Soviet Hero Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 Hi BFC CMBS team. I am one of the CM loyal players and did not miss any CM games since CMBB. However, I found that the armor of Russian MBT seems to be underestimaed. I have heard that it may be caused by ERA bug, but I still want to mention that even without ERA protection T-90's main armor at upper hull should still be able to resist light ATGMs like AT-4C or AT-5A. Now in game, they can penetrate upper hull very easily. Even RPG-7's AT rockets can penetrate T-90's upper hull armor. In my knowledge, T-90 is equipped with Russian new composite armor. Without ERA, its upper hull shall have 550-600mm RHA against APFSDS and 900mm RHA against HEAT. Although AT-4C or AT-5A has tandem warhead, their penetration ability can only reach 500-700mm RHA.(And the ATGM data is claimed by Russian. IRL, it may not be reached.) So although we have ERA bug, but I think the uppper hull main armor shall still be able to resist AT-4C and AT-5A, not to mention RPG-7's rocket. However in game, it can't. And the turret armor shall be better than the upper hull. Above is my argument. I really wish CMBS could be better and more realistic as a simulation game. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Codename Duchess Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 Provide sources or don't hold your breath. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 You've seen an AT-4 defeat T-90 frontally? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzersaurkrautwerfer Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 I've defeated T-90s frontally. With my GI Joe kung fu grip. True story. I am not making this up. I am not at all a kind of biased source. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mord Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 When did Brian Williams join the forums? Mord. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nerdwing Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 (edited) Only the AT-4C has a tandem warhead, so the T-90 sure as heck should have stopped either I"d imagine. Where exactly was the hit in question? A screenshot would be perfect. Edited February 10, 2015 by Nerdwing 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xIGuNDoCIx Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 I've defeated T-90s frontally. With my GI Joe kung fu grip. True story. I am not making this up. I am not at all a kind of biased source. Dammit I just about spit out my drink! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xIGuNDoCIx Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 When did Brian Williams join the forums? Mord. Oh snap!!!!! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzersaurkrautwerfer Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 I'm actually rather pissed at Brian Williams. CSM Terpak is one of the greatest Soldiers I ever worked with, and I was thrilled to see him get recognized, but god damn now it's all off the rails because Williams needed a supersexy story. That said the T-90 will actually explode if you strike it with the crouching swan, hasty duckling stance. It only has ..23 RHA in the driver's seat. Trust me. I am a professional. Also yeah. I haven't seen an AT4, US rocket or ATGM do squat against anything nastier than an IFV. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akd Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 Best I can find is Fofanov's sight, but it is old, and this data may be for original T-90. Not sure what, if any, changes later T-90As saw to hull armor. 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. There is indeed an ERA bug, so best test in v1.00 would be to fire PG-7VL rounds at one and see if they penetrate the glacis reliably. (You will have to get UKR RPG-7 teams to expend their PG-7VR rounds first to test this.) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nerdwing Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 What is the ERA bug? is it failing to activate when it should? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzersaurkrautwerfer Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 What is the ERA bug? is it failing to activate when it should? Pretty much. Basically it's making the Ukrainian AT assets more lethal against Russian stuff, and Russian stuff marginally better against non-APS US vehicles at this point from my understanding. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soviet Hero Posted February 10, 2015 Author Share Posted February 10, 2015 You've seen an AT-4 defeat T-90 frontally? Please see my screenshot below： 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soviet Hero Posted February 10, 2015 Author Share Posted February 10, 2015 MikeyD, on 10 Feb 2015 - 12:22 PM, said: You've seen an AT-4 defeat T-90 frontally? Please see my screenshot below： 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 (edited) I can't test anything against the T-90 without ERA because I don't have a version 1.0 installation on my computer anymore. But I did have a US AT-4 (penetration 420mm) fail to penetrate a T-90A upper hull in a PBEM a few weeks ago. I don't know if the ERA bug was present at that time or not. Edited February 10, 2015 by Vanir Ausf B 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soviet Hero Posted February 10, 2015 Author Share Posted February 10, 2015 I can't test anything against the T-90 without ERA because I don't have a version 1.0 installation on my computer anymore. But I did have a US AT-4 fail to penetrate a T-90A upper hull in a PBEM a few weeks ago. I don't know if the ERA bug was present at that time or not. I pointed out that the AT-4 does not mean that USA AT-4 (M136) rocket launchers, and refers to the Russian AT-4 light anti tank missiles. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzersaurkrautwerfer Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 Do you have a point of impact on that AT-4? There's an indicated region, but there's a chance you caught some sort of golden BB round. Perhaps locate the hit decal? Because right now all I see is the optimal state for T-90s. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 Almost anything can penetrate once in a blue moon. We need multiple examples so that we know it's not a one-off. Also, try something other than the AT-4c. If there is a problem it is not necessarily that the T-90 armor is too weak. It could be that the AT-4c has its penetration set too high. I know from my own testing of the ERA bug that the AT-4c will go through the Bradley front hull like it was butter ever with functioning ERA while the AT-7 Saxhorn usually fails. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soviet Hero Posted February 10, 2015 Author Share Posted February 10, 2015 (edited) The following is the test shots on AT-4C, the other I will test the above in the later: https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=DE88F592D0055AE9!5746&authkey=!AOVW2A7NYEPZ5xs&v=3&ithint=photo%2cjpg https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=DE88F592D0055AE9!5749&authkey=!AMSfAf1B1J781n0&v=3&ithint=photo%2cjpg Edited February 10, 2015 by Soviet Hero 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soviet Hero Posted February 10, 2015 Author Share Posted February 10, 2015 (edited) https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=DE88F592D0055AE9!5745&authkey=!APK0xng3ieGGIHw&v=3&ithint=photo%2cjpg https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=DE88F592D0055AE9!5747&authkey=!ALsim8f7bw7VDxM&v=3&ithint=photo%2cjpg Edited February 10, 2015 by Soviet Hero 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soviet Hero Posted February 10, 2015 Author Share Posted February 10, 2015 (edited) https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=DE88F592D0055AE9!5744&authkey=!ADAZIhuug7S8z5w&v=3&ithint=photo%2cjpg https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=DE88F592D0055AE9!5748&authkey=!AGXaQnaa46ia1d0&v=3&ithint=photo%2cjpg Edited February 10, 2015 by Soviet Hero 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzersaurkrautwerfer Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 It would appear the AT-4 achieved frontal penetration on your pictures. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soviet Hero Posted February 10, 2015 Author Share Posted February 10, 2015 (edited) It would appear the AT-4 achieved frontal penetration on your pictures. Sorry, here I use the onedrive cannot directly display, only trouble you to click on links to view pictures. A total of three sets of pictures. Edited February 10, 2015 by Soviet Hero 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soviet Hero Posted February 10, 2015 Author Share Posted February 10, 2015 Next is the result of the test of AT-5A, a total of 2 groups, please click the link to look. https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=DE88F592D0055AE9!5754&authkey=!AEKlGZl2R2GVd9E&v=3&ithint=photo%2cjpg https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=DE88F592D0055AE9!5751&authkey=!ANhnutQqPjY92Lo&v=3&ithint=photo%2cjpg https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=DE88F592D0055AE9!5753&authkey=!ABM-KDM4ArpIgBc&v=3&ithint=photo%2cjpg 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soviet Hero Posted February 10, 2015 Author Share Posted February 10, 2015 https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=DE88F592D0055AE9!5750&authkey=!AOP3wEtTiZhS48U&v=3&ithint=photo%2cjpg https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=DE88F592D0055AE9!5752&authkey=!AIuuyKi05lZnClU&v=3&ithint=photo%2cjpg 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.