Jump to content

T-72B3 front hull vs M2 25mm cannon


Alexey K
 Share

Recommended Posts

Yesterday I've played QB and My T-72B3 was frontally engaged by Bradley with it's 25mm gun. Bradley achived penetration in "upper hull" and killed driver. Crew dismounted in haste, but when it reoccupied tank later nothing was damaged and tank was brought back to action.

 

Actually, I was surprised that 25mm achieved frontal penetation. Is there any good map of weak spots as they are modelled in game?

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look where the hit markers pinged it on the actual model. It will show you. Although to what extent this is actually a thing is arguable. I have heard multiple times that "hit locations are arbitrary".

 

I've examined model very thoroughly, but failed to find any marks.

Look's like rounds were using quantum tunneling to get behind armour, paintwork was left unscratched :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've heard verbal accounts over the years of 25mm DU ammunition getting penetrations on Iraqi T-72's during Desert Storm, although I've never found any documentation on the reality of that. I've always suspected that soldiers climbing on destroyed Iraqi tanks may have been looking at 30mm penetrations from GAU-8 fire rather than 25mm. I doubt even the DU rounds could penetrate frontal armor on the B models though, they have significantly higher RHAe than the Monkey models did.

 

But, nothing is bulletproof though so maybe your rounds hit just the right spot. I'd suspect some sort of armor modeling/penetration value glitch more than anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe it is related to the other issues people have had with weird penetrations (after v1.01 release): http://community.battlefront.com/topic/118262-a-question-about-the-t-90%E2%80%98s-armor-protection-was-found%EF%BC%81/ .

Definitely agree with the OP from that thread. At 4000m the tungsten-core 30mm APFSDS rounds from the 2A42 would probably bounce off an inflated balloon. That's well outside the max effective range of that weapon (2500m) to begin with and I dispute the ability of the weapon to even engage the target at that range.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've heard verbal accounts over the years of 25mm DU ammunition getting penetrations on Iraqi T-72's during Desert Storm, although I've never found any documentation on the reality of that. I've always suspected that soldiers climbing on destroyed Iraqi tanks may have been looking at 30mm penetrations from GAU-8 fire rather than 25mm. I doubt even the DU rounds could penetrate frontal armor on the B models though, they have significantly higher RHAe than the Monkey models did.

 

But, nothing is bulletproof though so maybe your rounds hit just the right spot. I'd suspect some sort of armor modeling/penetration value glitch more than anything.

 

Iraq used export model T-72s and their own production "Asad Babil" wich was ever worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Iraq used export model T-72s and their own production "Asad Babil" wich was ever worse.

 

Minor pet peeve of mine.  The Iraqis used the Polish/East German level export tanks, not some sort of mythical subgrade pure cardbonian T-72.  There's some pretty strong doubts that the Asad Babil was anything more than one of those T-72M or T-72M1s from earlier shipments that had been modified locally.

 

A lot of the confusion might come from the fact that many of the tanks were locally assembled, but it was locally assembled from effectively the world's biggest model tank kit, the actual armor protection would not have been worse than again, any other T-72M or T-72M1 that at the time represented the top shelf of the Polish or East German military.

 

Which is not to say it was as well armored as a T-72B or something, but there's this sort of myth that Iraqi T-72s had sabot attracting cardboard plating, when their armor protection was equal to what anyone who wasn't a Soviet T-72 operator had at the time.

 

Re: 25 MM vs tank

 

I've heard claims of people killing T-55s and T-62s frontally from sources I considered reliable (guys who were kicking around in 1991/2003 on Bradleys vs "guys who knew a guy who totally did it") but never heard the T-72 story.

 

We had a grizzled old timer who'd been a Bradley gunner with 2 ACR at 73 Eastings.  He came up over a rise, spotted T-72, engaged with TOW, T-72 exploded (he used hand gestures to express to the degree it exploded).  Then they spotted another T-72, engaged with TOW, and the missile went out about five feet and then plunked nose down into the sand.  He then engaged the tank with 25 MM AP while the the driver attempted to back up.  The T-72 had already started to draw down on them before the first 25 MM left the tube, but likely because the crew was operating in manual to keep their heat profile down, was still traversing when it too, exploded in a high order explosion, with bits of turret and tank splattering about the desert.  The guy I knew popped the hatch to get some fresh air, likely convinced he was the best Bradley gunner on earth to have killed a T-72 with 25 MM.

 

Then he saw a wire tangled up over the front deck of his Bradley.  Then he realized while he was engaging the T-72, his wingman had seen what was happening, and made a shot with HIS TOW right over the front deck of the Bradley.  

 

Dude was pretty awesome.  He'd also done a lot of stuff in Afghanistan (there's no seperate MOS in the US Army for "light" scouts or "heavy" scouts, so you can easily be a Bradley crewman, guntruck commander, Stryker section leader, and then a Bradley equipped Platoon Sergeant), half of Fort Riley knew him or owed him favors.  All the same, engaging a T-72 frontally with 25 MM didn't seem to make an impression on the tank, and he was hoping at best to knock out optics, maybe chew up the gun tube which is about in line with what we expect to happen.

 

Re: Topic

 

I think it's a bug too.  The sort of frontal impacts I can see a 25 MM DU doing doesn't lend itself to killing the driver outside of some magic bullet stuff (impacting surfaces under the tank and bouncing back up through the bottom of the hull, striking the driver's vision device in a way as to cause it to cause the device to fragment and kill the driver) are pretty doubtful.  

 

It'd be cool to see some sort of "CSI mode" for replays that shows a line of penetration.  The "problem" with CM is the damage model is so detailed that it can be hard to tell if you put a round through the driver's heating duct and the materials of the duct were enough to direct the penetrator right into the driver's gonads, or if there's some sort of odd glitch with smaller penetrators.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It'd be cool to see some sort of "CSI mode" for replays that shows a line of penetration.  The "problem" with CM is the damage model is so detailed that it can be hard to tell if you put a round through the driver's heating duct and the materials of the duct were enough to direct the penetrator right into the driver's gonads, or if there's some sort of odd glitch with smaller penetrators.  

 

Its either insanely detailed. Or insanely arbitrary and random.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not that detailed, but it is not arbitrary.  There are some random elements when it comes to armor quality and weak point penetrations.

 

I just tested a full minute of continuous 25mm fire by Brads against T-72B3s at 500m and 0° and could not achieve any penetrations, partial penetrations or spalling against any part of the front armor array.  The only thing I saw was two single instances of a bottom rear hull penetration, which is probably a bug, but does a convincing stand-in for a ricochet into the bottom hull (ground ricochets are not modeled, however).  I will report this in case it indicates a gap in the damage model somewhere.

 

But I think this upper front hull penetration must have been a very lucky weakpoint penentration, or some part of the tank that is not actually upper front hull is reporting as upper front hull.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is why Tunguska is such a threat in the game, autocannon fire is capable of getting into every little nook and cranny. The Russian's V-wedge forward armor kind'a implies a lot of downward deflection into the hulltop, one would imagine. I've found if the crew gets the least little penetration without knowing where its coming from they're liable to freak out and abandon the vehicle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is why Tunguska is such a threat in the game, autocannon fire is capable of getting into every little nook and cranny. The Russian's V-wedge forward armor kind'a implies a lot of downward deflection into the hulltop, one would imagine. I've found if the crew gets the least little penetration without knowing where its coming from they're liable to freak out and abandon the vehicle.

 

V-wedge forward armor is actually ERA blocks, they can't deflect 25mm round. Ballistic armour of turret behind it is coupola-shaped and can only deflect rounds upwards and to the side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if developers will do anything about it.

I 100% guarantee that the developers will fix bugs that get reported. When the get there is another matter and do they think my top priority or your top priority is *the* top priority is another question. But my experience is that improperly modelled armour protection usually gets attention.

 

Probably engaged through the triplex using capitalism super-magic aiming cheat killing the driver. That said, what was the distance?

You guys!! That is much to complex... 

 

Look's like rounds were using quantum tunneling to get behind armour, paintwork was left unscratched :)

^^^ this. Quantum tunnelling is the newest technology in ammo, come on keep up. :) If you put in the $ on the basic physics research it eventually pays dividends :D

Edited by IanL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Upper side hull armor of T-series should increased from 60mm to 80mm in the next patch.

I say should because it's marked as fixed but sometimes it turns out different than expected.

Chris did confirm that this change was going to be in 1.02 - but he did not give an ETA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...