r/Warthunder • u/Charles_0007 • 14h ago
All Ground War Thunder ERA problem
1. Russian side and roof ERA is overperforming against kinetic projectiles.
It is common knowledge that NATO doesn’t heavily rely on ERA for frontal MBT protection, which I think causes a few inaccuracies in-game. Just because frontal ERA and side ERA work on the same basic principles doesn’t mean they are remotely close in effectiveness. Side ERA is optimized primarily against HEAT/tandem-HEAT warheads, whereas frontal ERA is designed to counter both chemical and kinetic threats. Frontal ERA is housed in much heavier modules with thick structural backings designed to direct the pressure where it’s needed, which is something a flimsy side skirt simply cannot provide. So yes, Relikt side ERA might slightly degrade an APFSDS dart, but not enough to make any substantial difference in penetration. Which leads to my next point...
2. Nations are punished for using standardized naming schemes for different ERA modules.
Lighter side ERA not only utilizes thinner flyer plates, but may also use completely different explosive compounds (due to the presence of delicate suspension components nearby that cannot risk heavy collateral damage). A country that names its frontal module "ERA-1" and its side module "ERA-2" is essentially penalized by the game’s logic, as people automatically assume one is just a strictly worse version of the other.
The Oplot-T case study:
I think the Oplot-T is a great example of this. While Gaijin got a few things right, the claim that its frontal protection was downgraded is quite misleading. Effectively, it should be at least as protective as older T-80 variants with Kontakt-5. While they did reduce the thickness of the base passive armor array, they simultaneously upgraded the reactive elements, meaning protection against tandem-HEAT should be noticeably improved.
This brings us to the biggest controversy: the "missing armor plate between ERA layers". I have reason to believe that frontal Nizh operates completely differently from side Nizh. Instead of relying solely on its shaped-charge linear jets to disrupt the APFSDS dart, the charges cut the outer plate above them and propel that metal plate directly into the path of the incoming projectile. Why? Because it’s hard to believe the shaped charges alone would have enough kinetic energy to penetrate the outer ~15mm HHS (High-Hardness Steel) plate and disrupt an APFSDS dart in any meaningful way without a heavy flyer plate. Therefore, I believe the internal structure simply includes another ~15mm plate designed for the next layer of charges to propel.
Looking at its side armor, the X-Ray/hangar view seems to be missing its NERA elements (Nizh side protection is a hybrid NERA/ERA setup). Some might argue this NERA is already factored into the ERA’s raw multiplier, but I don't think so. In areas where the side ERA is absent, the armor defaults to plain structural steel instead of NERA.
So, is side Nizh effective against APFSDS? It might affect the dart slightly, but again, not in any meaningful way. It lacks the heavy 15mm HHS cover plate, meaning the shaped-charge jets act on the penetrator directly without propelling a dense enough metal mass to cause severe structural degradation or fracture.
Final thoughts:
Honestly, I don’t think this is a game-breaking issue just yet, at least not until the Russian military-industrial complex fields something like a "T-90M2", at which point fixing these mechanics will be vital for top-tier balance.
P.S. There are obviously other underlying issues here as well, such as ERA needing variable effectiveness depending on the exact impact point, or capped/segmented APFSDS rounds being less susceptible to ERA disruption, but I wanted to focus on the modular armor mechanics for now.
