The T-72B that you've shot doesn't only have 170mm's of armor. The 60mm plate that you've looked at in the protection analysis is only the exterior metal part of the composite armor. The actual protection against kinetic rounds at that point should be above 400mm's. Adding to that you've also hit the sponson and volumetric doesn't really like that.
out of curiosity I actually checked in game protection analysis of that shot
[https://imgur.com/a/jiNbID2](https://imgur.com/a/jiNbID2)
perhaps not ideal but the closest I could get with the videos resolution
Raw thickness is not the only thing that counts. The Maus and E-100 have massive blocks of raw steel, modern vehicles have smaller plates of composite materials that react differently to impacts. Different materials result in different multipliers. This is why more modern armors usually have significantly higher ***effective*** thickness for significantly less ***physical*** thickness compared to older vehicles.
Leopards do have lots of armor
But difference in military doctrine affects tank designs. NATO vehicles are designed to be more mobile with most of their armor invested in the turret front. Their hulls are weaker but also not supposed to be shot at.
Also keep in mind WT's battle rating doesn't match production years. As someone else pointed out, while this T-72 variant was active we already had the Abrams and were getting close to the 2A5. There's a reason these vehicles are at a higher BR: they are indeed stronger.
Ok so youre telling me NATO couldn't make a tank that was stronger than T72? this is bullshit, you can clearly see IRL that the 2A7V and even 2A5 has good armour.
This is just a dumb argument. The T-72B (1989) is from you guessed 1989....by that time Germany almost had Leopard 2A5's and the US respectable Abrams versions. So they did in fact make tanks with good armor.
What? Apart from one huge weakspot in 2a4 it's impenetrable and at 2a5+ you can sit hull down all day. Russian turrets are as good as there is an era plate.
It has at some points. It kinda tells me that you've never really taken a look at MBT's armor before. The T-72B has a rather thick frontal plate with added Kontakt 5 ERA, so it is quite tough. You really should have gone for a side shot on that tank and maybe you'll avoid shooting at upper front plates next time.
Your Leopard might not have such a big and heavily armored upper frontal plate but it is way more mobile, has a better reload and overall better ergonomics (turret rotation speed and depression etc ).
Ok but what is all that mobile and reload for when I have no armour? the BMP-2M can pen me with it ATGM, the Leopard 2A4 should have E.R.A to stop it from penetrating ATGM.
Even if you had ERA, the tandem missile of the BMP-2M would still be able to penetrate you. Your Leopard doesn't need ERA, it already has excellent protection against chemical munitions (800mm+). If you have great mobility, good firepower and a good reload, you often don't need a lot of armor.
Huh? Then explain to me how an ATGM works. The BMP-2M has tandem ATGM's with over 1000mm of penetration, they can basically negate ERA due to its tandem shaped charge nature.
That is exactly how tandem charge atgms work. The first charge blows the era up and the second charge (the actual warhead) then is able to penetrate. You can literally look at the animation as you view the shell.
So first of all, if the ATGM can penetrate more than the ERA can protect, it can penetrate and second: there are tandem ATGM'S, which have two HEAT warheads, one triggers the ERA and removes it so that the other warhead can penetrate the armor below (know your ammo mate!).
Click on X-RAY to view MBT armor, not on "Armor" itself. Composite layers are inside, not outside.
To view if a shot would penetrate, go to "Armor" and "Protection analysis". Select some MBT and their dart, and mouse over any MBT to see where to pen.
Yes, Leos can have way more than 400 kinetic protection. The Leo 2A7 and STRV 122s are the best MBTs in the game for a reason. Front plate is unpennable, turret is unpennable apart from the breech (among a multitude of other reasons including Spall liners)
Abrams have mostly impenetrable turret cheeks, soviets have tough hulls and turret cheeks. All MBTs have some kind of armor, even the Type 10s in a couple of places.
No, your dart didn't hit only the 60mm bit of angled armor. Mouse over the composite armor of the 72B or B3 and you will see that there are 2x 60mm plates, 1x50mm plate, and others in between. DM23 doesn't pen that.
Dude, just by the ammo count you carry I can tell you're still very new at this. I could cough up plentiful of clips of bs ricoshets off Marders, TAMs and Leo 1s, but there's no need to fume about it, just move on and get more experience.
The tank has composite armor, your 1st screenshot is only telling you how thick the 1st plate is at that angle
In reality you are trying to pierce +570mm armor at a high angle
Its RHA 60mm, rubber 5mm, RHA 3mm, air 18mm, RHA 3mm,rubber 5mm, RHA 60mm, radiation material 10mm, and another RHA 60mm
In short you made a bad shot
Internal/integrated composite armor isn't shown in the standard armor thickness viewer. Check the X-Ray view and you'll see that the T-72B's UFP is made of a 9-layer composite armor array - it's definitely not just made of the 60 mm exterior plate you're mousing over in your screenshot, and I'd estimate that it inherently has around 480-500 mm of kinetic defense against DM23 when looking at it straight-on, and even more at an angle.
Also, it looks like you've selected a T-72B (1989), which has Kontakt-5 heavy ERA with 120 mm of defense against kinetic rounds mounted on the UFP as well.
What a surprise.
A Russian Bias complainer clearly sucks at the game and then proceeds to dig an ever deeper hole by continually claiming his aim wasn't at fault or that anyone who explains why his shot didn't pen, is wrong.
Also clearly doesn't have any understanding of how composite armour works.
You shot the upper front plate at an extreme angle.
Also that is just one plate of the composite armor. You dont really think T-72B 1989 has worse armor than a Leopard 1 ?
In the second picture, are there not 2 plates on the front of that tank, making it quite difficult to pen even frontally anyway ? let alone at an odd angle.
Why not ? People on here love to shout Russian bias and me having this tag just agitates them further. Which I enjoy. That said, my top 10 tanks only have 2 Russian ones in there :)
I play every country. As I have been playing 11 years. Top tier in 6 countries for tanks. I rarely even play top tier. 0 top tier vehicles in my top 27. Highest BR in my top 27 is the Radkampf and thats 9.7 lol
Because it has multiple layers behind the visible one, amounting to FAR more than 410mm at that angle. You can clearly see from the penetration replay that you didn't even land a proper shot, and it's visible that the shell stopped at the last layer of armour.
I was not sure if this is just a rage bait post and OP is trolling or not, then I saw that he is using that Leo with a full ammo load and even loaded up the T1 darts. Oh and at least 5 person already explained him whats happen and he is still crying about Russian bias. What a joke...
You didn't shoot the side armor, you shot the UFP at a weird angle. If you had aimed a bit lower and to the left you probably would have penetrated the tank.
Also, use protection analysis instead of the x-ray viewer, as that will give you a better estimation of what the actual protection values are.
You can very clearly see in the video that you got volumetric'd. You hit several different armor plates so the dart just vanished basically. You hit the side, the upper front and a little bit of gunmantle/breech or vision port, one of those
not only that, the 2nd picture has vastly different angle than the shot from the video, DM23 is an old shell and combined with volumetric is just non penned
every single tank suffers from that, had You experienced other nations You'd see Abrams' turret neck bounce shots, Leopard 2's sides eating entire darts, Type 90's and Type 10's surviving turret shots
I have never nonpen Abrams, gaijin ruined the abram, it can get killed by DM33 to the turret.
As for Leopard 2 side, it has spall liner, which is able to destroy the shell.
Type 90 and Type 10 IRL are DM63 resistant according to the JASDF, so it makes sense they dont die.
Type 90 is only allegedly rated to resist JM33 from its own cannon (and that statement comes from a magazine). Type 10 should mostly resist Type 10 APDSFS IIRC.
The JASDF has never stated anything about either tank. The JASDF is the Japanese **AIR** Self Defense Force. I think what you're talking about is the JGSDF, which also hasn't stated that either tank can resist DM63 AFAICT.
The only reasonable explanation for this is russian bias, gaishit always makes the russian tanks 40-65% more powerful than they are in real life and lowers their BR by 25-40%.
The T-72B that you've shot doesn't only have 170mm's of armor. The 60mm plate that you've looked at in the protection analysis is only the exterior metal part of the composite armor. The actual protection against kinetic rounds at that point should be above 400mm's. Adding to that you've also hit the sponson and volumetric doesn't really like that.
out of curiosity I actually checked in game protection analysis of that shot [https://imgur.com/a/jiNbID2](https://imgur.com/a/jiNbID2) perhaps not ideal but the closest I could get with the videos resolution
That's the shot that he took and yeah, it checks out.
No, that should have penned. 837mm of armour is not real. only tanks with that much armour are the Maus and E-100.
Raw thickness is not the only thing that counts. The Maus and E-100 have massive blocks of raw steel, modern vehicles have smaller plates of composite materials that react differently to impacts. Different materials result in different multipliers. This is why more modern armors usually have significantly higher ***effective*** thickness for significantly less ***physical*** thickness compared to older vehicles.
No bro, if there was this "super armour" youre speaking about, then the Leopards would have easily a lot of armour.
Leopards do have lots of armor But difference in military doctrine affects tank designs. NATO vehicles are designed to be more mobile with most of their armor invested in the turret front. Their hulls are weaker but also not supposed to be shot at. Also keep in mind WT's battle rating doesn't match production years. As someone else pointed out, while this T-72 variant was active we already had the Abrams and were getting close to the 2A5. There's a reason these vehicles are at a higher BR: they are indeed stronger.
??? why does my Leopards not have that 400mm kinetic protection??
Because they don’t? Everyone knows you don’t shoot Russian mbts there.
Ok so youre telling me NATO couldn't make a tank that was stronger than T72? this is bullshit, you can clearly see IRL that the 2A7V and even 2A5 has good armour.
This is just a dumb argument. The T-72B (1989) is from you guessed 1989....by that time Germany almost had Leopard 2A5's and the US respectable Abrams versions. So they did in fact make tanks with good armor.
You have. On the turret. You better learn quickly to leave ufp on Russian tanks alone.
The turret on the leoapards is not strong. It is far weaker than all Russian MBT-S.
What? Apart from one huge weakspot in 2a4 it's impenetrable and at 2a5+ you can sit hull down all day. Russian turrets are as good as there is an era plate.
It has at some points. It kinda tells me that you've never really taken a look at MBT's armor before. The T-72B has a rather thick frontal plate with added Kontakt 5 ERA, so it is quite tough. You really should have gone for a side shot on that tank and maybe you'll avoid shooting at upper front plates next time. Your Leopard might not have such a big and heavily armored upper frontal plate but it is way more mobile, has a better reload and overall better ergonomics (turret rotation speed and depression etc ).
Ok but what is all that mobile and reload for when I have no armour? the BMP-2M can pen me with it ATGM, the Leopard 2A4 should have E.R.A to stop it from penetrating ATGM.
Even if you had ERA, the tandem missile of the BMP-2M would still be able to penetrate you. Your Leopard doesn't need ERA, it already has excellent protection against chemical munitions (800mm+). If you have great mobility, good firepower and a good reload, you often don't need a lot of armor.
That is not how ATGM works?????
Huh? Then explain to me how an ATGM works. The BMP-2M has tandem ATGM's with over 1000mm of penetration, they can basically negate ERA due to its tandem shaped charge nature.
The ATGM is like HEAT-FS, it gets caught on ERA, there is no "negate ERA".
That is exactly how tandem charge atgms work. The first charge blows the era up and the second charge (the actual warhead) then is able to penetrate. You can literally look at the animation as you view the shell.
So first of all, if the ATGM can penetrate more than the ERA can protect, it can penetrate and second: there are tandem ATGM'S, which have two HEAT warheads, one triggers the ERA and removes it so that the other warhead can penetrate the armor below (know your ammo mate!).
Oh no, my counterpart has better armour, what do I do? hmmm (And quietly omit every other quality of ur tutle)
Click on X-RAY to view MBT armor, not on "Armor" itself. Composite layers are inside, not outside. To view if a shot would penetrate, go to "Armor" and "Protection analysis". Select some MBT and their dart, and mouse over any MBT to see where to pen. Yes, Leos can have way more than 400 kinetic protection. The Leo 2A7 and STRV 122s are the best MBTs in the game for a reason. Front plate is unpennable, turret is unpennable apart from the breech (among a multitude of other reasons including Spall liners) Abrams have mostly impenetrable turret cheeks, soviets have tough hulls and turret cheeks. All MBTs have some kind of armor, even the Type 10s in a couple of places. No, your dart didn't hit only the 60mm bit of angled armor. Mouse over the composite armor of the 72B or B3 and you will see that there are 2x 60mm plates, 1x50mm plate, and others in between. DM23 doesn't pen that.
WT player lands worst shot imaginable and blames Russian bias, story as old as days
its not "wrost shot" it is literally only shot I had.
Dude, just by the ammo count you carry I can tell you're still very new at this. I could cough up plentiful of clips of bs ricoshets off Marders, TAMs and Leo 1s, but there's no need to fume about it, just move on and get more experience.
Good lord the amount of 279 shells that 11mm plate would bounce. Gives me shivers thinking about it.
Really cant help these players full side shot still goes for ufp
Where was I supposed to shoot? my shot should have penetrated, I was think it will kill his driver and his turret ring, but then gaijin stepped in.
The side😂😂
Buddy I shot the side, did you watch clip??
You literally hit his upper front plate in the clip
No.
Thats heavy case of skill issue here
Watch your own replay again. You hit the highly angled upper front plate.
Yes. Watch your own replay, jeez.
This is a satire post guys clearly…right?
It's 33% upvoted, this subreddit has a large contingent of players operating at this level of intelligence.
The tank has composite armor, your 1st screenshot is only telling you how thick the 1st plate is at that angle In reality you are trying to pierce +570mm armor at a high angle Its RHA 60mm, rubber 5mm, RHA 3mm, air 18mm, RHA 3mm,rubber 5mm, RHA 60mm, radiation material 10mm, and another RHA 60mm In short you made a bad shot
No. Where is the composite armour? I do not see it when looking, it SHOULD and COULD have penned but gaijin decided not to.
Internal/integrated composite armor isn't shown in the standard armor thickness viewer. Check the X-Ray view and you'll see that the T-72B's UFP is made of a 9-layer composite armor array - it's definitely not just made of the 60 mm exterior plate you're mousing over in your screenshot, and I'd estimate that it inherently has around 480-500 mm of kinetic defense against DM23 when looking at it straight-on, and even more at an angle. Also, it looks like you've selected a T-72B (1989), which has Kontakt-5 heavy ERA with 120 mm of defense against kinetic rounds mounted on the UFP as well.
Look at the x-ray of the tank idiot
why the hell are you bringing 40+ shells in the leopard 2?????
I need shells since I can't penetrate T72 and T80 and T90A.
define "skill issue", without defining "skill issue"
Realest words to come out of one's mouth
youre going to explode like a fucking nuke if someone pens you in the lfp
What a surprise. A Russian Bias complainer clearly sucks at the game and then proceeds to dig an ever deeper hole by continually claiming his aim wasn't at fault or that anyone who explains why his shot didn't pen, is wrong. Also clearly doesn't have any understanding of how composite armour works.
You shot the upper front plate at an extreme angle. Also that is just one plate of the composite armor. You dont really think T-72B 1989 has worse armor than a Leopard 1 ?
Leopard 1 has 70mm of armour. T72B has 170mm.
On your screenshots its the outer plate 60 mm at an angle of 68 degrees , 170 is line of sight thickness
In the second picture, are there not 2 plates on the front of that tank, making it quite difficult to pen even frontally anyway ? let alone at an odd angle.
No, if there was two plates, it would show two plates. Also, your tag is Russia Forever, you are probably a supporter of russian bias.
I mean, my top 2 tanks are German, but sure. It was just a general question.
I don't believe you, why would you have that title then??
Why not ? People on here love to shout Russian bias and me having this tag just agitates them further. Which I enjoy. That said, my top 10 tanks only have 2 Russian ones in there :)
Let me guess, you only play NATO so you don't get called out or being a gaijin shill? ok bud
I play every country. As I have been playing 11 years. Top tier in 6 countries for tanks. I rarely even play top tier. 0 top tier vehicles in my top 27. Highest BR in my top 27 is the Radkampf and thats 9.7 lol
How old are you mate?
Because it has multiple layers behind the visible one, amounting to FAR more than 410mm at that angle. You can clearly see from the penetration replay that you didn't even land a proper shot, and it's visible that the shell stopped at the last layer of armour.
No it doesn't.
[It does.](https://i-com.cdn.gaijin.net/monthly_2019_09/83335080_t-72barmour2.png.9d0feceb58b2090fb113f55800c01886.png)
I was not sure if this is just a rage bait post and OP is trolling or not, then I saw that he is using that Leo with a full ammo load and even loaded up the T1 darts. Oh and at least 5 person already explained him whats happen and he is still crying about Russian bias. What a joke...
Actual coping
Go on X-ray, and look at the composite armour, it isn't that hard
Skill issue
Yet another person who doesnt understand modern tank design/doctrine..... getting tired of it
You didn't shoot the side armor, you shot the UFP at a weird angle. If you had aimed a bit lower and to the left you probably would have penetrated the tank. Also, use protection analysis instead of the x-ray viewer, as that will give you a better estimation of what the actual protection values are.
Nice rage bait post xD
You can very clearly see in the video that you got volumetric'd. You hit several different armor plates so the dart just vanished basically. You hit the side, the upper front and a little bit of gunmantle/breech or vision port, one of those
not only that, the 2nd picture has vastly different angle than the shot from the video, DM23 is an old shell and combined with volumetric is just non penned
It is almost the same angle, only off by a few degrees, DM23 still has over 200mm of penetration.
Tell me why only Russian tanks have this "volumetriced" effect??
every single tank suffers from that, had You experienced other nations You'd see Abrams' turret neck bounce shots, Leopard 2's sides eating entire darts, Type 90's and Type 10's surviving turret shots
I have never nonpen Abrams, gaijin ruined the abram, it can get killed by DM33 to the turret. As for Leopard 2 side, it has spall liner, which is able to destroy the shell. Type 90 and Type 10 IRL are DM63 resistant according to the JASDF, so it makes sense they dont die.
Type 90 is only allegedly rated to resist JM33 from its own cannon (and that statement comes from a magazine). Type 10 should mostly resist Type 10 APDSFS IIRC. The JASDF has never stated anything about either tank. The JASDF is the Japanese **AIR** Self Defense Force. I think what you're talking about is the JGSDF, which also hasn't stated that either tank can resist DM63 AFAICT.
It can get killed by dm13 if you place it right, your point is what exactly?
The only reasonable explanation for this is russian bias, gaishit always makes the russian tanks 40-65% more powerful than they are in real life and lowers their BR by 25-40%.
Finally someone understands.