Know this, that all the Ariete tanks in the game are fantasy tanks, they do not exist in reality, because their real characteristics on the armour are not the ones implemented in the game.
In Italy, the armour of the Ariete is under military secrecy, so it is not known how thick the armour is for sure.
What is well known is that the developer OTO-Mellara has stated that Aries has a composite armour, with a thickness that is similar to Challenger 1… But Gaijin doesn’t care and keeps saying he wants concrete values… But in the meantime, for Russian vehicles, you just show them a youtube video made by a retarded child and they accept it as true.
As we know, the win rate on tank like Ariete not really depends on Ariete player, it depends on your teammate, if you teammate is Germany or USSR, you have higher rate to win
NO, I can assure you that the Italian players know their stuff with Italy, but that’s aside.
I completely agree with you, the Aries armor should be fixed and not abandoned as is unfortunately happening, we’ve been complaining about this for about 5 years now, but I haven’t seen any real solution, just stopgaps
It might be worth gathering more sources and giving another bug report a go. The worst thing that can happen is Gaijin says no. Even if they won’t fix the other values of the tank, we could at least have the WAR kit fixed so the Ariete could actually be viable at top tier.
If anyone sees this & has any sources on the WAR kit that they can chip in (ones that aren’t classified please . . . … . . . . . .), it would be nice if you can provide them.
The picture doesn’t say much because from the lighting we can not see much. how deep it goes ? it’s only if here it could be yeah there nothing after or after like 30 cm there could be armour plate the cover composites that are in turret cheek. this picture most part just give us guess
Even if that was able to be used to make a point (it isn’t, as the post above me suggested), it just goes to show how important it is to have the WAR kit properly implemented in the game.
Prototypes of the Ariete had less armor in their first variants.
So it’s really proving nothing, beside that they could add even another variant in game.
Late to the party but I actually deep dived on this today and it should be upwards of 600mm+ against kinetic-based rounds and 900+ for chemical-based rounds!!
Ariete lineup should also come equipped with Spall liners, and an IRST like the type 90 has
I went college report style and submitted to bug system lol
I attached my PDF (converted to images)
I like where your head is at but there’s a couple issues I’d like to give constructive feedback on. Firstly, the C2 is NOT the PSO. The PSO is just a kit mounted on standard C1 Arietes in Iraq for better RPG and IED protection. The C2 is a culmination of the AMV prototypes and their advancements. The AMV PT2 we have in game is the version that has the better engine, while other AMV prototypes (don’t remember which is which) had upgrades such as mounting both PSO and WAR at the same time. The C2 combines all these things with the better engine, both PSO and WAR together, and other FCS, electronics, a new electronic turret traverse instead of hydraulic, etc… but crucially again, the C2 is NOT the PSO. The photos on Iveco-OTO’s website of the C2 prototype look similar to a PSO because it mounts the PSO kit, but it’s not the same tank.
Secondly, the reason AI is not advisable is demonstrated in your summary…it goes on a rant about composite fibres and Kevlar vs Chobham. No idea where this is coming from or why it is relevant. Neither Ariete nor Chobham equipped vehicles use Kevlar or other fibres in their armour array as far as I’m aware, and the Kevlar spall liners not only won’t add anything to the discussion on the Ariete armour array, but also still has no reason to be compared to Chobham, since the spall liners supplement armour, not replace it. If the comparison was about NERA vs Chobham that could make more sense, but copilot just seems to have ran with Kevlar for god knows what reason.
As for using someone else’s calculations on a bug report, I get where you’re going with it, but if you use this try to make it a little cleaner than just sticking a forum post in as a source which makes me uncomfortable to begin with. For any source also try not to say “this source goes on to say…” if the source says it, show it. Again, preferably on sources that aren’t just forum posts. I know the calculations make sense to us, but the devs will take one look at a copy paste forum discussion and they will use it as an excuse not to consider the bug report.
Otherwise I’m not totally familiar with all your sources, if anyone wants to weigh in on them if they’ve vetted them specifically. I do think things like parliamentary hearings absolutely should be noted by as reputable by gaijin but we’ve seen how annoying they can get about sources.
Like I said in the beginning, I appreciate the eagerness to help the cause of improving the Ariete, let’s just make sure we catch as many errors or potential failure points in a bug report so the devs are forced to either accept it and act on it or give us an actually damn good reason as to why they refuse :)
I would like to support your Bug report, can you give me the link… Also, since I’m late, can you tell me if they’ve already fixed the C1 Ariete’s armor?
They have not. They modified it slightly last update which made it a TINY bit stronger (like 50mm) but the WAR wasn’t modified and is still extremely wrong, and the overall protection is still lower than what it should be. Again; particularly with the WAR kit installed
I imagined similar behavior from Gaijin… Their reasoning is: Not a Russian vehicle, so “selective realism” applies only for Russia, for all other nations, fictional vehicles are created and then nerfed
