You can't rely on what the game tells you.
This is going to be a bit of a complicated topic, but I'll try to make it as easy to
understand as possible and give some examples.
First some disclaimers.
This is the result of some extensive datamining, calculation and testing from reddit users
ramZn2, mike10d, Baron_Tiberius and Lina_Inverse.
All the credits for these findings go to them, and you'll find a link to the original post
in the description.
Secondly, these results were obtained as of the second dev server.
They are subject to change, and may indeed yet change between now and the release of
the patch.
Finally this isn't intended to rile up the community or spark outcries of bias.
It's purely informative, to show you how and why it works.
Alright, with the disclaimers out of the way, we are going to go in depth on the actual
performance of the composite armour of the M1 Abrams, T-64B and Challenger 1 against
Kinetic Energy projectiles.
The Leopard 2K is not being considered here, simply because the armour isn't really worth
talking about.
Let's start off with the M1 Abrams, since there are a couple peculiarities with how
its armour is coded into the game.
WARNING: NUMBERS We are going to be rounding some of the numbers
for ease of understanding, for the accurate values down to the millesimal point, refer
to the reddit post linked below.
The Abrams Composite armour consists of three Layers.
At the front is a 31.75mm thick burster plate made of modern rolled homogenous armour, behind
which is a 600mm thick array of non explosive reactive armour, finally ending in a backing
plate with a thickness of 101mm.
Now, it's important to understand that each of these plates and materials has its own
multiplier to determine actual effective thickness.
For example, regular homogenous armour has a 1x multiplier, meaning that however thick
the plate is is also the actual thickness when calculating the armour protection.
In comparison, and if I recall correctly, Cast Homogenous armour has a 0.95x multiplier,
meaning that a 100mm thick plate of CHA only actually counts for 95mm of armour.
I'm just mentioning this because of the modifier on the frontal modern RHA plate.
Those 31.75mm have a multiplier of 1.01x, giving them an actual thickness of roughly
32mm
That said, the NERA array and the back plate have their own unique modifiers
For starters, the NERA array has 0 actual effectiveness against Kinetic energy.
None.
Nada.
It only works against Chemical energy, like HEAT shells.
The actual Kinetic energy protection comes from the multiplier on the back plate.
For the turret armour, this plate has a 2.69x multiplier, whilst the hull has a 1.96x multiplier.
And yes, this does make the hull armour weaker against KE projectiles than the turret.
Doing the maths, and keeping in mind that the turret plates have different angles as
well as accounting for the slope of each plate, This results in the following total line of
sight thicknesses of each plate when viewed directly from the front:
The lower frontal plate offers roughly 303mm of KE protection, the turret plate to the
right offers roughly 427mm of KE protection, and the plate to the left offers roughly 397mm
of, you guessed it, KE protection.
But, there's a catch.
Usually, the more you would angle the plates, the more effective armour you would obtain,
except for the M1 Abrams that is only the case up to a certain limit.
You see, the back plates have an associated snippet of code called "armorEffectiveThicknessMax".
This limits the maximum protection that plate can provide.
To put this in context, the backplate on the turret composite has a maximum effective thickness
limit of 360mm, meaning that no matter how much you angle that plate, it is going to
cap out at that value.
The same thing happens for the hull plate, which has a maximum effective thickness limit
of 327mm.
But what does this mean?
Well, doing the calculations, no matter the angle you present, the turret plates are going
to offer no more than roughly 405mm of armour, and the Hull plate is going to offer no more
than roughly 369mm of armour.
Let's go back to the total effective thicknesses we've shown earlier.
Directly from the front, the Hull is still going to provide the same 303mm of protection,
and the turret plate on the left is still going to provide 397mm as well.
The plate on the right however is no longer providing 427mm, but is instead capping out
and ~405mm.
And this doesn't increase regardless of the angle, the turret plates are always going
to offer at best around 400mm, whilst the hull offers at best around 370mm of kinetic
energy protection.
These are just the maximum values of course, if you present the plates completely flat,
the turret only offers 306mm, and the hull only 232mm.
We're going to see what that actually means for the Abram's protection against various
shells in a bit, first let's also quickly present the armour values for the T-64B and
the Challenger I, directly from the front.
Keep in mind these are not affected by the Abram's max limit to angling effectiveness
The T-64B has a rather complicated turret, to keep it simple the direct front with composite
offers ~330mm of protection against kinetic energy, with 150mm thick weakspots right next
to the gun.
You should be able to pen this with most apfsds shells in the game.
The upper frontal plate offers roughly 156mm flat, but is set at a 68 degree angle for
an effective thickness of 417mm.
The more you can reduce that angle, like by shooting at it from above, the easier it becomes
to penetrate that ufp.
Keep in mind that the lower frontal plate does not have composite armour and as such
is a weakspot, as well as there being a hole in the composite armour around the area of
the driver's viewport, making it another weakspot that can even be penetrated by the
Leopard A1A1's new apfsds shell.
Finally onto the Challenger I, the upper frontal plate protected by composite armour offers
~339mm of protection, although there are massive weakspots in the form of the driver's hatch
and the lower frontal plate which have no composite and can even be penetrated by some
tier 1&2 tanks
The turret is divided into two plates.
The plate to the left, when viewed from the front, offers ~199mm flat for a total of ~358mm
accounting for angle.
The plate to the right offers ~209mm flat for a total of 388mm accounting for angle.
Also to note is a rather flat armour plate at the base of the turret cheeks which only
offers around 260mm and as such is a weakspot.
So, to summarize what we know so far, The Abrams has very little in terms of major weakspots
and offers 303mm of hull armour and roughly 400mm of turret armour
The T-64B has a couple major weakspots, offering around 330mm on the turret front and 417mm
on the upper frontal plate.
The Challenger has major weakspots both on the hull and the turret, and offers 358mm
on the turret left, 388mm on the turret right, and 339mm on the upper frontal plate.
Overall the M1 has the best all around protection against lower tiered vehicles due to not having
obvious easy weakspots, but offers a bigger target to top tier shells than the T-64B with
its nearly invulnerable upper frontal plate.
The Challenger is definitely the worst of the bunch in terms of armour protection.
Now, you might already be quite confused by everything we just went through, but there's
one final thing.
This is the graph that represents which kinetic shells from various tanks can penetrate which
of the new MBTs in which places.
Alright, it looks very confusing, so lets explain it with these simpler graphs sent
to me by Baron_Tiberius, special thanks once again to him.
These graphs represent the penetration of various shells adjusted for line of sight
at a distance of 100 meters, according for their slope modifiers as found in the game's
code.
The points represent the armour values of the components of the MBTs we just talked
about.
Simply put, if a line crosses to the right of a point, it means it *should* penetrate
it.
I say should, because there is some RNG to this.
Any shell in the game rolls between negative 10% to plus 10% of its indicated penetration
value when fired.
This means that a shell with 400mm of penetration can have anywhere between 360 to 440mm of
actual penetration upon impact.
This can result in some of the shells passing closely to the left of a point having a lucky
roll and being able to go through regardless, whilst shells that are to the right of a point
and as such should be able to go through having an unlucky roll and failing to penetrate.
Also please note that "Turret right" and "Turret left" on the graph are from the
viewpoint of the tank, so just flip those around if you're imagining the tank from
the front.
Finally, the points for "Abrams turret right" and "abrams turret left" represent what
the armour values would be without the maximum limit we talked about earlier, instead the
"Abrams turret effective zone" is what you should look at.
Let's start off with the Challenger's gun then.
It gets two choices of APFSDS, the L23 and the upgraded L23A1 shells.
As you can see by the graph, both shells can easily go through the Abram's Hull and the
Challenger's own hull.
The L23 may also go through the Abram's turret, although it may bounce with unlucky
rng.
It should fail to penetrate the T-64B's hull.
The upgraded L23A1 on the other hand is almost guaranteed to go through the Abram's turret
and the Challenger's own turret, but relies on a lucky RNG roll to go through the T-64B's
ufp.
Next up some of the german guns, with the Leopard 2K's, Kpz-70's and Leopard A1A1's
APFSDS rounds.
Again, all three shells should easily go through the un-angled hulls of the Abrams and the
Challenger.
The turrets are mostly going to deflect the Leopard 1 and the Kpz-70, although the former
might have a lucky rng penetration on the Abrams turret and one of the Challenger's
turret sides.
The Leopard 2K's shell should in most cases go through the Abram's turrets, with your
chances on the Challenger depending on which side you shoot.
In most cases you'll want to shoot at the left side when facing one from the front.
None of these shells should pen the T-64B's hull.
Moving on to the Abram's shell selection, with an additional bonus.
The dotted line represents the Depleted Uranium M833 shell that is found in the game files,
and is a good representation of why it isn't currently available on the M1, since it would
just lolpen everything.
Once again, both shells should deal easily with the Abrams and Challengers hulls, but
that's it for the stock shell.
The upgraded shell should be able to go through the Abram's own turret in most cases, and
just like with the Leo 2k is likely to pen the left side of the challenger's turret,
but bounce off of the right side.
Once again, none of the available shells penetrates the T-64B's hull.
Next we have graphs for the T95E1 and the AMX-30's APFSDS shells.
The T95 might go through the Abrams' hull, but is likely to fail against everything else.
The AMX-30's shell can go through the hulls of the abrams and challenger, but has pretty
much no chance against anything else.
Let's try some soviet shells, T-55a, Object 120, and both APFSDS shells from the T-64A
The T-55A is pretty much useless here.
The object 120 is actually the best of the bunch, having a 50/50 chance of going through
the Abrams' turret, a good chance of going through either turret side of the challenger,
pretty much a guaranteed pen on the hulls of either tank and even a chance to go through
the T-64B's ufp given enough luck.
The T-64A is peculiar here, you have a shell with lower flat pen but better performance
on slopes, and one with higher base pen but worse performance against angles.
The 3BM9 shell goes right through the hulls of the Abrams and Challengers, but fails against
anything else.
The 3BM12 on the other hand struggles even against the hulls, but may in extreme cases
RNG roll through the Abram's turret.
In most cases, you'll want to carry the 3BM9 over the 3BM12.
The T-62 has a similar situation to the T-64A.
The shell with the lower flat pen actually performs better against the hulls of the US
and UK tanks than the one with the higher base pen.
Finally the T-64B itself.
The stock shell should have no problems dealing with the hulls of both of its opponents, as
well as the Abrams' turret.
It will struggle with the Challenger's turret however.
The upgraded shell somewhat fixed that, being able to go through even the Challenger's
strongest turret side in the majority of cases.
To conclude then: Most of the tanks shown can go through the
Abrams' Hull, especially if fired at from below.
Many will struggle with the turrets of both the Abrams and the Challenger.
None can go through the T-64B's upper frontal plate reliably with kinetic energy.
Do remember that all of this is at 100m, the shell lines are going to creep further left
the farther away you are.
And finally, after over 2200 words in a script that was supposed to make this simpler and
easier to understand, that is everything you need to know about the armour of the new MBTs
coming in patch 1.77.
To conclude this video, I want to give you my subjective ranking from worst to best of
the four main stars of the patch, given everything we know and the time I've spent with each
of these tanks on the dev server.
Last place has to go to the Challenger I.
Both of its APFSDS shells are capable against the Abrams, and it does possess stronger turret
armour than it against most shells.
At least on the right side when viewed from the front.
However, with its numerous and huge weakspots, the poor mobility compared to the competition
and the possibly stock APDS shell that was still present on the second Dev Server, the
drawbacks are just too big.
If the Challenger isn't camping Hull Down from the back of the map somewhere, it's
very easy to take down by any tank, and the combination of that and the mobility means
it isn't as effective at capturing points and playing the objective.
This makes getting spawnpoints harder, whilst increasing the chance to die early.
Third place goes to the Leopard 2K, but honestly it might as well share second place with the
next tank.
What the Leopard 2K lacks in armour, it makes up for in mobility and firepower, being the
only tank that can penetrate the T-64B anywhere with its stock shell.
And in case you face Abrams and Challengers, you just switch over to APFSDS to easily deal
with them too.
It also enjoys better survivability than the Kpz-70, having one more crew and being pretty
spaced out.
The only worry I have is the matchups, if Germany and Russia get teamed up together
against the US and the UK as they usually do, the stock Leopard 2K's HEATFS shell
will struggle against the Abrams from the front.
But once you have access to both shells, this is a very capable tank
Second place goes to, and this might surprise you, the T-64B.
It is an overall great tank, having a nearly invulnerable to kinetic shells large upper
frontal plate, a stock shell that is already capable of dealing with all of its opposition,
with the upgraded shell only making it easier, good off-road mobility and an added heavy
machine gun compared to the T-64A.
It does however have major drawbacks too, like multiple weakspots from the front, a
very cramped crew that results in a majority of one shot deaths on penetrating hits, and
a horrible reverse speed of 4km/h.
You might say that the Leopard 2K is superior to the T-64B in a 1v1 fight, but the T-64B
is superior to everything else.
Being a flat upgrade of the T-64A, it's bound to be a great tank.
And finally, my personal contender for best tank of the patch goes to the M1 Abrams.
It combines a good balance of armour, mobility and firepower, it really is a jack of all
trades.
The extreme mobility means it can almost keep up with Leopard 2Ks and give it the ability
to quickly capture points and change positions, it's armour is very good and offers no obvious
weakspots, really only being vulnerable to the other top tier MBTs being introduced,
but very strong against lower tiered tanks, and whilst it technically has the weakest
gun, all of its opposition has very obvious weakspots that you can easily abuse.
On top of that you also have amazing survivability, with ammoracks and fuel explosions essentially
doing nothing to you and your crew being quite spaced out.
It's really hard to one shot an Abrams, and it's going to be even harder to deal
with multiples of them playing together.
The only thing that should really worry you is the T-64B since it very effectively negates
your armour, but even then you can abuse its weaknesses quite easily.
This is likely going to be my go to tank once the patch drops.
But it's about time we end this, once again I want to give special thanks to ramZn2, mike10d,
Baron_Tiberius and Luna_Inverse for their work and for allowing me to use their data.
You should really send these guys some good messages, without them the community would
never know about these things.
Patch 1.77 is rumoured to drop on Tuesday the 13th of March, so I might not even be
able to finish this video before it is live.
Once again I want to mention that these stats are from the second dev server, there might
have been changes since then, so don't take this as gospel.
For all I know Gaijin completely revamped all of the armour profiles and this information
is dead on release.
You'll have to test things out for yourself to confirm that, but if changes are made and
I catch them in time, I'll update you in the respective reviews for the new vehicles.
But in any case lads, hopefully you have enjoyed this video, and as always
My name has been MikeGoesBoom, thanks for watching.
For more infomation >> 🔴URGENTE!BARROSO SEPULTA INDULTO NATALINO DE TEMER AO EXCLUIR CRIMES DE CORRUPÇÃO - Duration: 2:41. 
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét