antaress73

Zaloga, well that's the guy who pretended ERA wouldnt not be useful on soviet tanks because crews would be scared by the explosions and abandon the tanks. Sorry, but I dont put much credibility in him. He's biaised as hell. He's another " be assured we can occupy Russia in 7 days" (Turkish foreign minister) type of guy. Russian tanks are not as good as western tanks, sure, but they are not made of cardboard. Mithril is not necessary to increase protection against CE. New polymers in a sandwich with improved alloys, spaced armor could do the trick. We're not talking Leopard-2/M1A2 1400-1600mm against HEAT levels of protection here but 900mm. Much more reasonable but not "unreal". It doesnt imply double the protection against HEAT like western ceramic/polymer sandwiches do. It does imply lesser material and technology (realistic) but not 2-3 times as worst and 1989ish as current numbers imply.Research didnt completely stop during the nineties and early 2000's in Russia for tank technology. And the rate at which the T-90 was produced implies some difficulties in manufacturing it or improvements that warranted delays to wait for another version. Or money problems. You can say " but why did they feel the need to add ERA" ? well, 900- 940mm is good (it protects against most non-top-attack western missiles and older soviet missiles) but not good enough. If you can augment it to 1400mm-1500mm with ERA, so much the better. I found this estimate on a forum for T-90A latest batch : 940mm against HEAT for the glacis. Yes it's a forum, but it seems reasonable. There's many estimates in the same range. Steel Beast, that forum, other places too. ZAloga's and fovanov's estimates (which are based on zaloga's numbers) for a vanilla T-90 first batch are in a minority as far as I can see. Notice he mentions that svinets-2 penetrates 770 RHA at 2000 meters. I would say more like 730-750mm according to other estimates but he's not out of the ballpark. Armour-vs. APFSDS (frontal turrent): 740 mm RHAGlacis:510mm RHAlower Hull:230mm RHAvs HEAT Turret: 1180 mm RHAGlacis:940 mm RHALower hull: 230 mm RHAFirepower-3BM48 "Свинец-2"APSFSDS- pierces 770 RHA at 2000 m9M119 Refleks HEAT: 900 RHA(note: HEAT so its actually 500 MM APFSDS value)Speed: 37-40 mphOperational range:340-430 miWeight: 52 tonsSize: 31x12 feetPower: 20.4 hp/tonne (15.8 kW/tonne) for V-92 12-cyl. diesel engine

Did anyone ever cut out the frontal hull armor of the T-90A ? Export versions do not count. They could be less resistant because of cheaper and less technologically advanced materials or sandwich. The Russians are very secretive and maskirovka is a big part of their philosophy. See the surprise when they fired the Kaliber missiles which were not supposed to have such a range. Nobody in the western intelligence community knew about it (publicly). Creating such a modern game is a very subjective process prone to massive innacuracies. Especially concerning Russian materials since there is much less first hand knowledge about it available to Battlefront. US equipment is a priority. It's good business. Russian equipement is part of the scenery for a lot of players.

So steel beast's numbers are completely bogus (and by a monstrous margin too) then. Steel Beast is used in armies for training (not the public version I admit). They give 1600 and 1400mm with Kontakt-5 against CE for T-90S front hull. The layer is something, the materials used are something else. Did they take T-72BM and upgrade them to T-90A ? or did they build completely new tanks ? They could have changed for a better more modern alloy, ceramic or something else. Do you have a diagram or you can confirm to me that it is completely the same materials, composition, layer ? I dont speak or read Russian and translation in google is ****ty so i'm limited to western sources. What about the T-90AM ? same hull but with Relikt ? Relikt is built-in, so it means new hulls no ?

We're not saying that The T-90 series is as armored or better armored than western tanks. That would be preposterous. But the gap is not that wide as depicted in the game. THe numbers are way off... especially for protection against HEAT on the front Hull. here's an estimate of the turret: lower range: https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTAqNe2ncI5HJbG1ujlAPXi56EsaIxi9q2XsWJTBo9uJwIlsUzR Could not find something for the front hull.

And btw, the numbers in steel beast are for the T-90S, which is an old export version with probably less armor protection than the T-90A and T-90AM with the old turret design (which is probably in line with Fovanov's numbers ). The turret on the T-90A is much different and better armored, especially against CE (HEAT) weapons. The hull must be better too.

Yeah, I was the one who showed screenshots of tests about the the AT-13 never penetrating the side turret of the Abrams despite having 900-950mm of penetration after ERA and a tandem warhead. Side armor of Abrams only has a single layer of ERA and should not be a factor. The AT-13 should penetrate the side turret easily with plenty of energy to spare most of the times (barring extreme angles, freak incidents). As for the M1 abrams. I dont protest steel beast #s . Smack dab from the front ... like if the firer is in a 30 degrees arc in front, yeah... 900-960mm . But, as soon as the firer is outside that arc, protection levels drop significantly because it negates the armor's horizontal sloping effect. In fact. inside 750 meters the thickest part of the turret (those DU add-on plates, left or right front turret) is penetrable by svinets-2 if hit at a 90 degrees angle (but the energy left is not big so sometimes, not much damage, probably what happened to that left-front penetration on your M1, Vladimir). Even better behind armor effects if the firer is at an higher elevation since that also further reduce LOS thickness by also negating the vertical sloping effect. So if you have two firers.. one will likely get a good shot from outside of the almost invulnerable 30 degrees arc in front of the tank (a hit on the mantlet , turret ring, driver's hatch or lower hull will still have a chance to penetrate inside that arc) If they used the Steel Beast numbers for the M1, I do take issue to the CE protection levels of the T-90A/T-90AM upper frontal hull armor. Because it should be 900-1000mm against CE without Kontakt-5 or Relikt according to Steel Beast numbers. Right now.. the 600mm or 650mm penetration capabilties of the tandem warhead direct attack javelin or PG-7VR can penetrate that upper frontal hull armor (glacis) almost all the time on the T-90A. As for the T-90AM, missiles with 950mm of penetration capabilities can penetrate both Relikt and the base armor behind it on a regular basis, which should not be. Relikt will reduce tandem warhead by 40%, to be very conservative (actually, it should reduce by 50-60%), leaving 570mm of penetrative capabillities to the warhead. It penetrates, so the CE protection level of the T-90A/T-90AM glacis is less than 570mm. Sorry, but I dont believe that is realistic. Againt KE, okay maybe no problem... ( I suspect more like 700mm on upper front left and right hull and 540 mm for the middle upper front hull if you take steel beast's #s and remove the Kontakt-5 effect) .

You're right , in the game it's the 130mm version not the 152mm , so 800mm. I did a test with the T-90AM where Skiff penetrated the front glacis anywhere (front hull ) everytime despite Relikt. Same with AT-13 and other robust direct attack missiles. The Kornet and Krysanthema I can believe it. But not Skiff or AT-13. There's a problem. T-90A's and T-90AM's Front hull protection against CE warheads is vastly underestimated.

everything i've read (zaloga, armor basics) gives 900-1000mm for the NAKED T90A's front hull plate against CE (HEAT). Right now, a javelin with 600mm of penetration in DIRECT attack mode can penetrate the front hull (anywhere) of a T-90A all the time (I did tests). A PG-7VR round will penetrate it also (650mm). So protection against HEAT (CE) is under 600mm. Protection values are around 573mm LOS against KE (sabot) rounds for the T-72B front hull which is probably what they used. That's very questionable. It's like modelling the T-72B3's armor by using the numbers from a plain vanilla T-72 from the late sixties. As it stand right now in the game, the ceramic "sandwich" composition of the front hull has no effect whatsoever in augmenting protection against CE warheads. This is not possible. Did you use the old armor model for Shock Force's syrian T-72s ? If that so, no wonder. They didnt have ceramic special armor anywhere (export). I guess the turret is also undermodelled against both CE and KE. As for the T-90AM. A Skiff (1000-1100mm) will penetrate both Relikt (effective against tandem warheads) and the base armor of the front hull everytime in the game (again, I did many tests). That means less than 1000-1100mm of protection against CE with base armor and Relikt COMBINED. Relikt augments protection against CE by 50% So base armor protection on the T-90AM would have to be less than 700-750mm against CE for that to be possible. I find this very hard to believe. I hope this is revisited in a future patch. Numbers for the front Turret should also be verified with new sources since if it was that much mistaken for the front hull, it likely is for the turret too.

what does it gives, the lower graphic ? Equivalent protection ? For glacis ? Against HEAT ? It gives 277mm total but the angle should change that to 540 LOS agaibst kinetic but against HEAT it is surely higher because it is a sandwich like chobham.

Interesting , so whats your opinion BTR on front Hull HEAT protection for the T-90A and T-90AM . Should a direct fire javelin or ukrainian Corsar penetrate the front Hull of a T-90A ? (Kontakt-5 being defeated by the tandem warhead) or penetrate the T-90AM once Relikt is stripped off ? (Relikt is effective against tandem but the low HEAT protection numbers fir the front Hull enables everything 900mm and higher to penetrate both Relikt and the base armor). Btw I did many tests .

So is the game correct ? Steel beast are too high ?

speaking of underprotection: T-90A numbers in steel beast for frontal hull armor indicates a base armor protection against HEAT of 900-1000mm when removing ERA. WIth ERA its 1450 and 1600mm. Right now it gets penetrated by stuff with 600mm of penetration (tandem warhead) in the game. I know you've based your models on Fovanov's numbers but they are very old and dated and for an original vanilla T-90. It's like modeling armor protection for a T-72B3 on a plain vanilla T-72 from the early seventies. It has increased much since then.

Panzer: so you claim that the US had access to Relikt .. Funny since it wasnt deployed on any tanks before the t-90AM except the Rogatka T-72 upgrade the Indians had kontakt-5 in their T-90s .. The T-90MS has Relikt and India recently bought some but too recently to design a new round based on tests. I'm very skeptical and you woulldnt tell us anything that is classified.

Vlad: I was looking for a reaction i do believe its off too and by a good margin. I would say the M829A4 should have a 45-50% chance of defeating Relikt (the base armor is irrelevant , it will get penetrated at less than 3500m but probably not at 4000m) . The round was designed to have a chance at defeating Relikt but having a chance probably means 45% instead of 0 or 5% . Right now in the game it is 80% of the time which is highly doubtful and very optimistic.

That may be too much but it is still a kill.. Doesn't make much difference to the digital troops lol

The M829A4 will still probably punch through 680mm of armor at 4000 meters and was designed to defeat Relikt . If the round defeats Relikt (75-80% of the time) the base armor is less than 680mm on most of the frontal turret and frontal Hull. So I guess this is what the game intends.

good luck, luck plays a big part in that scenario

I ve seen them. Quite a few times, got some kills with them .

then all lieutenants and sergeants should be able to call in mortars at the very least. Heavy stuff, probably not. They used the same system for the russian side as in the WWII soviets in red thunder I think

True, that'swhy they invented CITV and panoramic sights for the commander. The commander is the main spotter. The gunner secondary because of tunnel vision. Once a round is in the breech the loader spots too (vision blocks). It can help greatly in spotting first against a three-man crew tank and prevent tanks and infantry from sneaking from the sides and the rear ( it can watch semi-effectively the sides and the rear while the commander and the gunner concentrate on the front) .Remember the T-34/76 with the commander firing the gun and spotting ? It rarely got the drop on an enemy tank on a head-on confrontation.

You were in the VDV no ? Maybe the VDV are trained for a more flexible artillery response. Motor Rifle troops are modeled in the game. And Ratnik is only partially modeled and maybe less accurately than preferable. As for aircrafts, the US side has the same limitation. US aircrafts dont share the info with ground forces in the game (I think).

ERA on sides of Abrams turret is single layer. The PG-7VR tandem warhead would detonate the layer and penetrate the armor with the main charge if struck relatively head-on. (90 degrees) Thickest protection of ABrams SEP v.1 was 540mm against HEAT. They increased it a little on the V.2. PG-7V can penetrate 650mm behind ERA. I would put its chances of penetrating fully at roughly 40-50%, the rest would be partial penetrations or non-penetrating. AT-13 would penetrate most of the times since its 950mm behind ERA. Presently i've NEVER seen an AT-13 penetration on the side turret and I did many tests. The side hull has a double layer of ERA negating tandem warheads (tiles over boxes) plus the skirts, some space between the skirts and then the main hull and only the Kornet and Kryz can penetrate if they strike it at 90 degrees. And not always. They wont penetrate if they strike the ERA laterally. You see the ERA gone, the skirt being penetrated and a HEAT jet splash on the main hull armor among the wheels.

thanks for clearing that up

More victories for the russians .. maybe because the more skilled players are playing the russians and the less experienced take the US ?

I buy a couple of SU-25s and have them strafe the Abrams destroying most subsystems (thanks SubIime ! ) always buy the Orlan drone to locate the tanks and strafe them. So far, by using this tactic and T-90As, the kill ratio while doing that (even head- to head) and using smoke liberally is 16-1 for the T-90A in my latest four games (all attack or assaults). Any questions ? The US has trouble using his air and doing the same to the russians because hey, tunguska ! Stingers are a hit and miss. I usually buy tank heavy formations (armored mechanized company, 3 platoons of tanks and 1 platoon of infantry) and he buys a mechanized armor company (2 platoons of infantry with brads and 1 platoon of M1s). So who has the Bradley does not always win The biggest killer against my tanks are the Javelins and that's because I do not buy enough artillery ( I should drop the Hinds and buy more arty) and use smoke well enough when attacking the Bradley and infantry positions while at the same time advancing my tanks (coordination) so they get inside minimum range and blast them. You do that and the americans have a very bad day. Using fixed defensive positions is a bad idea (he now knows). Last game he played the americans more skillfully and it was a bloodbath on both sides. He's a much less experienced player because he bought the game recently and he's a close friend of mine. Buy less main force formations and more support (air and arty, drones, anti-air) and learn how to use them (combined arms) when playing the russians on the attack. They have constellation to share info between units very rapidly. Use it !