Jump to content
EcchiRevenge

Weird nerfs to T-72B3...etc.

Recommended Posts

Somehow, tanks take 1162 damage from Refleks while taking 1400 damage from HAT kits.
What is the reason for T-72B3 doing less damage with 125mm gun-launched ATGM(warhead weight: 4.5kg, total weight of missile: 17.2kg) compared to 105(PG-7VR overall weight: 4.5kg) and 84mm man-portable Tandem HEAT...

I don't remember this being the case in v16.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/12GB74o-tP37D2o5iVZJQ4MXTlievUXG0g3GD5vA98Eo/edit#gid=0
Is this some bizarre nerf to not allow T-72B3 to kill a tank with only ATGMs?  As if lower penetration(500 instead of 900 of Kornet/TOW/most HATs) is not enough?
In case nobody remembers: you only get two of them.

I'm guessing developers tried to nerf Malyutka yet nerfed the wrong missile, or whoever made the spreadsheet put it in the wrong place.

Also, I assume "hull side addon" means the square panels on the side of T-72B3, which are ERA.
https://below-the-turret-ring.blogspot.com/2017/04/russian-t-72b3-receive-armor-upgrades.html
But they are only worth 80mm in-game, and somehow absorbs less damage than abrams side panels. 
They can easily be increased to 300mm to resist common low-penetration (300-400mm level) BASIC_HEAT rounds without adverse effect on anything else(except maybe high-angle APFSDS which should bounce anyway).
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1IZxi7kN4XDGPHPoPu64dq0MhtdjR6P273T84iKZy0Ys/edit#gid=0   

Is it safe to assume in Squad world, opportunists stole the explosive element of ERA and sold it off for money like during Chechnya?


*EDIT: sideskirt is modeled on T-72B3, but it still leaves weakspots where autocannons can deal hull hp damage from the side.

 
Also according to above link, Abrams has 100mm hull side, meanwhile IRL:
ONCuzkm.jpg

Only the front half is possibly 100mm, rest of hull sides are maybe 50mm. (let's face it, it's more like 70-80mm and 30-40mm instead of 100/50)

"But wait a sec, how is it possible that superior american engineering end up with relatively thin side hull armor?"
It's a fat tank, that's why.

I guess your military advisor either neglected to mention this or didn't actually know this himself

By that "logic,"(here assuming it's to simplify the armor model) side hull of T-72B3 should follow the thickness at its strongest point: 80mm, not 50mm of in-game
source: https://thesovietarmourblog.blogspot.com/2017/12/t-72-part-2-protection-good-indication.html
"
As stated earlier, the armour of the side of the hull is 80mm thick " 

Solution: either lower Abrams' side hull to 50mm and have a separate value for front side hull, or give T-72B3 its 80mm sides.

Is there any developer that is able to make a post about why these armor values seem out of whack?
Is it for gameplay reasons?  If so, why not have both realism and gameplay?

 

Edited by EcchiRevenge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Edit: Please disregard, I just noticed who posted the thread.

Edited by Vewt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

because REDFOR are the vilains, so they need to have bad stuff so the democracy always win

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a bit more complicated than that. It is not only about the physical thickness of the armor, its also about the material, and the quality of the material. Steel isnt always steel.. On top of that Tracks, fuel tanks, side skirts etc, and the space between them adds various degrees of protection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Pluto is a planet said:

It's a bit more complicated than that. It is not only about the physical thickness of the armor, its also about the material, and the quality of the material. Steel isnt always steel.. On top of that Tracks, fuel tanks, side skirts etc, and the space between them adds various degrees of protection.

No it's quite literally structure steel.

Let's pretend the added-on part is HHS like UFP and make it 1.5x as effective as RHA(an exaggeration)...

In-game number is still off.  And it still doesn't affect the rest of the sides(neither does Fueltank, not that it should affect APFSDS significantly).

Tracks/roadwheels and sideskirts are already modeled...

Edited by EcchiRevenge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My point still stands, the topic is much more complicated than just thickness of the hull.
And the Abrams is also nerfed, most significantly the gunners sight, which is actually the backup sight located below the gun and not the main sight located on top of the turret. This mean that the tank need to expose the entire turret before the gunner can spot his target.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Pluto is a planet said:

My point still stands, the topic is much more complicated than just thickness of the hull.
And the Abrams is also nerfed, most significantly the gunners sight, which is actually the backup sight located below the gun and not the main sight located on top of the turret. This mean that the tank need to expose the entire turret before the gunner can spot his target.

It's not as complicated as you imply.  You don't have a point to stand; are you sure this is the hill you want to die on?

And my point was focused on the fact that side armor(despite tracks and add-ons being modeled) is incorrect.

The main mechanisms are just the base side hull, side skirt, frontal part of abrams sideskirt having some more material(too thin to be NERA arrays in any case), and air gap.

This should give you a good idea on how "strong" side armor is(as all mbt are):
209.jpg
cn8uOmA.jpg
As in, it's really not.  The "sideskirt" is all sheet metal past the crew compartment, which means the main mechanism for defeating an attack is only the tracks/roadwheels and thin side hull armor.

So all you have to go on is the air gap.
And I have bad news for you if you want to try to argue that one.

The reality is that basic MBT side armor is designed to make it strong enough for the frontal 60 degrees arc.  No reason Abrams are immune to autocannons on the entirety of its side when in reality it has barely 50mm over the engine on the side.(which would be penetrated even with gimped 30mm AP)


That's not a nerf, just different, because otherwise gunner could easily shoot the ground.

Edited by EcchiRevenge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, EcchiRevenge said:

It's not as complicated as you imply.  You don't have a point to stand; are you sure this is the hill you want to die on?

And my point was focused on the fact that side armor(despite tracks and add-ons being modeled) is incorrect.

The main mechanisms are just the base side hull, side skirt, frontal part of abrams sideskirt having some more material(too thin to be NERA arrays in any case), and air gap.

This should give you a good idea on how "strong" side armor is(as all mbt are):
209.jpg
cn8uOmA.jpg
As in, it's really not.  The "sideskirt" is all sheet metal past the crew compartment, which means the main mechanism for defeating an attack is only the tracks/roadwheels and thin side hull armor.

So all you have to go on is the air gap.
And I have bad news for you if you want to try to argue that one.

The reality is that basic MBT side armor is designed to make it strong enough for the frontal 60 degrees arc.  No reason Abrams are immune to autocannons on the entirety of its side when in reality it has barely 50mm over the engine on the side.(which would be penetrated even with gimped 30mm AP)


That's not a nerf, just different, because otherwise gunner could easily shoot the ground.

What's even your point? "look how thin they are, they cannot stop anything" is not much of an argument. And besides: Have you even studied the Side skirts of the T-72 in game?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Pluto is a planet said:

What's even your point? "look how thin they are, they cannot stop anything" is not much of an argument. And besides: Have you even studied the Side skirts of the T-72 in game?

 

 

Funny how you're purposefully avoiding reading to pretend to have something to attack.

My point is that IRL abrams has much thinner side armor than they do in game while T-72(all models) actually has more than they do in-game(aside from the very lower part of the hull which is very thin but angled inward and protected by roadwheels).

I did, actually; I even assumed they just forgot to put the ERA part onto the sides like how they forgot to put track models onto it.

There is no side skirt for T-72B3 according to training ground models, those are mudguards while the actual sideskirt isn't even modeled.

Any other excuse you would like to present?

Gameplay-wise NATO APC can easily use autocannons to penetrate T-72B3 sides through the tracks/roadwheels which are 30mm + 50mm side hull.
Meanwhile it's impossible for Rusfor to do the same vs. NATO tanks because even the base side armor is 100mm vs. Russian APC/IFV using outdated(3UBR6) 30mm 3UBR6 at 65mm penetration.

Edited by EcchiRevenge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Far from all T-72:s have any side skirts, for ex

: T-90%2520tank.jpg?itok=u7_Egn5A&f=1&nofb

So the T-72 in game is accurately modeled. An Abrams with side skirts will be better protected than a T-72 without. Yes - you could argue that the T-72 should have side skirt with ERA, but that also work for the Abrams. Russian 30mm cannon doesnt have APFSDS rounds but a blunt penetrator so it is less effective than its western counterparts.

 

There are also some aspects where the in game T-72 is better than the real one. Its hunter-killer capacity for ex, where its equal to the Abrams in game but vastly inferior in real life. The B3 has some limited hunter-killer capacity but its far from the Abrams. So it goes both ways. And in a game it's always a tradeoff between realism and fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Io

13 minutes ago, Pluto is a planet said:

Far from all T-72:s have any side skirts, for ex

: T-90%2520tank.jpg?itok=u7_Egn5A&f=1&nofb

So the T-72 in game is accurately modeled. An Abrams with side skirts will be better protected than a T-72 without. Yes - you could argue that the T-72 should have side skirt with ERA, but that also work for the Abrams. Russian 30mm cannon doesnt have APFSDS rounds but a blunt penetrator so it is less effective than its western counterparts.

 

There are also some aspects where the in game T-72 is better than the real one. Its hunter-killer capacity for ex, where its equal to the Abrams in game but vastly inferior in real life. The B3 has some limited hunter-killer capacity but its far from the Abrams. So it goes both ways. And in a game it's always a tradeoff between realism and fun.

1. those are sideskirts on that T-72B3.  T-72 all variants have essentially the same side armor.

Something tells me you don't know where sideskirt begins and mudguard ends.

2. Russian 30mm does in fact have 30mm APFSDS, it's called 3UBR11.
1-290514112712.jpeg 

Ironically the direct comparison with 3UBR8 and British L14 30mm are very very close.
https://thesovietarmourblog.blogspot.com/p/30x165mm-cartridges.html

"
The 3UBR8 shell was not only a direct counterpart to the L14A3 APDS shell for the British 30mm L21 RARDEN cannon but also its close counterpart in both penetrator design and in projectile weight as the L14A3 projectile, including its sabot, weighs 300 grams - only 4 grams less than the 3UBR8 projectile including its sabot. The L14A3 projectile weighs 235 grams, so after subtracting the weight of its ballistic cap and tracer, the weight of its core is practically the same as that of the 3UBR8. It is possible that the L14 series had a lighter tungsten alloy core, but this would be compensated by its higher muzzle velocity of 1,175 m/s.

 
Compared to the M791 APDS shell for the 25mm M242 autocannon of the M2 Bradley, which has a projectile weight of 134 grams inclusive of the sabot and a penetrator core weight of 104 grams, the 3UBR8 projectile with its sabot weighs 2.27 times more and the penetrator core weighs 2.13 times more. It is slower, having a muzzle velocity that reaches only 83.3% of the M791, but even so, 3UBR8 delivers twice the amount of kinetic energy to the target."


So Russian 30mm is not as behind as you think(as proof, that same 2A42 is still mounted on Armata platform T15).

3. T-72B3 to today's standard(which isn't properly modelled in-game) has all the "hunter-killer" capability you're talking about.
What you remembered was regurgitated from an older article.
Today's T-72B3"M"(orB4 or whatever they call it) is further upgraded:
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/everything-you-ever-wanted-know-about-russias-massive-tank-22539

"
The T-72B3M, a further update of the T-72B3 adds in the PK-PAN thermal commander sight, which allows the commander to independently search for targets, and then slew the turret to engage them (hunter-killer ability) "

"Fun" doesn't apply here as it's literally impossible to do hull damage to Abrams with Russian autocannon(not true IRL) where as it's do-able(at perpendicular angles depending on 25mm or 30mm) vs. T-72B3.  Of course that should be possible to do to T-72B3 IRL, but it should also be possible to do it to Abrams IRL, as even TUSK2 doesn't add anything to that very rear portion of the hull.

Edited by EcchiRevenge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Pluto is a planet said:

Both BTR and BMP-2 uses the 3UBR6 round in game.

Funny how you just ignored rest of the post.

Let's not let the fact that devs chose the wrong ammunition distract you from the fact you didn't know Russia had 30mm APFSDS.

As for T-72B3, what you remembered was regurgitated from an older article.
Today's T-72B3"M"(orB4 or whatever they call it) is further upgraded:
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/everything-you-ever-wanted-know-about-russias-massive-tank-22539

"
The T-72B3M, a further update of the T-72B3 adds in the PK-PAN thermal commander sight, which allows the commander to independently search for targets, and then slew the turret to engage them (hunter-killer ability) "

Edited by EcchiRevenge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Pluto is a planet said:

yes that's true, but the T-72 in game isnt a B3M but a B3, which is not equipped with the thermal commander sight.

But it does have independent commander sight.

And logically it's supposed to be T-72B3M.
" Since 2017, tank units of Western  and Southern military district of the Russian army have received T-72B3M. "
https://www.armyrecognition.com/russia_russian_army_tank_heavy_armoured_vehicles_u/t-72b3m_t-72b4_mbt_main_battle_tank_technical_data_pictures.html

Western and Southern military district are, obviously, relevant to what Squad portrays.
Specifically Southern(remember the "TRACK" goggles on Russian kit in Squad?  That's mostly known from Crimea era).

Edited by EcchiRevenge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

B3M was a special variant that was never intended to be used by the regular forces. The newest T-72B3 obr.2016 is equipped with independent commander sight but the regular B3 is still the most common version.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Pluto is a planet said:

B3M was a special variant that was never intended to be used by the regular forces. The newest T-72B3 obr.2016 is equipped with independent commander sight but the regular B3 is still the most common version.

As addressed previously: "whatever they call it."

If you keep reading down that wikipedia page you're trying to use as straws to grasp at, you will encounter this line:
"The Russian Defense Ministry has purchased several hundred T-72B3M tanks"

"most common" means nothing; the most advanced tank in a decent number is obviously going to be sent to the most-ready units.

Finally, I think you forgot that the only thing that was added was Commander's own FLIR, Commander has always been able to spot targets independently,...since Squad doesn't have FLIR yet, it doesn't matter.

Edited by EcchiRevenge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes it does. You could argue that every country should get the best stuff that they have, but that's not how squad works. Since the T-72B3 is the most common variant in the Russian armed forces thats the model we get in game. Not the T-90MS or T-14. In the same way there is no TUSK kit on the Abrams. You are of course free to argue that the Russians should get a better version but i doubt it will happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Pluto is a planet said:

Yes it does. You could argue that every country should get the best stuff that they have, but that's not how squad works. Since the T-72B3 is the most common variant in the Russian armed forces thats the model we get in game. Not the T-90MS or T-14. In the same way there is no TUSK kit on the Abrams. You are of course free to argue that the Russians should get a better version but i doubt it will happen.

You're the one who tried to argue for gameplay over realism.
So for gameplay's sake it's entirely relevant for T-72B(obr.2016) to be represented in game instead.
So you admitted T-90M(not S; S implies export) exists; that is the special variant, T-72B obr.2016 isn't, obviously it's also not the best Russia has.

I'm guessing you got most of your info from Armored Warfare the shitty-attempt at WoT-knockoff.

T-14 would be obviously imbalanced against NATO forces so developers would never let that happen... (and to let T-14 onto the field means Kurganets-25 and T-15 would be possible; wouldn't want devs to be unironically called "Bussian Rias" right?)

Finally, I think you forgot that the only thing that was added was Commander's own FLIR for T-72B3 obr.2016(keep in mind we're in 2020 now), Commander has always been able to spot targets independently,...since Squad doesn't have FLIR yet, it doesn't matter.

This is a T-72A:
http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/index.php?title=T-72A/M1#Tank_Commander.27s_Position_F7

The reality is that "hunter-killer" has been a marketing term for fanboys for way too long; mostly because they have never ever learned how to operate a tank as commander before.

The definition can be as loose or tight as possible depending on what fanboys want to include into/exclude from it.

Edited by EcchiRevenge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, was a bit too quick there, T-90M is correct.

Quote

So for gameplay's sake it's entirely relevant for T-72B(obr.2016) to be represented in game instead.

It is a valid argument although i might not agree.

The problem for the Russians is that while they have some really modern stuff they are not the bulk of their equipment, so depending on if the game wants to represent the best of every faction or  what the average unit gets it can differs a lot. Same for the BMP-3, its better than the BMP-2 but the -2 is far more common.

 

Quote

Finally, I think you forgot that the only thing that was added was Commander's own FLIR for T-72B3 obr.2016(keep in mind we're in 2020 now), Commander has always been able to spot targets independently,...since Squad doesn't have FLIR yet, it doesn't matter.

The B3 commander can spot and direct the gunner yes, but has no ability to aim or provide the ballistic computer with any data, unlike the Abrams commander that can provide all data needed for a firing solution. And that is a quite big advantage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Pluto is a planet said:

Sorry, was a bit too quick there, T-90M is correct.

It is a valid argument although i might not agree.

The problem for the Russians is that while they have some really modern stuff they are not the bulk of their equipment, so depending on if the game wants to represent the best of every faction or  what the average unit gets it can differs a lot. Same for the BMP-3, its better than the BMP-2 but the -2 is far more common.

 

The B3 commander can spot and direct the gunner yes, but has no ability to aim or provide the ballistic computer with any data, unlike the Abrams commander that can provide all data needed for a firing solution. And that is a quite big advantage.


"Bulk of" Russia's equipment is irrelevant here; the Bulk of Abrams is still stuck at M1/M1A1 level.
Russia keeps everything mothballed. (pretty sure there's still a warehouse full of MG42 somewhere)

T-72 obr.2016 is, once again, not the best of Russia anyway.

BMP-2 over BMP-3 is probably for balance reasons(BMP-3 is basically "guns, lots of guns") and BMP-2 has an upgrade path to BMP-2M.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/september_2019_global_defense_security_army_news_industry/russian_far_eastern_command_school_gets_40_upgraded_bmp-2m.html

What data does abrams commander sight provide to the ballistic computer?
"all data" including range?  Are you implying Abrams commander has a laser rangefinder?

Because IIRC it doesn't at least up to M1A2 SEP.

Edited by EcchiRevenge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Pluto is a planet said:

Active service is whats matter, and while there are a lot of older M1:s they are stored and not active. Same with the thousands of older T-72:s in Russian inventory.

So National Guard's M1A1.
https://www.army.mil/article/227533/army_national_guard_team_conducts_combined_arms_live_fire_exercise

Your point?  Are we going to see replacement of M1A2 with M1A1?

What data does abrams commander sight provide to the ballistic computer?
"all data" including range?  Are you implying Abrams commander has a laser rangefinder?

Because IIRC it doesn't at least up to M1A2 SEP.

In case you missed it, T-72A commander sight also has stadiametric rangefinder.

Edited by EcchiRevenge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×