When dealing with the rating of side armour the construction angle of the panel matters and is part of the spec.
Since level 5 deals with frontal arc protection the plate mounting is always relevant to the frontal arc.
You would need proof Rafael mounts ASPRO frontally at a construction angle of 0 degree (flat).
At the bottom of the wiki there’s a source button which will give you the links to the sites where all that information is taken, you’ll probably find thw website where the photo/testing is from and it’ll eliminatea the wiki link arguments.
It makes no sense for it to be this way for an armour package though as legwolf points out Rafael are advertising the armour not a vehicle. Rafael offer the armour package as STANAG 5 compliant they would have no way to guarantee that requirement if it ended up being mounted on a vehicle which wouldn’t have enough base protection for the the add on package to reach STANAG 5 levels. That’s why that whole argument is stupid you could say a 10mm plate mounted to the turret side at +|-30 is STANAG 5 compliant with that logic because the projectile still didn’t enter the tank even if it passed through the 10mm plate.
As part of their brochure they only rate the following projectiles at +/-90 degree (see the bottom table).
Rafael aren’t saying there that it can defeat 25mm APFSDS at +/- 90. In fact that is level 4 protection that’s described. (up to 14.5mm).
This is my read across from the Rafael brochure and the STANAG ratings.
It cannot be this;
By the simple fact that based on the STANAG definitions you would be arguing that beyond 30 degrees it can pen which would mean its gets lower performance the higher off 0 degrees which is frankly alittle silly sounding.
I just saw this on the tanks subreddit, I’ve never seen it before and I have no idea if the view is useful or not but figured I’d post it anyway.
Also, can we have the eyes on the stock camo please and they’re now canonical. Thnx.
That is a rather new picture. You can realise that due to wheels being different. You can see the old design wheel that was cannibalized.
I’m not sure I follow the logic here, pretty much every source i’ve found from actual ballistic test companies state they test using the panels themselves, not the entire vehicle.
On the actual brochure, we can even see ASPRO mounted frontally on an APC (Bulldog I believe) which should tell you this product was tested beyond just being side armor. STANAG 4569 testing is conducted per panel. We see that on the test proceedure document I submitted last night and that they change the impact angle of the projectile. Given its not vehicle mounted during testing and we now have multiple sources suggesting the panels are individually tested in indoor ranges, and actual test parameters suggesting my interpretation of 30 degrees ± angle of attack of the projectile is correct, I believe the LAV document is being misinterpretted.
Here’s the Rafael brochure again, showing ASPRO frontally mounted:
With the companies test requirements stating they test individual panels as well, this completely tears down the “its the entire armor array that’s STANAG 5” theory.
We’ve seen across more than 3 sources, STANAG 4569 testing is done on an individual panel basis.
Therefore, ASPRO-HMT to qualify as STANAG 5, it would have had to survive 25MM APFSDS at a 30 degree angle. No backing board. Just the panels.
thats the thing, i dont think rafael mounts anything, they just supply the era
Also adding to the fact surviving 14.5 in 180 cone does not eliminate survivng 25 in 30, as in 90 degree bullets are more likely to miss the composite part, so the ke protection wont be as efective, remember composite is what focuses on ke, while explosives on ce
I dont understand why you would test armour from a single angle, it means if there is ERA on the rear of the vehicle it would imply that has zero armour value lol
They have provided demonstrators for vehicles like the striker, but ASPRO is rated STANAG 5 across any vehicle it mounts to as per brochure. The vehicle here does not matter. The bricks are STANAG 5
yea but the fact they use one vehicle has a sales pitch doesnt mean they will do it with any vehicle.
it would be like ikea coming to your home and assembling the closet. it would be great but… no
You wouldn’t.
Testing ASPRO-HMT against 25MM when mounted on the roof, or front would give wildly different STANAG scores than if mounted elsewhere. The product is rated STANAG 5. All sources show panels are individually tested, so we must take away from this that no matter the orientation STANAG is installed, penetrators hitting intended strike face will face STANAG 5 armor.
exactly, common sense tells you that the era flyer plate are directed away from the vehicle as much as possible, 90° to the vehicle is the safest you can mount it, so why the hell would you test it from the side?!
If the STANAG 5 requires certification, then it would require recertification on every possible mounting position on a vehicle if the protection included the vehicle armour which makes no sense.
I am reading the STANAG standards and documentation now. Send help.
According to Gaijin? Yes.
According to every single PDF i’ve clicked on thusfar? No.
The panels are tested for STANAG 5. Regardless of where they go after their certification, as long as the strike face is pointed towards the threat, we should see STANAG 5 armor.
I don’t think you understand quite what you’re saying, if the protection was 0 degree flat to +/- 30 degree you’re saying this is true, this would mean the ASPRO-HMT loses its effectiveness at higher angles while the performance of the round is also decreasing. This would mean at the highest LOS of the composite backing within the ASPRO-HMT is the lease effective angle. Thats just bonkers.
This matches the Stanag level 5 descriptor and makes sense;
