers? Is fix pending? http://community.battlefront.com/topic/118082-hit-decals-on-era-tiles/?p=1581525 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leka Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 I did some testing: AT-7 vs T-90AM front hull: Penetrations: 6 Partial penetrations: 21 Non-penetrating hits: 25 AT-7 vs T-90A front hull: Penetrations: 6 Partial penetrations: 17 Non-penetrating hits: 27 AT-7 vs T-72B3 front hull: Penetrations: 16 Partial penetrations: 24 Non-penetrating hits: 8 Tested also MT-12 vs T-90AM @ 300m, most of the hits were either partial penetrations or armor spalling. few shots achived full penetrations against front turret / upper front hull (using APFSDS) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antaress73 Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 (edited) That shouldnt be. Without ERA, the Armor thickness should be at least 610-650mm on the turret without ERA (860mm at most with ERA against KE) . I don't think a rapira can penetrate that much. 450-475 mm at most. Front hull goes from 610mm in the middle to close to 800mm on the corners without ERA. That's against KE. The AT-7 can penetrate 500mm at most. Should not penetrate even without ERA. Edited February 10, 2015 by antaress73 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nerdwing Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 Without the bug, should the ERA on the US tanks be able to protect its sides against AT-14, AT-13 and AT-10 then ? Definitely not the AT-14 Not sure about the other two. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akd Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 Don't provide sources for your numbers, don't expect any action. Not sure if Leka's tests distinguished between upper and lower front hull, so data may be corrupted for our purposes. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antaress73 Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 (edited) Don't provide sources for your numbers, don't expect any action. Not sure if Leka's tests distinguished between upper and lower front hull, so data may be corrupted for our purposes. that's my source: Steel beast Professional Edition. You substract around 200mm to get protection without Kontakt-5. I dont know for Relikt. This estimate was from Fovanov's site. Here's a description of the simulation, it's for military professionnals and is offered to them for training supplement so I dont think their sources are doubtful. http://www.esimgames.com/?page_id=823 Edited February 10, 2015 by antaress73 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akd Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 Front hull goes from 610mm in the middle to close to 800mm on the corners without ERA. That's against KE. How are you getting these numbers? Backing out Kontakt-5 protection? If so, what assumptions are you using? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antaress73 Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 (edited) How are you getting these numbers? Backing out Kontakt-5 protection? If so, what assumptions are you using? The graphic is with the effects of ERA., You substract around 200mm to get protection without Kontakt-5. I dont know for Relikt. This estimate for Kontakt-5's effectiveness in absolute terms was from Fovanov's site. He estimated that it added 200mm of protection against KE and more than that against HEAT. I dont know for Relikt. From what I understand its that Kontakt and relikt disrupt the round, making less ideal for maximum penetration. SO the effect would be different for each round. It decreases penetration. Much less for rounds designed specifically to defeat it, but still an effect. So adding 200mm is a rough estimate and probably not correct but they used that as their basis in Steel beast so you substract 200mm and you get armor thickness without ERA. You have used his numbers in one of your earlier posts: Glacis is 235mm thick with probably 105mm STEF and 30mm hard steel. The TE of STEF is 0.41 KE and 0.55 HEAT and the TE of hard steel is 1.34 vs KE & 1.3 vs HEAT. Thus the glacis should offer [3 x 1.34 + 10.5 x 0.41 + 11] / 0.38 =~51cm KE and [3 x 1.3 + 10.5 x 0.55 + 11] / 0.38= ~ 54cm HEAT armor. With Kontakt-5 the KE value is up 15-20cm KE and 40-50cm HEAT thus about 69±2cm KE and ~99±4cm HEAT. If I used the 150mm number the base armor thickness would be even better. Edited February 10, 2015 by antaress73 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antaress73 Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 Here's the T-72B: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 I remember when I was testing the applique armor on Churchill III for the CMBN vehicle pack the AI had this maddening habit of targeting the most vulnerable spot on turret front and entirely avoiding the applique armor panels. Very frustrating. I should have been testing it against AT guns at 900m range instead of 400m. Oh, about T90 vulnerability. You should retest now in patch v1.01. The ERA should now be up to snuff. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antaress73 Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 Downloading MikeyD ! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antaress73 Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 Is Battlefront using Jane's armor and artillery for data ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antaress73 Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 Great patch. Reactive armor works 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snarre Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 yep now its work but still this T90 am front turret armor feels realy weak or then some time reactive armor on turret dosent work. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thewood1 Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 While its 4-5 years old, these discussions in the CMSF were a pretty good starting point for understanding modern armor and ammunition arms race. Damian90 always had some good information. Most of his pictures are missing, but I copied a bunch of them at the time. If anyone wants a specific pic, PM me and I'll see if I have it. There is a lot of discussion and formal charts comparing Russian and US ammunition against T-90s, T72s, and M1s. http://community.battlefront.com/topic/89357-modern-armor-internal-arrays-what-defeated-them-or-might/ 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soviet Hero Posted February 11, 2015 Author Share Posted February 11, 2015 Soviet Hero, please test the T-90 against AT-7 and let us know the results. The numbers AKD dug up suggest HEAT resistance of 540mm for the T-90 upper hull. The AT-5a penetrates 600mm so I don't see a problem there. Hi Vanir Ausf B, thank you for you reply. I have some questions on your reply. How do you get T-90's upper front hull data, which is 540mm against HEAT? AT-4 and AT-5 both are very obsolete ATGM and they are light ATGM. Although in game they are improved AT-4C and AT-5A, the only change is tandem warhead, which has limited improvement on the penetration ability(About 600mm RHA). During the development of T-90 and improvement of later models, it would be quite necessary to test the armor using their own AT weapon. If their new generation composite armor cannot protect against their own old light ATGM, then it is pointless to admit such tank into service. I don't think Russian will be that stupid and incapable to develop a reasonable tank. It's just simple logic. On Russian or Chinese new generation MBT, the western sources and data could only be obtained from captured or destroyed Arabic tanks, or test result on export T series from their allies. Then the new MBT's data are estimated combined with Russian public information. Because we know that the real data of tank in service is classified and these tanks have not seen any real combat so far. On a guy posted STEEL BEASTS PE pic above, Steel beasts PE is professional tank simulation game, so its data could be close to real data. All the tanks playable in Steel beasts are purchased by the developer using USD. So they can explore and study these tanks very closely and get first-hand data. The simulation of device installed on tanks is also very close to real one. Because they have not got Russian authorization on Russian tanks, so Russian tanks are controlled by AI recently. Hence their data should also be obtained from the captured or destroyed Arabic tanks, or test result on export T series from their allies combining with Russian public information. They sent invitation to China once to show their interest on Chinese new generation MBT, but China refused the cooporation. So Steel Beasts PE's reference value is quite high. I think their T-90's data is close to the real one of Russian's newest T-90. At last, I would like to talk about AT-7. From my own testing, AT-7 can kill T-90 frontally. The probability is about 2-3 times partial penetration of upper front armor among 10 trials. Although it shows partial penetration, T-90 either caught fire or was dead instantly. Below is some snapshots of my test: https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=DE88F592D0055AE9!5760&authkey=!AFNhCGqAnuJiM0Y&v=3&ithint=photo%2cjpg https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=DE88F592D0055AE9!5758&authkey=!AIf25i0TKc510G8&v=3&ithint=photo%2cjpg https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=DE88F592D0055AE9!5757&authkey=!ABFd0pDEejV-LmE&v=3&ithint=photo%2cjpg https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=DE88F592D0055AE9!5756&authkey=!APuKv-b8OSewifU&v=3&ithint=photo%2cjpg https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=DE88F592D0055AE9!5759&authkey=!AMFsITysEWnRDfY&v=3&ithint=photo%2cjpg https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=DE88F592D0055AE9!5755&authkey=!AHS_KUbZJXMJBSc&v=3&ithint=photo%2cjpg 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soviet Hero Posted February 11, 2015 Author Share Posted February 11, 2015 (edited) I'll give a Russia published on T-80U and T-90 test results, test results from the Russians own point of view, T-90 upper front hull main armored on the HEAT protection capacity of 540mm this value is low. And this is the 90's at the end of the test, the performance of CMBS in main armor Russia's own T-90 have been those that have improved, so expressive should better is.In CMBS,T-90 upper front hull main armored for HEAT protection ability, should be higher than 540mm. Edited February 11, 2015 by Soviet Hero 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akd Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 (edited) These trials were not real. The website author himself (Fofanov) has cast doubt on them, but he does not update his website. He thought at the time he was receiving the info from a reliable source, but it turns out to have been made up. The Metis (AT-7) partial penetrations of the glacis under v1.00 do seem very suspicious, so I will report. Edited February 11, 2015 by akd 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.