based on WAR kit’s high armor density,I wonder why it only adds about 30mm protection against APFSDS?
11 Likes
Oh, its just air there, 5 tons of high density air.
Or pasta.
22 Likes
It would literally fix the Ariete at top tier if the WAR kit provided ~200-250mm of KE protection like it does in real life…
It’s 5 tons of armor MADE to stop APFSDS. It’s basically RHA/HHA equivalent or realistically better since it’s built to affect KE threats with a primary focus on the turret cheeks and weighs an entire 5 tons. Anyone can extrapolate the protection to at least be:
-
the surface of the turret cheeks, the turret side, and a bit of a hull side that WAR covers (we know the exact dimensions of the vehicle so this is easy to calculate - I’d say roughly ~4m squared).
-
the density of RHA is ~7900kg per meter CUBED - so 100mm of RHA covering a surface of 10m squared weighs that much (7900kg), you can calculate this out for WAR (if it’s 4m squared and weighs 5000kg) to be at minimum ~160mm effective.
If those 5 tons were 1:1 with RHA, that is, and not superior materials like HHA or tungsten or various composite materials built to affect APFSDS (like the ones found in the turret cheeks of Russian tanks, where textolite/ceramic balls have a KE modifier of like 1.5-2, even.
The Ariete’s base turret armor is 400mm against KE. Making the WAR kit (which covers the cheeks, turret side, and a bit of the hull side) 200mm effective would make the turret 600mm effective and able to block plenty of top tier APFSDS like the Russian 3BM60 which has 580mm of penetration.
It would also make the turret sides strong enough to block APFSDS at an angle, or resist autocannons. It would make the hull sides sometimes eat a shell, as well. It would be an impressive increase to its survivability and it would instantly make the Ariete an actual 11.7 worthy vehicle WHILE BEING ACCURATE.
The fix to make the entire Italian tree, and the weakest top tier tank in the game - historically accurate and capable, quite literally boils down to changing the KE modifier of the WAR kit from ~0.2 to 1.5. It’s basically changing one number, and Gaijin REFUSES to do it.
On that note, the PSO kit is also severely underperforming, as its KE protection is also too low for its weight. And the Ariete is also missing a turret spall liner and some hull front composite.
If the WAR and PSO kits were fixed, if the internals of the Ariete were modeled properly, and if the AMV got the ability to mount both WAR and PSO at the same time - Italian top tier would be a very balanced and fun experience. As it would have parity with other tanks at top tier.
20 Likes
Leopard had blowout panels, better armor, spall liner, better mobility, better penetration. And ariete is given the same slow reload as the Leopard. So it is clear that Ariete is quantifiably weak
But, ariete winrate is high +noone plays/cares about italy
so you must understand Gajin is not in it for italy, it is not a bias nation so it suffers
Stalinium is for Russia, Krupp steel is for Germany
And then, Italy gets 5 tonnes of air
8 Likes
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.
Here is another example of accepted Russian propaganda.
This makes you realise that the Russian bias is real, and when the community does a review bombing they are right, and the developers deserve it.
14 Likes
Yeah, that’s true. And gaijin still not want to change theirs BR, make it become worse
1 Like
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
4 Likes
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
1 Like
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.
2 Likes
it’s mostly air irl too
And what do you see here?
2 Likes
Given the tank looks like it has been mothballed it’s possible the NERA arrays have been removed.
2 Likes
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
That is a prototype/preserie version of the C1 Ariete at a military graveyard. You cannot use this as proof of anything really.
6 Likes
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.
3 Likes
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.
1 Like
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)
1 Like
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 :)
1 Like