Is T-72B3 Damaging model at close Ranges accurate compare to SB Wiki?

[Volcano]

OK so I did identify an area that could be improved (that I mentioned previously I would look into after investigating whether it was justified).  Specifically, as mentioned previously, there is the turret ring and above this is the bottom floor of the front armor array of the turret, and it exists in real life. Below this panel is the turret ring (bearings, gears, etc) and above this is armor. This is a somewhat unique feature of most Soviet tanks as far as I can tell, because on western tanks the frontal and side turret armor extends past and overhangs the turret ring.

 

So in the case of the T-72, T-80, T90, we call this area the "turret ring upper lip". As I said before, if you shoot it from a perfectly level elevation, then if you hit the turret ring you could end up firing across that flat surface and its a very similar situation to firing across the top of the hull in the area of the driver's hatch. See the pink arrow in the following image (the thick frontal turret armor layer is removed in this image, along with the ERA and other parts - as you can see by the wireframe)...

 

 

At that exact angle of attack, it would run across that "upper lip", as I described. I would think this would be rare, even though it seems to be some sort of near-mass hysteria that it protects the tank from most hits, and even just the slightest slope of the shooter or the target would reduce this effect. This flat angle of penetration would generate a very thick surface, but fortunately this thickness was capped since 4.2. Still, it was too high, and I was able to improve this by making it at most, 100mm KE RHA, which seems to be realistic. So, at least that should improve. But that is about the limit of what can be done here -- there is only so much a simulation can that is taking account all these surfaces of armor and different angles.

 

(And no, I unable to explain the above image further -- its only intended to show what I was earlier describing -- that I wasn't just blowing smoke.)

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Apart from the improvement, which may or may not help what was discussed originally. But I guess it can't be as worse as it was before, being 600mm KE RHA across that flat surface, versus 100mm KE RHA after this change. So imagine: 100mm RHA, plus the ~600mm RHA of the frontal turret armor, plus the K5 ERA (if hit) which is also at an angle, plus the loss of penetration of the KE round over range (around say, ~50mm RHA per 1000 meters or so as a general rule of thumb). And, as we should be able to see: its not a guarantee, either way.  If the ERA is blasted away on a previous hit, it would be a better situation though, so at least there is that possibility of the ERA equipped tank's defenses being deteriorated with repeated hits. 

 

So now, in a noble attempt to help cut down on this repeating AAR-screen-shot-analysis type discussion in the future, there are some things that I want to try to VERY BROADLY AND GENERALLY explain here, as much as I understand them (and I hope no one takes it as an invitation to get into a scientific wiener-measuring contest on the details): 

 

(Note that I am also not trying to insult anyone's intelligence here - just not going to assume what is known and not known).

 

• In general (talking about the other AAR events now) the behavior of an extreme-angle surface causing the surface to be much thicker is NOT unrealistic, especially now with the multiplier cap that I mentioned before, and will explain more about below (the unrealistic behavior before 4.2 was that it wasn't capped, so you could end up with infinite RHA levels of thickness). 
• So, in real life, when a round is fired across this extreme-angle (ie. flat) surface, the extreme angle is going to in turn make the surface very thick. There is that real-world photo of the tank on the firing range that was hit in the driver's hatch, where it showed the round's path before it lost energy and remained. I believe it was posted in this very thread, above. We actually used that photo and what we knew about the target and ammo type to come up with the current cap on this flat surface-thickness multiplier value, to cap it at a realistic level (again, back in 4.2). So that if, in SB, you fired the same round at the same target, you would get a similar result. 
• Even though a round might penetrate an extreme angle surface (like the driver's hatch area), it doesn't mean that any damage would or should occur, unless an actual internal component (like the driver's face) is hit. This is because once the round penetrates at that thickness, it can be considered a marginal penetration with not so much energy remaining (it comes down to the ol' die roll).
• All vehicles benefit from this behavior, even the M1 tanks. Examples that come to mind are the flat surface of the M1's upper hull front when in a good hull down position that has the tank partially tilted to the rear (it was intentionally designed that way), or the top roof of the tank when hit from the front at an extreme angle. The point is, these extreme angles can be all over any tank, of any type, depending on the precise location and direction that the impact hit. This is not specific to the T-72 in SB, nor in real life.
• Very broadly and generally speaking here, it must be removed from our minds that modern APFSDS rounds "deflect" or "ricochet" when hitting a target, such as the thought that at a extreme angle an APFDS round would deflect into a turret ring, or driver's compartment. I used to think the same way before it was explained to me years ago. While it is true that these modern APFSDS rounds do deflect off the ground, that is dirt not steel. When hitting steel at 1500+ meters per second, the dart basically plows forward like a bullet in ballistic gel - I guess you could say as the simplest analogy. If it got to the point that it would "deflect" while penetrating steel, then it would break up as far as it was explained to me, in which case there isn't much penetrating going on after that occurs.  But the point is, exact scientific details aside, the idea that an APFDS dart would hit a thick extreme angle steel plate at that extreme velocity and just deflect into the inside of the crew compartment is primarily false. The deflecting-rounds-off-armor scenario is really in the realm of a full-bore AP rounds of WW2 or post war era which had much less velocity (the feared full-bore 88mm L56 AP rounds had a velocity of "just" 800-950 meters per second), or perhaps modern AP autocannon rounds. If anything, the BR-412 AP round on the T-55 would/should work that way, I suppose. Anyway, again I am speaking generally here and am heavily simplifying it, and therefore opening myself up to attack, but the main point being that it is NOT a correct assumption as to what *should* happen, which seems to give people the impression of a "bug" or flaw in the representation.
• When firing a round at this extreme angle, we have to understand that this is both the the worst and least common possible situation. Requiring a follow-up round in such situations to achieve an effect at all, or a greater effect, is not unrealistic. 
• These armored vehicles have armored plates of all sorts of angles and thicknesses all over the vehicle, and most of this is represented on the armor models too. The more complex the armor models have gotten over the years, the more of these situations that are present (as opposed to the old "shells" of SB 2.0 days where the armor model was simply the shell or shape of the visual model). So a vehicle isn't always some precise thickness that will generate a reliable result. Thickness varies greatly by location and angle of attack, and how many surfaces the round penetrated, each at their own angles. There are all sorts of possibilities where no damage will happen. Simulation gamers often expect some kind of effect of some kind with each impact, in by virtue of a simple comparison of penetration power of the round versus the known armor of the vehicle, but I would say it is unrealistic and not based in reality to do so. This is why people shouldn't get so wrapped up in that part of it, and why a "die roll" at the end of process in simulations works realistically enough. In-depth analysis of every AAR event is not something that is going to be worth while in that regard, especially when factoring in other realities (that the events themselves are snap shots of at that moment in time, and don't 100% exactly always represent the precise situation in a Network Session, for example, then the fact that the hit-ray is a fat rod (to make it easy to visualize), when in reality the impact is a point coordinate in 3D space). Is it in the center of that hit-ray at that specific time of the snap shot? I don't think anyone knows - but generally its close enough. 
• Having said all those points, it then comes down to the individual AAR image being posted, then we look at it internally and say essentially "does that look grossly unrealistic or impossible"? And the answer is usually "no", knowing how it all works (short of say a .50 cal HMG round hitting the fender of a tank and causing the tank to explode, as an example of a grossly unrealistic and impossible situation). 

 

Now hopefully that helps shed some general light, that no doubt someone might not be happy with or will want to sharp shoot the details of, but again, the goal here was a general and simplified explanation. Without understanding these points, then every update will continue to bring about the same discussions, as if any of this has changed, which then might make it seem like we are just "defending SB" when we explain the screen shots. (That is not to say that there aren't bugs form time to time though).

 

In this particular case something was found to be improved, so that is good, but that is one specific situation out of a host of posted AAR events where it seems that the goal was to call into question the general behavior, so its why I think a detailed explanation was warranted. 

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

So all that said, whether or not this improvement to the "turret ring upper lip" on the T-tanks allows them to be killed in a precise shot at that exact angle, is unknown - but the math does the rest, which is what we rely on totally here (there are no hands on the scales with tailored results to meet a particular expectation. So after this improvement, if it isn't possible to penetrate with the same hit, then its the math, and this would also then more than likely be true in reality as well. My guess though, it probably will penetrate sometimes killing the vehicle, but majority of the time damaging it there.

 

That is about all the time that can be devoted here, unfortunately. Anyway, in the pursuit of perfection some good came from all this, and it is worth trying to explain it if it hopefully means less questions in the future.  😎

[Assassin 7]

On 8/20/2022 at 4:43 AM, Volcano said:

OK so I did identify an area that could be improved (that I mentioned previously I would look into after investigating whether it was justified).  Specifically, as mentioned previously, there is the turret ring and above this is the bottom floor of the front armor array of the turret, and it exists in real life. Below this panel is the turret ring (bearings, gears, etc) and above this is armor. This is a somewhat unique feature of most Soviet tanks as far as I can tell, because on western tanks the frontal and side turret armor extends past and overhangs the turret ring.

 

So in the case of the T-72, T-80, T90, we call this area the "turret ring upper lip". As I said before, if you shoot it from a perfectly level elevation, then if you hit the turret ring you could end up firing across that flat surface and its a very similar situation to firing across the top of the hull in the area of the driver's hatch. See the pink arrow in the following image (the thick frontal turret armor layer is removed in this image, along with the ERA and other parts - as you can see by the wireframe)...

 

 

At that exact angle of attack, it would run across that "upper lip", as I described. I would think this would be rare, even though it seems to be some sort of near-mass hysteria that it protects the tank from most hits, and even just the slightest slope of the shooter or the target would reduce this effect. This flat angle of penetration would generate a very thick surface, but fortunately this thickness was capped since 4.2. Still, it was too high, and I was able to improve this by making it at most, 100mm KE RHA, which seems to be realistic. So, at least that should improve. But that is about the limit of what can be done here -- there is only so much a simulation can that is taking account all these surfaces of armor and different angles.

 

(And no, I unable to explain the above image further -- its only intended to show what I was earlier describing -- that I wasn't just blowing smoke.)

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Apart from the improvement, which may or may not help what was discussed originally. But I guess it can't be as worse as it was before, being 600mm KE RHA across that flat surface, versus 100mm KE RHA after this change. So imagine: 100mm RHA, plus the ~600mm RHA of the frontal turret armor, plus the K5 ERA (if hit) which is also at an angle, plus the loss of penetration of the KE round over range (around say, ~50mm RHA per 1000 meters or so as a general rule of thumb). And, as we should be able to see: its not a guarantee, either way.  If the ERA is blasted away on a previous hit, it would be a better situation though, so at least there is that possibility of the ERA equipped tank's defenses being deteriorated with repeated hits. 

 

So now, in a noble attempt to help cut down on this repeating AAR-screen-shot-analysis type discussion in the future, there are some things that I want to try to VERY BROADLY AND GENERALLY explain here, as much as I understand them (and I hope no one takes it as an invitation to get into a scientific wiener-measuring contest on the details): 

 

(Note that I am also not trying to insult anyone's intelligence here - just not going to assume what is known and not known).

 

• In general (talking about the other AAR events now) the behavior of an extreme-angle surface causing the surface to be much thicker is NOT unrealistic, especially now with the multiplier cap that I mentioned before, and will explain more about below (the unrealistic behavior before 4.2 was that it wasn't capped, so you could end up with infinite RHA levels of thickness). 
• So, in real life, when a round is fired across this extreme-angle (ie. flat) surface, the extreme angle is going to in turn make the surface very thick. There is that real-world photo of the tank on the firing range that was hit in the driver's hatch, where it showed the round's path before it lost energy and remained. I believe it was posted in this very thread, above. We actually used that photo and what we knew about the target and ammo type to come up with the current cap on this flat surface-thickness multiplier value, to cap it at a realistic level (again, back in 4.2). So that if, in SB, you fired the same round at the same target, you would get a similar result. 
• Even though a round might penetrate an extreme angle surface (like the driver's hatch area), it doesn't mean that any damage would or should occur, unless an actual internal component (like the driver's face) is hit. This is because once the round penetrates at that thickness, it can be considered a marginal penetration with not so much energy remaining (it comes down to the ol' die roll).
• All vehicles benefit from this behavior, even the M1 tanks. Examples that come to mind are the flat surface of the M1's upper hull front when in a good hull down position that has the tank partially tilted to the rear (it was intentionally designed that way), or the top roof of the tank when hit from the front at an extreme angle. The point is, these extreme angles can be all over any tank, of any type, depending on the precise location and direction that the impact hit. This is not specific to the T-72 in SB, nor in real life.
• Very broadly and generally speaking here, it must be removed from our minds that modern APFSDS rounds "deflect" or "ricochet" when hitting a target, such as the thought that at a extreme angle an APFDS round would deflect into a turret ring, or driver's compartment. I used to think the same way before it was explained to me years ago. While it is true that these modern APFSDS rounds do deflect off the ground, that is dirt not steel. When hitting steel at 1500+ meters per second, the dart basically plows forward like a bullet in ballistic gel - I guess you could say as the simplest analogy. If it got to the point that it would "deflect" while penetrating steel, then it would break up as far as it was explained to me, in which case there isn't much penetrating going on after that occurs.  But the point is, exact scientific details aside, the idea that an APFDS dart would hit a thick extreme angle steel plate at that extreme velocity and just deflect into the inside of the crew compartment is primarily false. The deflecting-rounds-off-armor scenario is really in the realm of a full-bore AP rounds of WW2 or post war era which had much less velocity (the feared full-bore 88mm L56 AP rounds had a velocity of "just" 800-950 meters per second), or perhaps modern AP autocannon rounds. If anything, the BR-412 AP round on the T-55 would/should work that way, I suppose. Anyway, again I am speaking generally here and am heavily simplifying it, and therefore opening myself up to attack, but the main point being that it is NOT a correct assumption as to what *should* happen, which seems to give people the impression of a "bug" or flaw in the representation.
• When firing a round at this extreme angle, we have to understand that this is both the the worst and least common possible situation. Requiring a follow-up round in such situations to achieve an effect at all, or a greater effect, is not unrealistic. 
• These armored vehicles have armored plates of all sorts of angles and thicknesses all over the vehicle, and most of this is represented on the armor models too. The more complex the armor models have gotten over the years, the more of these situations that are present (as opposed to the old "shells" of SB 2.0 days where the armor model was simply the shell or shape of the visual model). So a vehicle isn't always some precise thickness that will generate a reliable result. Thickness varies greatly by location and angle of attack, and how many surfaces the round penetrated, each at their own angles. There are all sorts of possibilities where no damage will happen. Simulation gamers often expect some kind of effect of some kind with each impact, in by virtue of a simple comparison of penetration power of the round versus the known armor of the vehicle, but I would say it is unrealistic and not based in reality to do so. This is why people shouldn't get so wrapped up in that part of it, and why a "die roll" at the end of process in simulations works realistically enough. In-depth analysis of every AAR event is not something that is going to be worth while in that regard, especially when factoring in other realities (that the events themselves are snap shots of at that moment in time, and don't 100% exactly always represent the precise situation in a Network Session, for example, then the fact that the hit-ray is a fat rod (to make it easy to visualize), when in reality the impact is a point coordinate in 3D space). Is it in the center of that hit-ray at that specific time of the snap shot? I don't think anyone knows - but generally its close enough. 
• Having said all those points, it then comes down to the individual AAR image being posted, then we look at it internally and say essentially "does that look grossly unrealistic or impossible"? And the answer is usually "no", knowing how it all works (short of say a .50 cal HMG round hitting the fender of a tank and causing the tank to explode, as an example of a grossly unrealistic and impossible situation). 

 

Now hopefully that helps shed some general light, that no doubt someone might not be happy with or will want to sharp shoot the details of, but again, the goal here was a general and simplified explanation. Without understanding these points, then every update will continue to bring about the same discussions, as if any of this has changed, which then might make it seem like we are just "defending SB" when we explain the screen shots. (That is not to say that there aren't bugs form time to time though).

 

In this particular case something was found to be improved, so that is good, but that is one specific situation out of a host of posted AAR events where it seems that the goal was to call into question the general behavior, so its why I think a detailed explanation was warranted. 

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

So all that said, whether or not this improvement to the "turret ring upper lip" on the T-tanks allows them to be killed in a precise shot at that exact angle, is unknown - but the math does the rest, which is what we rely on totally here (there are no hands on the scales with tailored results to meet a particular expectation. So after this improvement, if it isn't possible to penetrate with the same hit, then its the math, and this would also then more than likely be true in reality as well. My guess though, it probably will penetrate sometimes killing the vehicle, but majority of the time damaging it there.

 

That is about all the time that can be devoted here, unfortunately. Anyway, in the pursuit of perfection some good came from all this, and it is worth trying to explain it if it hopefully means less questions in the future.  😎

Thanks for the investigation and time devoted into this, the adjustments and the explaining. I appreciate the response and thanks for all the other bugs that your guys are investigating and fixing for the others in this Community.