Soviet Hero Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 In recent days, I played CMBS, and found a T-90's armor protection problem. Russia's 2A42 30MM APDS actually in the distance of 4000 meters, 100% penetration of T-90's side upper hull, this seems unlikely. Want to know, T-90's side upper hull on the AP protection should be 60-80MM, and Russia's 30MM APDS in the 4000 meters distance on the Armor ability should not reach so high. So I think, this may also be a BUG.The same problem, but also in T-72B3. Below I will attach the actual game screenshot: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitehot78 Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 I would say it doesn't look right. Is this before or after the 1.01 Update? I 've also had the impression that the T-90 armor underperformed at times(although the ERA bug could have been a factor) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stagler Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 (edited) T-90S was made of paper in CMSF as well. Hope protection has been looked at since they were ported over to CMBS. Edited February 12, 2015 by Stagler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 Side shots for any vehicle is a death sentence. Someone posted a comment on another topic just yesterday, I think, about an Abrams in Iraq being penetrated by a friendly .50 cal SLAP round - through side skirt and hull and into the fighting compartment. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stagler Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 Soviet Hero - try it with an M1 also. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danzig5 Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 Also I have seen multiple instances of the t-90 getting penetrated by the .50 cal in game from the side. There may be something to this issue, as reliable penetration with that weapon is unlikely at any range. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muzzleflash1990 Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 (edited) On a related note on small arms, I've had a BMP-3 penetrated and knoced out in the rear by small arms fire. The squad that did this had 2 AK's and 1 PKM. The BMP-3 is supposedly armoured for all-around small arms fire protection. I would think that covers 7.62 also. The range was around 100m. Edited February 13, 2015 by Muzzleflash1990 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AttorneyAtWar Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 On a related note on small arms, I've had a BMP-3 penetrated and knoced out in the rear by small arms fire. The squad that did this had 2 AK's and 1 PKM. The BMP-3 is supposedly armoured for all-around small arms fire protection. I would think that covers 7.62 also. The range was around 100m. Same here, I have had BMP-3's penetrated by an AK/PKM squad from about 200 meters. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rosseau Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 I agree this should be looked into and not just shrugged off. With all due respect :-) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antaress73 Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 I've penetrated the lower side Hull armor of the Abrams with the discarding fin-stabilized sabot 30mm round on the BMP-3M all the time. Many penetrations then knocked out by AT-10 stabber. Not the same round as the vanilla 30mm armor piercing. Much more powerful. But that was in version 1.00. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thewood1 Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 It should take 10 minutes to test it yourselves. While not disagreeing with the OP, it makes it better to go in and test it versus just piling on with a big "Yeah" or +1. I am off to take a look... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soviet Hero Posted February 13, 2015 Author Share Posted February 13, 2015 I would say it doesn't look right. Is this before or after the 1.01 Update? I 've also had the impression that the T-90 armor underperformed at times(although the ERA bug could have been a factor) After 1.01 Update, of course. ERA naturally and protect all right, but no ERA 100% penetration. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soviet Hero Posted February 13, 2015 Author Share Posted February 13, 2015 Soviet Hero - try it with an M1 also. The M1 I've tested, 30MM APDS even if only 20 meters away from, is very difficult to penetration armor on his side upper hull. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocco Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 I've got a slightly different issue. After the 1.01 patch. I hit a T-90 with 3 rounds of 155m using precision shells. Shells dig big crater out from underneath the tank. Tank falls in hole. No damage to tank. Is it possible the armour tweak overdid things? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thewood1 Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 My test of an M3 firing 25mm APFSDS penetrates the left upper hull multiple times consistently at 500m. No real damage seems to be done, but there are no other penetrations. The odd thing is no hit decals show up anywhere on the T-90. Do 25/30mm shells not leave marks. I have seen .50 machine guns leave them. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White2Golf Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 I've got a slightly different issue. After the 1.01 patch. I hit a T-90 with 3 rounds of 155m using precision shells. Shells dig big crater out from underneath the tank. Tank falls in hole. No damage to tank. Is it possible the armour tweak overdid things? I think you might have just been unlucky. I killed a couple of T-90's with 155mm precision fire in a QB tonight. V 1.01. Stryker Cav vs. heavy Russian stuff is fun. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thewood1 Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 Here is my second test...multiple side penetrations...first one killed the engine and the 12th one killed the driver. While no expert, I would think the T-90AM would have some resistance against 25mm, even with advanced rounds. I attached a jpg because I couldn't figure out how to embed it. My layman's opinion is something doesn't seem right. Even in CMSF, lowly T-55s take multiple 25mm hits from 500m and can survive a while. It also seems little weird that the rounds spray quite a bit, but never have hit the turret. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nerdwing Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 I remember in CMSF engaging T-62's during that one "SNAFU" mission (yeah, THAT one ) pumping 25mm into T62 flanks to no avail. Could it be that Autocannons are overperforming across the board? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thewood1 Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 (edited) I have the save file for an 1100m test. 90 deg straight on fire to the side of the T-90AM from M3 with 25mm using APFSDS. Very first round causes catastrophic penetration that destroys the T-90AM. Again, a layman's opinion says something is wrong here. FIle is too large to attach at 1Mb. If someone wants it, PM me. Edited February 13, 2015 by Thewood1 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzersaurkrautwerfer Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 The T-90 seems to explode less violently, so the ERA is clearly having an effect. I haven't seen any of the especially egregious T-90 losses you all have run into. Autocannon fire vs most things has been somewhat reasonable, I've taken some pretty bad damage to M1s and T-84s too, although no out and out kills (to be fair, I haven't had a BMP shooting into the side of most of my tanks). I wouldn't rule out flank shots at 90 degrees especially when talking about some of the 25 MM family of rounds though, a small DU penetrator going into the crew compartment of a T-90/T-72 is going to end pretty badly (especially given the ammo stowage on those lines of tanks). I'd suggest the T-90s are performing pretty close to what Battlefront expects them to. The T-90S in CMSF wasn't exactly a towering pillar of unstoppable, and it'd hard to imagine the T-90 made it through beta which has a few subject matter experts, with no one raising an eyebrow at them exploding when struck by ATGMs/AT rounds etc. The autocannon tank kills, as much as I did defend the possibility of a DU based burn down, are a bit....exceptional. The T-84 I just got done being very mad at, that had nearly everything useful stripped off its turret by 30 MM sounds about right for all tanks getting plastered by autocannons (it was engaged from a semi-hull down position, fully frontal to the offending BTR-82, I imagine if it's been flanking shots it have ended more poorly). I'd believe the autocannons are over-performing before I believed the T-90 was given an incorrect armor value. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danzig5 Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 Related to my earlier post, I have here video footage of the weakness of the side armor. .50 bmg seems to easily defeat t-90am, but not so much the t-72b3. Not shown is the damage done by the rounds, which break most internal systems. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzersaurkrautwerfer Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 I'd like to see the systems damaged. The video is cool and all, but it's just showing where stuff is hitting. If you do it again on basic training, or the scenario testing difficulty I believe, it'll show you the systems status for the hostile targets. I've had luck messing up a lot of external hardware on tank with the .50 cal, but that's been from the 300 meter+ range. I can't seem to recall doing more than knocking out optics/MGs though. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bastables Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 Side shots for any vehicle is a death sentence. Someone posted a comment on another topic just yesterday, I think, about an Abrams in Iraq being penetrated by a friendly .50 cal SLAP round - through side skirt and hull and into the fighting compartment. I'm guessing that slap round did not do it at 4000m or even 1000m. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danzig5 Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 (edited) I'd like to see Oh, How bold! I will gladly show you. I had to recreate the test as I did not save, but the new results are more interesting with this second test, I feel. The baseline T-90a seems much more, ehm, vulnerable to this weapon than the AM I had previously tested. It should be noted that the only units present were a humvee and some .50 hmg teams, and they do not have m136cs launchers with them. The humvee was unarmed. All results are purely .50 stopping power. Also here is the screen shot you requested, not as much was damaged this time as previously the Weapon Controls were destroyed as well, and the driver was wounded. These results can be repeated, as I have run the scenario five times now without significant alterations to this course of events. Edited February 13, 2015 by danzig5 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akd Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 lower side hull is only 20mm. The upper side hull penetrations are a concern and have been reported. 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.