That would leave no room for interpretation, but if that’s what they mean there you have to agree they fucked up their description. Why is “0.3 AP” 30 mm when “12.7 AP” is .50 and “14.5 AP” is 14.5 mm? The box on the right also specifies “armor piercing (AP) projectiles from heavy machineguns”, not autocannons.
I know they’re different. The point I’m making is that they’re obviously taking vehicle configuration into account as they applying different Armor Shield R blocks to front and sides, presumably because it takes more to bring the side up to the desired protection level. That contradicts that the panels are just rated without any consideration of where they are placed.
But it doesn’t make it to the backing plate at that angle. It stops in the second block. Which should meet the criteria if you’re rating the add on armour array as a whole. That’s what Gaijin presumably thinks is true too. It would really help your point if there was unambiguous documentation that the blocks are rated in isolation and not as they would be arranged on the vehicle.
360° coverage, 0° elevation 30 m are very specific requirements. How else would you test that? Everything other configuration than the one tested in your video would just increase protection.
It’s pretty ambiguous yeah, but I don’t think they’re counting this as the entire array. If you shoot centre of the array, it meets STANAG 5
If you shoot the last block, it goes through, and fails.
They have to be tested to the individual spec as blocks themselves, not on any particular vehicle.
Any updates on all of this thread? It has been forever and, regardless of the dispute on the exact effectiveness, there are still issues, compounded by the fact they feel like further nerfing the mobility and weight for nonexistent armour.
eh i was hoping that after the 54762346th weight increase, some of the corresponding armour would be added, especially after the community sweats their ass off to feed them accurate data