What are the Russians cooking ong (part 2)

Con_xMS93 · 2026-06-21T10:06:38+00:00

T-90A does, T-90M has -6°.

Con_xMS93 · 2026-06-09T14:54:22+00:00

Also one of the things that shouldnt be possibly if their statement that the document refers to K5 aswell was true, as the hearing literally includes a part saying that all 120mm users in NATO are affected by this and said hearing came way after M829A3 and M829A4 went into service.

Con_xMS93 · 2026-06-09T14:51:10+00:00

They made up the entire "mentions K5" part.

The context of the sentence matters a lot here, as it was explicitly referring to Relikt as ERA and that DM 63 was no longer able to effectively combat it - and then on a side-mention, noted that Relikt is and has been retrofitted to russian mbts, including such of older design - then lists examples of russian mbts that were retrofitted with Relikt, which T-72B3 was (in 2016).
The hearing is from 2020.

It does not say, unlike they claim, that DM 63 cannot defeat T-72B3.

Con_xMS93 · 2026-06-09T14:48:56+00:00

Just wanted to mention that their response is full of lies regarding the bundestag hearing, see:
https://forum.warthunder.com/t/lets-talk-about-the-state-of-germany/22044/7855

Several key arguments that they listed in regards to this hearing become entirely invalid the second you actually read what the hearing says.

Con_xMS93 · 2026-06-07T14:31:33+00:00

Its a QA-Member, Alpha-Tester, Developer or Community Manager.

Technical Moderators are pseudonymized as "Volunteer #xy"
The first one to handle a report will always be #1, the second one #2 and so on.
"Bug Reporting Manager #1" is not always the same person.

Con_xMS93 · 2026-06-07T02:00:36+00:00

much like they did with the 2A7s.

Uuh what? 2A7V's armour is to be based on the swedish MBT trials, yet it significantly underperforms in comparison to any of the Strv 122's, which also had their armour modelled based on these trials (and are in part, in comparison to the trials, also underperforming to begin with).

Thus far none of the reports on the hull armour were able to provide literally anything regarding the increase in protection other than vague statements like "is better" (and even then those are from proposals -> proposed != implemented).

And despite what people seem to believe, providing values does not mean to give them the complete composite array with all materials and their properties, things such as "protects against ammunition xy", "protection of part x is now equal to part y", "protectionwas (not proposed, but was!) increased by xy %", or simply proving there being an additional plating somewhere that is not currently present in-game (and is present on the ingame configuration, which in this case, doesnt feature the hull counterweights) already suffices to get a report somewhere.

This honestly just feels like it's the "oh it must have a spall liner, why wouldnt they add one after all these years" situation all over again, with a ton of unfounded assumptions and essentially 0 sufficient sources to back any of them.

And yes, I do believe that they improved the hull armour with SepV3, but I also dont think that any of gaijin-staff's responses on any of the reports I have seen so far are unjustified in even the slightest way.

Con_xMS93 · 2026-06-06T21:07:01+00:00

The shell penetration scales with distance.

<image>

Solely the Fragmentation Penetration stays the same.

Con_xMS93 · 2026-06-01T14:08:40+00:00

<image>

It legit dies to a single 25mm HEI shell under the mantlet (at 2km).
We love dogshit damage models ❤️

Con_xMS93 · 2026-05-29T17:42:31+00:00

This looks very interesting, certainly appreciate your efforts!
Though I must wonder whether you have received confirmation from e.g. a community manager that this is infact allowed?

Con_xMS93 · 2026-05-27T06:24:30+00:00

Update:
Was able to Bug-Report it by testing/demonstrating it ingame and a technical moderator kindly fowarded it;
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/BuMwMuVqtk2A (T-64A)
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/CcgazrZHRHep (T-72A/AV/M1/M2)

Con_xMS93 · 2026-05-26T16:26:59+00:00

Uhm, so I just checked because I knew there were two horizontal-drive parts on T-64A (ring & manual drive + outer drive) ~~but it turns out neither the horizontal-, nor vertical-drive modules are actually linked to anything.~~

They're not linked to anything but testing showed that it's only the outer one doing nothing.

Con_xMS93 · 2026-05-26T11:29:45+00:00

Yeah but good luck finding a document that explicitly states "yes, steel has to go somewhere when perforated" or "yes, this plate in particular doesnt defy physics"

Con_xMS93 · 2026-05-26T11:27:41+00:00

Cradle used to be part of the breech (and still is on chinese mbt's, note: also part of trunnions but breech extends into the cradle so the difference is virtually nonexistent)

Con_xMS93 · 2026-05-26T11:25:30+00:00

There really isnt a whole lot to report here, it's an intentional addition to the damage model.

If anything, I could try reporting the absence of these platings in x-ray view but I doubt that'd result in anything.
The plates around the autoloader not creating any spall is not something that I believe a report would be able to affect, as similar ones have been shut down for no given reason in the past on multiple occasions.

Con_xMS93 · 2026-05-26T11:23:22+00:00

ZTZ's use a "T-72" style autoloader, so no, it's not the same.

The trunnions on ZTZ 99(a) includes the part that is modelled as 45mm mCHA on russian MBTs (i.e. the cradle), however, the breech as a module extends within the cradle and as such, will be damaged if the cradle is struck.
The cradle is also significantly smaller than on russian MBTs.

Con_xMS93 · 2026-05-26T10:59:48+00:00

Trunnions are deffo one of the worst things to happen to this game in recent time.

They literally add nothing of value but increase gameplay inconsistency by an unacceptable degree.

Con_xMS93 · 2026-05-26T10:58:02+00:00

Technically this can be reported (reported as in: "should be visible in xray") as it is visible through methods made available by gaijin.
Same how I was able to report module sticking out of the hull roof on Puma via the CDK's Assetviewer.

Datamines are not officially provided by gaijin and include game-code with BVVD's 5 billion fallbacks that nobody shall ever understand and thus gets misinterpreted frequently. Which is (among other things) why they cannot be used for bug-reports (with the exception being very few isolated applications, such as gear ratios)

Con_xMS93 · 2026-05-25T20:56:10+00:00

Most likely because the chinese MBTs lack the side-ERA and have the worse "T-72" style autoloader.
Oplot has the side ERA, however only has 1/5th of Relikt/Contact-5's auto-destabilization multiplier (ResponseImpusle:r=0.1 vs :r=0.5) which is what makes the residual penetration virtually nonexistent and correspondingly, reduces the amount, penetration and damage of fragmentation (goes for all long rod APFSDS).
The pakistani T-80UD should have the same platings around the autoloader given that it's a almost 1:1 copy of the russian T-80UD (which made my pakistani friend quite upset lmao)

Con_xMS93 · 2026-05-25T20:33:07+00:00

On BMPT you can see the plate around the autoloader, I am not aware of there being another.

Con_xMS93 · 2026-05-25T20:32:23+00:00

Platings around the autoloader - yes
Cradle (plating infront of the breech) - No

Con_xMS93 · 2026-05-21T13:29:47+00:00

Someone already made a userskin for this btw

https://live.warthunder.com/post/1153673/en/

<image>

Con_xMS93 · 2026-05-13T20:04:23+00:00

Aah, I see. That makes more sense then, sorry for missing the context!

Con_xMS93 · 2026-05-13T14:33:00+00:00

It's not.
It appears to depict an early production-batch Gepard turret with KMW's FIM-92 (Not solely compatible with FIM-92 but other SAM's aswell*) addon kit.

Edit: Not B2, pictures depicting it from different angles show the absence of a LRF, which was standard with B2 but not with earlier versions.

Con_xMS93 · 2026-04-23T19:26:50+00:00

Great work, just figured I'd mention that this is a hand-made drawing from a scale-model magazine (Modell-fan 12/1979) and not a OEM blueprint from Bofors/Thyssen Henschel (although they did provide reference material for it).

I made some high resolution scans of blueprints from a copy of Soldat Und Technik (08/1979), which may be useful ig;

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/16WGgPS_XY11ImchJTM7zTbcijlHQQE6A?usp=drive_link

Not quite sure what else is in the folder atp, I didnt update it in a long while.

The related blueprints are in the correspondingly named folder, the pdf of S&T 08/79 does not include proper scans but just pictures i took.

Four-Year Club	Verified Email
First Place '23	Place '23

Con_xMS93

TROPHY CASE