T-72B obr. 1989 - The Last Soviet T-72

[kamikazi21358 998]

*The last produced Soviet T-72, as there is one prototype after it.

Production T-72s after the T-72 mod. 1989 are made by the Russian Federation.

 

[I also want to apologize as I only have 2-3 pictures of the 1989 itself currently.  For some reason, I cannot upload more images for some reason, so when I figure this out, I'll add more.]

 

 

T-72B obr. 1989

 

Т-72Б обр. 1989

 

 

 

 

Summary

 

The T-72B obr. 1989 is an upgrade to the T-72B series, with it’s main feature being upgraded frontal armour, along with Kontakt-5 ERA.  With it’s upper frontal plate featuring NERA, and the introduction of Kontakt-5 ERA, the T-72B obr. 1989 will be an exceptionally armoured top tier tank, and with very high penetration with it’s 125mm gun, yet in return comparable with earlier cold war tanks with it’s heavier weight and 840 HP diesel engine.  The T-72B obr. 1989 is the direct link to the T-90 main battle tank, as its 1990 prototype (T-72BU) with the same armour and engine, but with T-80U FCS and other improvements, would be accepted into service in 1992 as the T-90 main battle tank.

 

 

Mobility

 

Engine

 

The T-72B uses the more powerful V-84 engine over the previous T-64/72 engines, which should be more powerful than other soviet diesel engines of this era, surpassed by mainly the T-80’s gas turbine, and the 1987 T-80UD.

Engine Power: 840 HP

Idle Speed: 800 rpm

Rated Speed: 2,000 rpm

Fuel Consumption: 247 g/kWh or 182 g/hph

The V-84 has a higher heat output compared to previous T-72 engines.

 

 

Speed

 

The T-72B has a 60km/h top speed, 35-40km/h on dirt roads.

 

 

HP/t

 

HP/t: 18+

 

 

Transmission

 

Gear ratios are set as:

Spoiler

Gear speeds (km/h)

1st: 7.32

2nd:13:59

3rd: 17.16

4th: 21.47

5th: 29.51

6th: 40.81

7th: 60

R: 4.18

 

 

Gear Ratios

1st: 8.173

2nd: 4.40

3rd: 3.485

4th: 2.787

5th: 2.027

6th: 1.467

7th: 1.0

R: 14.3

The gear shifter is the same as the T-64’s, shown below.

 

 

 

Other

 

Fuel capacity (internal) of the T-72 is 705 liters.  This is increased to 1,200 liters counting external tanks.  This can be increased to 1,600 liters with 2 drum axillary fuel tanks on the rear, 200L each.  Both can be dropped by the driver at any time, with a push of a button.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Firepower

 

2A46M

 

125mm smoothbore cannon mounted on T-72s since 1981.  It is a more reliable and easier to maintain gun than the previous 2A46, and is more accurate.

 

 

 

 

Ammunition

 

Copy-Paste of some soviet-era ammunition for the 125mm gun:

Spoiler

HE

 

 

 

3OF19 (or also called 3OF22 in game, unsure which is more ‘proper’): [Since 125mm introduction] 23kg HE-FRAG shell, uses basic TNT explosives (3.148kg).  125mm HE useful against infantry and light equipment, most of which not present.  As well, 125mm HE expected to be effective against APCs and light tanks, as well as the sides of some main battle tanks like the Leopard 1 (like in game). 850m/s velocity.

 

 

3OF26: [1970], You probably know of this HE shell if you play high tier.  23.3kg HE-FRAG, 3.4kg of A-IX-2 explosives.  850m/s velocity.

 

 

HEAT-FS

 

 

 

3BK12: [1962] Original 125mm HEAT-FS.

19.8kg, 1760g of A-XI-1 explosive charge, 420mm RHA penetration.

 

 

3BK12M: [1962] More expensive 3BK12 with copper liner, ("M" stands for "med", which means "copper" in Russian – Tankograd).  Increases performance.

19.8kg, 1760g of A-XI-1 explosive charge.  905m/s velocity.

 

 

3BK14: [1968] Improved 3BK12 HEAT-FS shell, minor internal differences.  Also the most advanced HEAT-FS shell exported to nations like East Germany.

19.8kg, 1760g of OKFOL explosive charge, 450mm of RHA penetration.

 

 

3BK14M: [Between 1968 and 1975] Improved copper variant of 3BK14.

19.8kg, 1760g of OKFOL explosive charge, 480mm of RHA penetration.

 

 

3BK18: [1975], improvement over the 3BK14 HEAT-FS shell, steel liner.

19.8kg, 1760g of OKFOL explosive charge, 500mm of RHA penetration.

 

 

 

 

3BK18M: [1978], 3BK18 with copper liner.

19.8kg, 1760g of OKFOL explosive charge, 550mm of RHA penetration.

 

 

3BK21: [1980] copper liner HEAT-FS, increased reliability.

19kg, OKFOL explosive charge, 550mm of RHA penetration.

 

 

3BK21B: [1982] 3BK21 charge, but instead of copper liner, the 3BK21B is a Depleted Uranium HEAT-FS lined charge.  Designed to defeat Chobham armour.  DU jet will have high post-penetration damage.

19kg, 750mm of RHA penetration.

 

 

3BK29/29M: [1988] late cold war 125mm HEAT-FS round, ~up to 800mm of penetration.

>20kg, ~800mm of RHA penetration.

 

 

ATGMs

 

 

 

9M112: [1976], 9M112 was an ATGM designed to be used on the T-64 series, and would have been used on the first T-80Bs (entered service: 1978).  It would have not been used on the T-80 (not B), as the first T-80 variant was incompatible with ATGMs.  The 9M112 series flew 3-5m over the bore-axis of the T-64/80, and dived within 600-800m of the target.  A direct fire mode existed for the missile, if a threat suddenly appeared at close range, or if used against enemy helicopters.

~500mm of penetration, 4km range.

 

 

9M112M: [1978/1979], 9M112M was the improved version with the 9N129 warhead using OKFOL explosive charge, entered service in 1978 and began mass production in 1979.

~600mm of penetration

 

 

9M119: [1980s], 9M119 “Refleks” and “Svir” ATGM is a laser beam riding ATGM, “Refleks” designed for the T-80 main battle tank and “Svir” for the T-72B.  It uses a 7.1kg 9Kh949 charge.

~700mm of penetration, 100-5000m range (Refleks), 100-4000m (Svir), 11.7 seconds to travel 4km.

 

 

9M119M: [later], 9M119 “Refleks-M” ATGM is designed to take on NATO tanks with ERA, as well as tanks like the Abrams and the Leopard 2, which the previous ATGMs would have been mostly ineffective against frontally.

~750mm of penetration (~700mm behind ERA)

 

 

APFSDS

 

 

 

3BM9: [1968] Originally 1968 introduced with the T-64A.  Obsolete by the T-72 Ural’s introduction, after a few years it was only considered practice ammunition.  Upscaled version of 115mm 3BM6, using 60KhNM maraging steel (310 BHN), 3BM9 is a hypersonic shell capable of killing any NATO tank of it’s era, without even using tungsten.

3.6kg projectile mass, 1,800 m/s velocity.

245mm penetration at 2km, 300mm at 1km, at vertical.

185mm at 45 degrees (2km), 140mm at 60 degrees (2km), 160mm at 60 degrees (1km).

 

 

3BM15: [1972], 3BM15 steel and tungsten APFSDS, estimated to enter service in 1972.  In game represented on the T-72A and T-64A.

3.83kg, .270kg core, 1785m/s

At 2km range: 450mm of penetration at 0 degrees, 150mm at 60 degrees.

 

 

3BM22: [1976], 3BM22 “Zakolka” Tungsten Carbide core, started mass production in 1976.  Seen in game as the top shell for the T-64A, T-72A, and the stock shell of the T-64B obr. 1984, T-80B (1985), and T-80U.

4.485kg, .274kg core, 1785m/s.

At 2km range: 420mm of penetration at 0 degrees, 170mm at 60 degrees.  470mm and 220mm high estimates.

In game, note that the accurate penetration calculator is only low 400mm at point blank.

 

 

3BM29: [1982], 3BM29 “Nadfil” DU penetrator.

4.85kg, ~1700m/s.

2km range: 430mm of penetration, 210mm at 60 degrees.

 

 

3BM26: [1983], 3BM26 “Nadezhda” tungsten alloy, entered service in 1983.  Extremely powerful tungsten APFSDS shell.

4.8kg, 1720m/s.

2km range: 490mm of penetration at 0 degrees, 230mm at 60 degrees.

 

 

3BM32: [1985], 3BM32 “Vant” depleted uranium projectile, introduced in 1985.

4.85kg, 1,700 m/s.

2km range: 430mm at 0 degrees, 250mm at 60 degrees.

400mm at 0 degrees, low estimate.

 

 

High Estimates (2km): 560mm at 0 degrees, 250mm at 60 degrees.

 

 

3BM42: [1986], 3BM42 “Mango” jacketed tungsten penetrator.

4.85kg, 1715m/s.

2km range: 520mm, 230mm at 60 degrees.  (210mm at 60, low estimates)

[or in an in-game setting, according to the totally accurate calculator, 479mm of penetration at 10 meters]

 

 

3BM46: [1991], 3BM46 “Svinets” DU APFSDS, last 125mm APFSDS round that entered service in the Soviet Union.

4.85kg, 1700m/s.

2km range: ~600-650mm at 0 degrees, 300mm at 60 degrees.

T-72B obr. 1989

 

 

 

Being a tank introduced in 1989, and used in the early 1990s, it could use very late cold war ammunition, maybe even shells like the 1991 3BM46 DU APFSDS, which has significant penetration increase over 3BM42.  Perhaps something like:

 

 

APFSDS: Perhaps 3BM42 stock, then upgrade to 3BM46

[3BM42 > 3BM46]

 

 

HEAT-FS: perhaps something like

[3BM21B > 3BM29 > 3BM29M

 

 

ATGMs: the T-72B fires 9M119 “Svir” with a 4km range.

[9M119]

 

 

HE-FRAG: probably to feature the 3OF26.

[3OF26]

 

 

 

 

Autoloader

 

 

 

The T-72 uses a 22 round electromechanical “AZ” carousel autoloader.  The T-72 Ural used a AZ-172 type autoloader, which carried over to the T-72A, until replaced by the AZ-184 autoloader on the T-72B series.  Multiple benefits exist from the AZ autoloader compared to the MZ (T-64) autoloader, one for example would be an electrical system, while the MZ uses hydraulics which if hit, may increase the chances of flammable liquids detonating the ammo rack.  As well, the AZ has some internal protection, with thin steel and anti-radiation spall liner.

 

 

The elevation the gun has to be locked at for the loading process is +3 degrees 30’.  The reloading rate for reloading a shell 2 shells over in the rack (the rack spins over 2 shells to pick another) is about 7.7 seconds of reload, while for comparison the MZ autoloader is 7.5 seconds – the AZ autoloader on the T-72 has a reduced, but very limitedly reduced reload rate compared to the T-64 and T-80.  Compared to NATO tanks, NATO tanks often have much faster reload times, 4-6 seconds, however in their cases, the human loaders mean this is stationary rate of fire, while the T-64/72/80 reload the same going 0km/h or 50km/h on rough terrain (which does not apply in war thunder, yet).

The autoloader was triggered by pressing the button, while in game the reload starts automatically for the player.

 

 

As well, the way the autoloader is loaded effects the reload time between shells.  For example, grouping APFSDS together allows for rapid fire APFSDS reloads, but very long reloads when switching from APFSDS for example to HEAT-FS, ATMGs, or HE-FRAG.  While another example could be to alternate ammunition, which cuts down the reload time of switching ammunition types.  However, this comes with the downfall of a very small reload increase when switching between same type ammunition.

Spoiler

An excerpt from Tankograd:

 

 

The carousel rotates independently of the turret. It can rotate to line up new shells at a nominal speed of 70 degrees per second, but as mentioned before, it can only rotate in a counterclockwise direction. This needlessly prolonged the loading cycle in some circumstances, but it is entirely possible to avoid this issue by practicing smart ammo placement. If APFSDS ammunition is stowed to the right of HEAT ammunition, and HEAT ammunition is stowed to the right of HE-Frag ammunition, the time needed to load anti-armour rounds can be greatly reduced at the expense of greatly increasing the time taken to reach the HE-Frag rounds. This way, the gunner can start with APFSDS, and then switch to HEAT without delay when APFSDS is exhausted, or switch to HEAT quickly to deal with IFVs when the high priority tank targets have already been knocked out. Switching to HE-Frag from APFSDS takes longer, but if the target is supposed to be engaged with HE-Frag, then it can be assumed that it is a lower priority threat. In general, sorting the ammunition this way is simply logical, as the time taken to switch ammunition types only increases when switching to ammunition designed for less dangerous threats. In this case, the hierarchy of danger would be: Tank, IFV, and Infantry or other.

 

 

 

 

One of the techniques developed by a T-64A tank company commander during the 1970's was to load the ammunition in repeating sets of alternating groups so that the time needed for the carousel to reach each round would be equal, and that less time would be spent switching ammunition types. For example:

 

 

 

 

APFSDS - HEAT - HE-Frag - APFSDS - HEAT - HE-Frag - APFSDS - HEAT - HE-Frag

 

 

 

 

By doing this, switching from APFSDS to HEAT would take less time than loading the next APFSDS round. This solved the problem of increased loading time when switching ammunition types, but created the additional problem of increasing the time needed to load ammunition of the same type. However, this was considered an acceptable compromise due to the slow carousel rotation speed of the MZ autoloader of the T-64 and T-80 - only 26 degrees per second. It would take an unbearably long time to scroll through large parts of the carousel simply to reach the desired ammunition type. This technique became institutionalized and was a typical method of sorting ammunition among tankers. However, it is not known if T-72 tankers were taught this technique, as it would not have been very useful. The carousel of the AZ autoloader spins almost three times faster than the MZ autoloader, so this problem is much less serious and the flaws of this sorting technique become rather more pronounced. For one, neither the T-64 or the T-72 carry an equal distribution of all three ammunition types, especially not when missiles became a part of their repertoire.

 

 

For instance, the standard combat load of a East German T-72M (according to an ex-GDR tank commander) would have 9 APFSDS rounds, 2 HEAT rounds and 11 HE-Frag rounds in the autoloader carousel. It is not possible to arrange these rounds in such a way that the three ammunition types alternate in repeating sets, and it would not be desirable to do so. When engaging tanks, it is much quicker to have the APFSDS rounds grouped together so that the next round is loaded as quickly as possible, allowing the gunner to rapidly fire a potentially decisive second shot. Arranging the ammunition in alternating groups takes away this capability.

Some of this information listed does not apply to the current game, but for informational purposes, and for the hope that maybe more realistic autoloader and reloading mechanics could be a possibility someday, the information is here.

 

 

The T-72B’s total capacity is 45 rounds, one more than the T-72A.

 

 

 

 

Fire Control System

 

1A40-1

 

The 1A40 FCS system is a series of FCS systems used on the 1980s T-72A and T-72B series, which the T-72B obr. 1989 uses the 1A40-1 Fire Control System, introduced in 1985.  Over the 1A40, the 1A40-1 has minor differences such as an improved laser rangefinder and primary sight over the 1A40.

 

 

1A40-1 Abilities

 

Carry over from previous systems is the ability to automatically adjust for shell drop.  Laser rangefinding the target not only gives the distance, but automatically adjusts the gun to the correct elevation to accommodate the shell drop over distance.  As for example, if laser rangefinding a target at 1,320 meters, the gunsight is automatically dropped to 1,320m, ready to fire.

 

 

The laser rangefinder should have a maximum range of 4,000m, and +/-10m of error between 1-3km.

 

 

What the 1A40 adds over the previous FCS systems of the 1970s T-72s is a manual lead calculator.  This does not work like Radar SPAAG in game however, using the degrees/s the turret is moving while tracking the enemy tank with the laser rangefinder, along with the distance outputted, the lead calculator outputs a number, which is the calculation on how far the gunner should lead the target.  On the gunsight, (both real gunsight, and at least the copy-paste one in game has mils too), has mils going side to side from the chevron, which the gunner lines up based on the number.  Negative number of mils means the target is moving right from your relative position, and the gunner lines up the left mils with the target, and positive number means the gunner lines up the mils on the right to the tank, which is presumably moving left to the gunner’s relative position.  Maximum error is approximately 0.53 mils.

 

 

Demonstrating the lead calculator, it is possible the 1A40 FCS could work like this when FCS systems become relevant:

Quote

T-72A used in this example to demonstrate FCS, as the T-72B is yet to be present.

 

 

T-72B (totally not the A) is driving around, looking all pretty and all.

 

Then it proceeds to encounter a NATO vehicle, on the move in the distance.

The gunner proceeds to aim at the tank, and laser-rangefind the enemy vehicle.  The player when laser rangefinding attempts to follow the tank on the move while rangefinding,

this not only determines range, but also the turret rotation is being measured and is estimating with the range calculated how fast the target is moving as well.  The gun proceeds to elevate the gun to the correct elevation automatically, but the system now calculates how far in mils the gunner needs to lead to hit the target,

either negative or positive (negative mils are left, positive mils are right).  The gunner has to manually adjust the gun to the correct lead, unlike the automatic adjustment of shell drop.

The gunner proceeds to fire at the correct mil output, with the correct elevation.  The result should be hitting the target.

The T-72’s scope magnification is 8x zoom.

 

 

 

 

Night Vision

 

1K13-49

 

The T-72B series, including the obr. 1989, uses the 1K13 night sight.  It is an upgrade that is also compatible with the Svir ATGMs the T-72B can fire, and the nightsight is operational at the estimated range of 100m to 4,000m.

 

 

Optical magnification is 5.5x.

 

 

The sight has a field of view of 5 degrees in the daylight setting or 6°4' in the nighttime setting. It is independently stabilized in the vertical plane, with +20° elevation -7° depression.

 

 

 

 

Turret Traverse and Stabiliser

 

2E42-2 "Zhasmin"

 

Hydro-electromechanical Stabiliser

 

Switching from a hydraulic system removed a considerable portion of hydraulic fluid circulating the tank, which is believed to slightly increase its survivability, as hydraulic fluid is often flammable.

 

 

The turret has two traverse methods, automatic and semi-automatic.

 

 

Automatic mode

 

 

 

Vertical:

Maximum elevating speed: 3.5° per second

Minimum elevating speed: 0.05° per second

 

 

Horizontal:

Maximum Turret Traverse Speed: 16-24° per second

Maximum Precise Turret Traverse Speed: 3° per second

Minimum Precise Turret Traverse Speed: 0.07° per second

 

 

Manual mode

 

 

 

Horizontal:

Maximum Turret Traverse Speed: 16° per second

Maximum Precise Turret Traverse Speed: 6° per second

Minimum Precise Turret Traverse Speed: 0.3° per second

 

 

 

 

Unless they add more realistic controls for Simulator Battles, (actually holding tanks up to the quality of Air Battles), automatic vs semi-automatic as well as minimum and maximum precise turret traverse speeds do not matter in War Thunder currently.

 

 

What does matter in a war thunder environment:

> Stabilised gun.

> Less flammable liquid in the tank.

> Maximum turret traverse of 24 degrees.

> Zhasmin means Jasmine.  Yes, they name their cannon stabilisers after flowers.

 

 

 

 

Armour

 

 

 

Upper Frontal Plate

 

 

 

The first major upgrade since the T-72B obr. 1984 and obr. 1985, the T-72B obr. 1989 features NERA in it’s upper plate, as well as anti-radiation lining (which acts as a spall liner as well.

 

 

The T-72B obr. 1989 consists of:

 

 

Kontakt-5

60mm RHA

35mm NERA

60mm RHA

10mm Anti-Radiation Layer

50mm RHA

 

 

Which the NERA being made of

5mm Rubber

3mm RHA

19mm Air Space

3mm RHA

5mm Rubber

 

 

The plate is 215mm thick total.

Total thickness of steel is 170mm, which is the same as the 1985.

 

 

Like most T-64/72/80s, the angling is 68 degrees.

 

 

 

 

Turret

 

 

 

The turret is a new turret for the T-72B compared to the T-72A, which uses NERA components as it’s protection.  The up-armoured cheeks of the T-72B are you could say are THICC.  As a result, western observers nicknamed the turret cheek armour “Dolly Parton” armour...

 

 

However, it was specifically realized that the turret roof and the commander’s cupola can be penetrated by APFSDS up to thousands of meters away, which may provide a new weakspot for the T-72B specifically.

 

 

The model 1989 has the additional protection of Kontakt-5 ERA.

 

 

 

 

Estimated Protection

 

 

 

Upper Frontal Plate:

 

 

No specific numbers of the T-72B obr. 1989’s protection was given.  It features similar amounts of steel however, so it should be relatively the same as the 1985 without ERA, and does have anti-radiation lining which helps as a Spall liner.

 

 

The T-72B obr. 1985’s vs KEP protection is over 550mm, and CE is between 530mm to 630mm.

 

 

Kontakt-5 ERA can add potentially up to 250mm vs KEP, and 600mm vs CE.  In game, Kontakt-5 says it has 120mm vs KEP.  I am unsure if these do or do not include angles, but if the 250mm is with angle and 120mm is without angling, it should be rather close with the numbers, so assuming this,

 

 

The T-72B (1989)’s plate might look something like:

800mm vs KEP

1,200mm vs CE

 

 

Turret:

 

 

> over 550mm vs KEP (without Kontakt-5)

> 530mm of RHA from a 30 degree side-angle (without Kontakt-5)

> no specific vs CE number was given, however it is entirely possible it is again over 1,000m-1,200m vs CE with Kontakt-5 ERA (or if 600mm vs CE is not including angling, potentially up to 1,600-2,000mm vs CE).

> Using the numbers above for Kontakt-5 ERA, KEP protection for the turret may be up to 800mm, and CE above might be closer to 1,200mm vs CE.

 

 

Conclusion

 

 

 

As mentioned, the armour of the T-72B obr. 1989 is extremely thick, and would be among the best in game.  However, it still has the same weakspots as other soviet tanks, and even might add a new one on the turret.  This very well could be more of a heavy tank at top tier, with excellent firepower and armour protection, but post penetration still will probably lead to death, the autoloader being upwards of 7 seconds or longer for a reload, and a 840 HP engine will be the weakest engine at top tier, where the weakest MBT engines are 1,100, 1,200 HP, or 1,500 HP in strength.

 

 

 

 

Sources

 

 

 

https://thesovietarmourblog.blogspot.com/2015/05/t-72-soviet-progeny.html

 

 

https://thesovietarmourblog.blogspot.com/2017/12/t-72-part-2-protection-good-indication.html

 

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/125_mm_smoothbore_ammunition

 

 

http://www.bandepleteduranium.org/en/soviet-3bk-21b-heat-fs-projectile-for-125mm-3vbk-1

 

 

http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/ARM/apfsds/ammo.html

 

 

http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/EQP/kontakt5.html

 

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-72_operators_and_variants#/media/File%3AT-72B_M1989.jpg

 

 

https://www.moddb.com/groups/tanks/images/t-72b-obr-1989-belarus-army

[SAUBER_KH7 3,325]

Open for Discussion.

[Milocat 4,842]

Why not have an advanced T-72 in the game?  +1.

[GoddePro 1,146]

+1

nothing needs to be said

[WulfPack 1,693]

On 05/09/2019 at 17:26, kamikazi21358 said:

This very well could be more of a heavy tank at top tier,

Ouch... but +1 

If added before top tier is moved up, where would this go?

Edited September 7, 2019 by WulfPack

[JEI2 5,766]

+1

[kamikazi21358 998]

20 hours ago, WulfPack said:

Ouch... but +1 

If added before top tier is moved up, where would this go?

Assumably 10.0.  As pointed out, it would have potentially up to 800mm KEP or so, at least against the first shell.  This is assuming that the NERA on the hull doesn’t do too much, this is taking the obr. 1985’s vs KEP (it suggested it would be similar, so this is low estimate), and adding Kontakt-5 (120mm vs KEP in game, which should be similar to 250mm  v KEP with the other source used if this is ‘before angling’ — so this is adding 250mm for the 68° angle), so this should be only ‘moderate estimates’.

One way to check this is this should be the same armour as the T-90 I think?  The T-72BU is the 1989 with better FCS and everything, which became the T-90, so the T-90 should have the same armour and mobility of the T-72 (1989).

 

Nothing can penetrate this, not even the Ariete in game.  Even with historical penetration values (ie shells have 50-100mm less penetration at 10m than they did IRL), Cold War ammunition would be required for a 1st shot penetration.

 

As well, I suggested using 3BM46, as a 1991 shell should be fine for a 1989 tank that was used in this time frame (and 3BM42M and better shells can be reserved for better T-72s/T-90s), which would be better than the 3BM42 currently used of course, since (using IRL numbers, not ‘totally accurate calculator’ numbers) 3BM42 is 520mm vs KEP (2km) and 3BM46 is 650 at 2km.

 

However, of course it does not have thermal vision, finally relevant, and it’s 840 HP engine will give it a much lower HP/t than current top tier, and only 60kph top speed while top tier is 68-71 standard.  This is the ‘heavy tank’ logic, it can have THICC armour [with weakspots*] and strong firepower for mobility that is closer to the T-72A than a T-80.

 

As well, this adds a new weakspot, I am assuming it will be a relevant one since it was specifically mentioned with the T-72B, so it will have 800mm vs KEP frontally, but it will be easily penetrated

> LFP

> Driver’s area

> Gun breach area

> Turret roof, which is added, as it is sited that 3BM22 (I think?) can penetrate the roof at 1,700m or so.

So it won’t be some invincible monster, the only shell that can penetrate it without K-5 is the Ariete, which cannot penetrate with K-5 (so the best shell in the game requires 2 shots without weakspots), so for obvious reasons if this wasn’t a factor, the 1989 could not work in game anytime soon.

 

But currently, this defiantly would be a ‘near top tier 10.0’ tank.  It would have very, very heavy armour and very good firepower, but very sluggish and have 4 choices of weak spots to choose from.

 

 

Presuming these armour values are right,

This means I think the T-90 would be the ‘top 10.0’ tank to compete with the Leopard 2A5 (in game).  It would be similar to this (presuming FCS isn’t added), but have thermal vision and 3BM42M as well?  [3BM42M does seem to be confusing, some say it’s better than 46, some not][also, T-90 is more your territory].  You said in the past that the T-90A should be slightly weaker than the Leopard 2A5, but considering current in game situation,

> Ammunition is weaker than IRL

> FCS is not a factor

> 2A5 has been nerfed several times, and only uses DM33

I question, if this is the case, the increased mobility, firepower, slight armour increase, and themals on top of that might be too much?  As I said, T-90 isn’t my area, but taking from what I read on this tank plus what I know the T-90 improves upon it plus the in game situation, this is my conclusion from this.

[DreamADream4Me 2,838]

+1

 

Should've been added in 1.91 instead of a useless deadweight at 9.7, with nerfed zoom, 8.3 ammo and ridiculous repair costs.

[WulfPack 1,693]

13 hours ago, kamikazi21358 said:

Assumably 10.0.  As pointed out, it would have potentially up to 800mm KEP or so, at least against the first shell.

How does that compare to the current T-80U? 

13 hours ago, kamikazi21358 said:

I question, if this is the case, the increased mobility, firepower, slight armour increase, and themals on top of that might be too much?

I don't believe so. That bigger engine come with the cost of the added weight of the new turret + the two flat areas near the gun the scream "Shoot here! Shoot here!". On top of that it still has that dreadful 4 kph reverse. I was expecting T-90A to be added with the same ammo as T-80U

Edited September 8, 2019 by WulfPack

[kamikazi21358 998]

7 hours ago, WulfPack said:

How does that compare to the current T-80U? 

Just going by raw RHA thickness, the T-80U has 150mm (3 50mm plates) and the T-72B (all versions) have 170mm (2 60mms and a 50mm).

 

The T-80BV/U uses textolite filling, while the 1989 uses NERA and anti-radiation liner filling.  Honestly, idk which one will be better.

 

But protection varies widely (estimates), like I see say, 780-800mm vs KEP for the T-80U.  However, the lowest sources, the ones used in game, say just over 600mm vs KEP.  So, if added in game as it is, it will be defiantly better than the T-80U.

 

However, both are not weak, an excerpt from the tankograd source I used, but for the T-80:

Quote

APFSDS ammunition was advancing rapidly, now that the 120mm cannon and the tanks that hosted them were in play. In 1989, the M829A1 was introduced - the best of its type so far. Measuring in at just a hair under 700mm in length, it was the lengthiest and thinnest long rod monobloc shell in the world. It could penetrate around 350mm RHA at 60 degrees at 2 kilometers' distance. Nothing came near it in performance. The M829A2 introduced in 1992 retained the construction of its predecessor except for a modified tip, and it flew faster thanks to better, more powerful propellant. In 1994, they discovered that M829A1 was unable to penetrate the front of the T-80U and T-72B obr. 1989. It was stopped by...

Kontakt-5.

 

The Kontakt-5 should be enough on both tanks to completely stop all Cold War ammunition, weakstops will be required by Cold War era tanks.

 

Which should be fine imo, the compensating factor is this — it has glaring weakspots, nor any blast doors, so it should be hard to penetrate these tanks frontally, unless talking about say some tank that’s main advantage is firepower.

 

 

Also to the same source, the thickness of the T-80BV (U’s UFP without K-5) should be “no less than 500mm vs KEP”.  It also says realistically, it should be closer to 600-700, but no more.  By this, adding 250mm vs KEP for Kontakt-5, it is entirely possible that the T-80U could be between 750-950mm, although 900+ seems like a lot.  So it is possible that the T-80U’s armour in game is underperforming.

 

 

So the T-72B would be way more than the T-80U in game, but if different values were used, it is possible it could be slightly more to a lesser degree, near equal, or inferior to the T-80U.

 

8 hours ago, WulfPack said:

I don't believe so. That bigger engine come with the cost of the added weight of the new turret + the two flat areas near the gun the scream "Shoot here! Shoot here!". On top of that it still has that dreadful 4 kph reverse. I was expecting T-90A to be added with the same ammo as T-80U

I thought the T-90A had a different autoloader?  Where it fired, perhaps as a lesser shell the 3BM60 or something.

 

Anyways, from my interpretation at least, it may increase in weight, but the 1000 HP engine would be more than what is needed to compensate and would be faster.  Since considering ammunition not only performs in game much worse than IRL, and as mentioned tanks like the 2A5 still use DM33 and stuff with that less penetration, I thought it would be better.  But you know more about it — but at least for sure, this would be ADATS and 2A5 level as one of the best tanks in the game at least?

[Conraire 5,722]

1 hour ago, kamikazi21358 said:

Anyways, from my interpretation at least, it may increase in weight, but the 1000 HP engine would be more than what is needed to compensate and would be faster.  Since considering ammunition not only performs in game much worse than IRL, and as mentioned tanks like the 2A5 still use DM33 and stuff with that less penetration, I thought it would be better.  But you know more about it — but at least for sure, this would be ADATS and 2A5 level as one of the best tanks in the game at least?

 

I can probably formulate approximate values based on what you listed for the Mod 89's array.  Of course, these values would be without the additional K5 protection.  

 

As far as your claim of ammo under performing compared to IRL... Just because you don't understand how something works, doesn't mean its under performing.  Most high values you see in publications are Line of Sight penetration values at a given angle.  For example 600mm would actually equal a 300mm plate angled at 60 degree's.  That doesn't mean the vertical penetration also equals 600mm, as long rods penetrate less at vertical than they do at high angle, which is why slope modifiers exist.  The thing that makes it seem like ammo is under performing, is due to the way Gaijin has the arrays programmed.  Many of them are over performing vs long rod ammo, which is something that has already been reported..  

 

This is what it looks like when you put the Hull Array into Math.  And the RHA equivalence isn't actually too far off from the 530mm for the hull seen in many books.  This is using the basic generic armor class modifiers from the wiki.  Though the 1.2 is an estimate for the higher grade HHA.  2.14 is the L-O slope mod for 68 degrees.  This doesn't include K5, which has a generic armor modifier of 1.7.  

T-72B Mod 1989

60rha/35Nera(5rub/3rha/19air/3rha/5rub)/60HHA/10rad/50rha

 

60 x 1.01 x 2.14 = 129.684

5 x 0.05 x 2.14 = 0.535

3 x 1.2 x 2.14 = 7.704

19 x .05 x 2.14 = 2.033

3x 1.2 x 2.14 = 7.704

5 x 0.05 x 2.14 = 0.535

60 x 1.2 x 2.14 = 154.08

10 x 0.05 x 2.14 = 1.07

50 x 1.01 x 2.14 = 108.07

 

129.684 + 0.535 + 7.704 + 2.033 + 7.704 + 0.535 + 154.08 + 1.07 + 108.07 = 411.415mm Vertical Vs Long Rod

411.415 / 2.14 = 192.25

192.25 / cos(68) = 513mm RHAe KEP

 

[Alan_Tovarishch 860]

10 hours ago, WulfPack said:

How does that compare to the current T-80U? 

Better protection in the hull but not by much, somewhere between 500-550 KE (T-80U by 1989 also got a little improvement in hull armor), the turret kinda the same effectiveness or a little bit better. Same firepower, worse FCS (no thermals). Much worser mobility, the engine is not the 1000hp version (that belong to T-90A post 2000s). If anything, this tank should be equal in BR to T-80B.

 

@Conraire did you account for the NERA array on the front hull? I guess you already went through the estimate on Tankograd (IMO the most complete estimate in english)

 

[Conraire 5,722]

35 minutes ago, Alan_Tovarishch said:

 did you account for the NERA array on the front hull? I guess you already went through the estimate on Tankograd (IMO the most complete estimate in english)

 

Yeah, thats what the 5mm 3mm, 19mm 3mm and 5mm part is..  The other 10mm part is NBC/Anti rad liner.  It wouldn't actually take much modification of values to get up to 530mm rhae.  

 

The K5 is the part I'm not sure on.  120mm x 1.7 = 204mm which when added to the 411 for long rod brings it up to 615mm vertical. Which would actually defeat M829A1 which tops out at 601mm vertical point blank.  But, M829A2 would be able to defeat it at about  1300m, which from what I understand is pretty close to reality.  

[WulfPack 1,693]

2 hours ago, kamikazi21358 said:

I thought the T-90A had a different autoloader?  Where it fired, perhaps as a lesser shell the 3BM60 or something.

It can fire that round yeah but gaijin likes to use ammo as a balancing factor.

2 hours ago, kamikazi21358 said:

Anyways, from my interpretation at least, it may increase in weight, but the 1000 HP engine would be more than what is needed to compensate and would be faster.

It's not really a big upgrade. Especially when T-80Us are still flying past you. It's 21.5 vs 18 Hp/T

2 hours ago, kamikazi21358 said:

 But you know more about it — but at least for sure, this would be ADATS and 2A5 level as one of the best tanks in the game at least?

I think generally T-80U will be the better tank. 

[kamikazi21358 998]

4 hours ago, Conraire said:

As far as your claim of ammo under performing compared to IRL... Just because you don't understand how something works, doesn't mean its under performing.  Most high values you see in publications are Line of Sight penetration values at a given angle.  For example 600mm would actually equal a 300mm plate angled at 60 degree's.  That doesn't mean the vertical penetration also equals 600mm, as long rods penetrate less at vertical than they do at high angle, which is why slope modifiers exist.  The thing that makes it seem like ammo is under performing, is due to the way Gaijin has the arrays programmed.  Many of them are over performing vs long rod ammo, which is something that has already been reported.. 

What I mean is, their penetration at least against flat armour is underperforming.  What I mean is

> 3BM42 in game has 479mm at 10m

> IRL, it should have around 520mm, at 2km.

Multiple shells are like this with APFSDS, where there is 20mm, 50mm, 100mm+ less RHA penetration at 10m than the shell historically had at 2,000m.

 

This is flat penetration, this is the confusing part, the angled penetration is correct.  I don't have problem with that, 231mm at 2km is close to the 230mm at 2km of the sources I seen.  But why is flat penetration less at 10m than at 2km?

 

4 hours ago, Conraire said:

This is what it looks like when you put the Hull Array into Math.  And the RHA equivalence isn't actually too far off from the 530mm for the hull seen in many books.  This is using the basic generic armor class modifiers from the wiki.  Though the 1.2 is an estimate for the higher grade HHA.  2.14 is the L-O slope mod for 68 degrees.  This doesn't include K5, which has a generic armor modifier of 1.7.  

T-72B Mod 1989

60rha/35Nera(5rub/3rha/19air/3rha/5rub)/60HHA/10rad/50rha

 

60 x 1.01 x 2.14 = 129.684

5 x 0.05 x 2.14 = 0.535

3 x 1.2 x 2.14 = 7.704

19 x .05 x 2.14 = 2.033

3x 1.2 x 2.14 = 7.704

5 x 0.05 x 2.14 = 0.535

60 x 1.2 x 2.14 = 154.08

10 x 0.05 x 2.14 = 1.07

50 x 1.01 x 2.14 = 108.07

 

129.684 + 0.535 + 7.704 + 2.033 + 7.704 + 0.535 + 154.08 + 1.07 + 108.07 = 411.415mm Vertical Vs Long Rod

411.415 / 2.14 = 192.25

192.25 / cos(68) = 513mm RHAe KEP

 

I do mildly question this (not the math but the game), because 513mm is still under 'the more minimum' amount of 550mm, which is supposed to be the conservative estimate making it equal to it's predecessor rather than better.  But fair enough, I guess it's close enough to me.

 

Though to ask, why was high hardness RHA used for the middle plate?  Also isn't high hardness RHA 1.25x?

 

(Also ty for the 2.14 multiplier, I didn't know what the slope multiplier was.)

 

3 hours ago, Alan_Tovarishch said:

Better protection in the hull but not by much, somewhere between 500-550 KE (T-80U by 1989 also got a little improvement in hull armor), the turret kinda the same effectiveness or a little bit better. Same firepower, worse FCS (no thermals). Much worser mobility, the engine is not the 1000hp version (that belong to T-90A post 2000s). If anything, this tank should be equal in BR to T-80B.

To be fair, neither does the T-80U have thermals, but I found that the T-80U in game is actually the T-80UM, so it somehow works out.

 

I think it'll be better than the T-80B, the armour will be better than the B before counting Kontakt-5.

 

But deciding to compare the T-80U to the T-72B,

 

T-72 as given is '513mm RHAe vs KEP' or close to it, before Kontakt-5.

 

T-80U should be:

 

50mm hhRHA > 35mm textolite > 50mm hhRHA > 35mm textolite > 50mm hhRHA,

 

50 x 1.25 x 2.14 = 133.75mm

35 x .5 x 2.14 = 37.45

50 x 1.25 x 2.14 = 133.75mm

35 x .5 x 2.14 = 37.45

50 x 1.25 x 2.14 = 133.75mm

476.15

edit: not correct.

 

So the T-80U should be weaker, at 476.15mm vs KEP.

[still below the most minimum of estimates]

 

So the T-72B will have better protection, might even be enough to stop the Ariete's shell as mentioned.  As well, if given 3BM46 too, (more penetration), this will have superior armour and firepower (currently, the T-80U can get 3BM46 too speaking of year), but is much slower with worse FCS.  I think it'll be way better than the T-80B personally, but maybe 1 step under the T-80UM.

 

2 hours ago, Conraire said:

The K5 is the part I'm not sure on.  120mm x 1.7 = 204mm which when added to the 411 for long rod brings it up to 615mm vertical. Which would actually defeat M829A1 which tops out at 601mm vertical point blank.  But, M829A2 would be able to defeat it at about  1300m, which from what I understand is pretty close to reality.  

Yeah, M829A1 should not be able to penetrate either tank with Kontakt-5.

 

2 hours ago, WulfPack said:

It can fire that round yeah but gaijin likes to use ammo as a balancing factor.

They shouldn't, and can the autoloader even fire it?

 

2 hours ago, WulfPack said:

It's not really a big upgrade. Especially when T-80Us are still flying past you. It's 21.5 vs 18 Hp/T

Fair point.

 

2 hours ago, WulfPack said:

I think generally T-80U will be the better tank. 

II think the T-90A will be better if it gets the better ammunition, which it should.  It will have more armour and firepower, but 27 HP/t to 21.5 HP/t.  But as mentioned, I don't know as much about the T-90.

Edited September 9, 2019 by kamikazi21358

[Conraire 5,722]

50 minutes ago, kamikazi21358 said:

What I mean is, their penetration at least against flat armour is underperforming.  What I mean is

> 3BM42 in game has 479mm at 10m

> IRL, it should have around 520mm, at 2km.

Multiple shells are like this with APFSDS, where there is 20mm, 50mm, 100mm+ less RHA penetration at 10m than the shell historically had at 2,000m.

 

This is flat penetration, this is the confusing part, the angled penetration is correct.  I don't have problem with that, 231mm at 2km is close to the 230mm at 2km of the sources I seen.  But why is flat penetration less at 10m than at 2km?

 

I do mildly question this (not the math but the game), because 513mm is still under 'the more minimum' amount of 550mm, which is supposed to be the conservative estimate making it equal to it's predecessor rather than better.  But fair enough, I guess it's close enough to me.

 

To be fair, neither does the T-80U have thermals, but I found that the T-80U in game is actually the T-80UM, so it somehow works out.

 

I think it'll be better than the T-80B, the armour will be better than the B before counting Kontakt-5.

 

But deciding to compare the T-80U to the T-72B,

 

T-72 as given is '513mm RHAe vs KEP' or close to it, before Kontakt-5.

 

T-80U should be:

 

50mm hhRHA > 35mm textolite > 50mm hhRHA > 35mm textolite > 50mm hhRHA,

 

50 x 1.25 x 2.14 = 133.75mm

35 x .5 x 2.14 = 37.45

50 x 1.25 x 2.14 = 133.75mm

35 x .5 x 2.14 = 37.45

50 x 1.25 x 2.14 = 133.75mm

476.15

 

So the T-80U should be weaker, at 476.15mm vs KEP.

[still below the most minimum of estimates]

 

So the T-72B will have better protection, might even be enough to stop the Ariete's shell as mentioned.  As well, if given 3BM46 too, (more penetration), this will have superior armour and firepower (currently, the T-80U can get 3BM46 too speaking of year), but is much slower with worse FCS.  I think it'll be way better than the T-80B personally, but maybe 1 step under the T-80UM.

 

Yeah, M829A1 should not be able to penetrate either tank with Kontakt-5.

 

Ah, appears as though you're going by whats on fofanov.armor sight and a few others.  You have to go by the certified penetration pretty much to get close to matching L-O.  In game it's 445mm vertical at 2000m compared to 450mm certified pen at vertical.  The 500mm is a guesstimate based on people think the difference between NATO Pen and Russian Pen is, people have the idea that NATO Test plate is softer, but it's actually close to the same depending on thickness.. Between 260-300bhn at the higher thicknesses.  From what I can tell the USSR was testing against 280-300bhn plate.  Other factors include density of the tungsten alloy used for the round, which is hard to find in most cases.  

 

Compare 3bm9 260 vs 300bhn.  The 300bhn value actually comes within 5mm of the published vertical penetration at 2km, but the 60deg 2km pen is right on.  

Spoiler

 

 

3BM9

Maraging Steel

D:36mm avg x L:409.32mm

8100kg/m3

615bhn

0deg 260bhn

     P.B. = 320mm

  100m = 316mm

  500m = 303mm

1000m = 286mm

1500m = 269mm

2000m = 251mm

 

60deg 260bhn

     P.B. = 187mm

  100m = 185mm

  500m = 177mm

1000m = 167mm

1500m = 157mm

2000m = 147mm

 

3BM9

Maraging Steel

D:36mm avg x L:409.32mm

8100kg/m3

615bhn

0deg 300bhn

     P.B. = 310mm

  100m = 306mm

  500m = 293mm

1000m = 276mm

1500m = 258mm

2000m = 240mm

 

60deg 300bhn

     P.B. = 181mm

  100m = 179mm

  500m = 171mm

1000m = 161mm

1500m = 151mm

2000m = 140mm

 

Quote

Though to ask, why was high hardness RHA used for the middle plate?  Also isn't high hardness RHA 1.25x?

 

(Also ty for the 2.14 multiplier, I didn't know what the slope multiplier was.)

 

1.25 is for WW2 HHA.  The modifier for modern HHA, which is tied to BTK-1 on the T-80's is 1.1.  The 1.2 is assuming they were using BT-70Sh as the internal plate, which is harder than btk-1, otherwise the estimate would be lower.. This also stems from Tankograd mentioning that the applique armor on the mod 83 tanks is BT-70Sh rather than BTK-1.  I actually figured out the modifier by running the math compared to M111 Hetz L-O values.  Got it to where it would come out at just under 500m penetration range vs the T-72A mod 83 with the applique armor, which matches what btvt says, this is also quoted on Tankograds T-72 article.  

 

So as far as the T-80BV/U, textolites generic armor modifier if 0.16

It'd be

Spoiler

 

T-80BV/U

50mm btk/35mm tx/50mm bt-70sh/35mm tx/50mm btk

 

50 x 1.1 x 2.14 = 117.7

35 x 2.14 x 0.16 = 11.984

50 x 1.2 x 2.14 = 128.4 

35 x 2.14 x 0.16 = 11.984

50 x 1.1 x 2.14 = 117.7

117.7 + 11.984 + 128.4 + 11.984 + 117.7 = 387.768  vs Long Rod

387.768 / 2.14 = 181.2 

181.2 / cos(68) = 483.7mm RHAe KEP

 

You can see a problem here, the T-80U wouldn't be immune to M829A1 with K5...  So, I figure if they adjust the armor quality modifier of btk-1 to 1.15..  It actually comes out right.

 

T-80BV/U

50btk/35tx/50bt-70/35tx/50btk

 

50 x 1.15 x 2.14 = 123.05    

35 x 2.14 x 0.16 = 11.984

50 x 1.2 x 2.14 = 128.4 

35 x 2.14 x 0.16 = 11.984

50 x 1.15 x 2.14 = 123.05 

123.05 + 11.984 + 128.4 + 11.984 + 123.05 = 398.468 vs Long Rod +204mm = 602.5mm with K5

398.468 / 2.14 = 186.2  

186.2 / cos(68) = 497mm  RHAe KEP

 

 

Now back to the T-72 Mod 89... Chem protection would be approximately 516mm RHAe Vs HEAT + another 540mm from K5, = about 1056mm CEP.  The only value that changes is the Air gap which goes from 0.05 to 0.1 vs chem.  

[WulfPack 1,693]

13 hours ago, kamikazi21358 said:

They shouldn't, and can the autoloader even fire it?

Yup. It helps that the one they modeled was one of the later ones with the ESSA sight.

13 hours ago, kamikazi21358 said:

I think the T-90A will be better if it gets the better ammunition, which it should.  It will have more armour and firepower,

I suspect it won't be getting 3BM60 or anything like it. If it did 2A5 mains would be asking for DM53 and they'll probably have to give them it.

[kamikazi21358 998]

2 hours ago, WulfPack said:

Yup. It helps that the one they modeled was one of the later ones with the ESSA sight.

I suspect it won't be getting 3BM60 or anything like it. If it did 2A5 mains would be asking for DM53 and they'll probably have to give them it.

It should still be something like 3BM42M or something like that at least then imo, rather than a 1985 shell.

[kleinerPanzer 647]

Wow, quite some effort put into this one! I'm not a fan of playing top rank tanks, but I love the idea of seeing it in game regardless. +1

[Conraire 5,722]

Finally found something on the T-72B1(obr. 1989) with K5 testing by the US....  It's from Zaloga's book on the T-90.  

 

Spoiler

 

[Borotovas 4,499]

+1

[ColdMatches 943]

I have something to say about the reload time.

 

7.7 seconds represents the time between shots, skipping two shells in the load process. This is also stated in the blog website and evident in the cyclogram also including the time after the actual reload process ends.

 

An AZ autoloader has a 6.5s base reload time for the next shell.

http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/EQP/al-72.html

 

With 22 rounds in the 360 degree carousel  and a max 70 degree per second rotation speed it takes ~0.23 seconds to skip one shell. Added on the base reload time, two times to skip two shells, it takes 6.96 seconds to load a shell after skipping two (as such like in a APFSDS - HEAT-FS - HEF - APFSDS ammo scenario). 

 

As for the 7.5 second load for MZ autoloader in the same scenario, this is most likely gathered from a 8 rpm figure given in the tank manuals. This also might include a aim time.

 

Going about it technically, the MZ autoloader has a base reload time of 6 seconds for the next shell from cyclograms in the same T-64/T-80 tank manuals.

 

28 rounds in a carousel with a 26 degree/second carousel reload time means it takes ~0.49 seconds to skip a shell. Added to a base reload of 6 seconds two times means a 6.98 second load time skipping two shells.

 

However this is skipping shells, and it isn't too common to see people running HE or HEAT, most people run APFSDS and the occasional ATGM. A dream would be a pick and choose how you arrange your autoloader's ammo.

 

Being it in chunks (like APx20 - ATGMx8), optimizing firing one type of shell continuously but punished if switching types,

 

or ratios of shells (like [APFSDS - ATGM - APFSDS - ATGM]x7), allowing for a continuous, slower load time and a faster time for switching ammo types.

 

or a mix of both.

Edited January 4, 2020 by ColdMatches

[Jarms 1,555]

I think the T-72B would be the perfect stepping stone for the T-90 to be added. Such as:

 

- T-72B 9.7

- T-90 10.0

- T-90A 10.3

[Alan_Tovarishch 860]

On 12/12/2019 at 10:24, Conraire said:

Finally found something on the T-72B1(obr. 1989) with K5 testing by the US....  It's from Zaloga's book on the T-90.  

 

  Hide contents

 

Do you happen to know if Gaijin is planning on reworking how ERA works? It´s performance should actually be represented by a diminishing percentage of incoming projectile´s penetration instead of adding a fixed amount of RHA effectiveness to the base armor (meaning that the tiles on the turret should be more effective than those in the UFP since they are "enhancing" better base armor). Also, K5 should be added a not-so-random chance of breaking older APFSDS such as M829 and M829A1. 

[Conraire 5,722]

3 hours ago, Alan_Tovarishch said:

Do you happen to know if Gaijin is planning on reworking how ERA works? It´s performance should actually be represented by a diminishing percentage of incoming projectile´s penetration instead of adding a fixed amount of RHA effectiveness to the base armor (meaning that the tiles on the turret should be more effective than those in the UFP since they are "enhancing" better base armor). Also, K5 should be added a not-so-random chance of breaking older APFSDS such as M829 and M829A1. 

 

I'm not 100% sure thats possible with the way the games ballistics work.  Though the only people that could answer that properly would be a Developer.   I know depending on the source its 34-38% performance degradation for APFSDS for K5.  It wouldn't actually take much changing to make the T-80U frontally immune to M829A1 with K5 as it is.  And since the array for the T-72B obr 89 is a fair bit stronger than that of the T-80U, it wouldn't be much of a stretch with the current mechanics.