It never happend, but
3 Likes
That sounds odd to me. The add-on armour could be mounted to any number of different vehicles with different base armour.
Therefore it would make sense to me for the STANAG rating to apply solely to the add-on armour. For example if they include the Challenger 2 base armour in the STANAG level 5 rating then the add-on may not achieve STANAG level 5 when fitted to an armoured car.
7 Likes
Afaik that also never happend. If it ever did, it would mount L134A1, but there are no photos nor written sources.
Exactly. The data sheet can’t be grabbing values from certain vehicles or mounts as its userbase simply varies too much in protection.
1 Like
checks tech trees
Yep all historically accurate here…
We are not going down that road
The problem at the moment is that we’ve got Challenger 2F with its NERA screen providing 30mm KE and 400mm CE. There’s no sources for this protection and i’m guessing it was a wild placeholder value that never got changed.
Then we have ASPRO-HMT - also with 30mm KE and 400mm CE. Effectively making TES a carbon copy of 2F but several tons heavier and with a larger sillouette.
There’s 0 chance these two things have the exact same protection, so this must be a placeholder or erroneous.
TES uses Passive and Active armor elements to negate threats, while 2F uses just passive.
This alone should indicate TES having a higher CE resistance than 2F due to its explosive element, and then the passive at the back.
TES should have very high CE protection and moderate KE protection. CE rounds would face far more resistance due to the explosive protection, and then having to face the passive protection. As for kinetics, the explosives should decrease its velocity and penetration from the explosion, only for it then to have to go through a layer of passive armor more suited to stop solid formed projectiles.
Its a 60/40 solution. Primarily focussed on EFP mitigation, while providing protection against small arms fire, grenades, mines, shrapnel and autocannons.
TES’ ASPRO-HMT should, in pretty much every way, be more powerful than 2F
3 Likes
There are
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/XjZOqesJYDXe
I should have included 2E and 2F in it, but i was not sure at that moment, later it was confirmed they both use VARMA. They should be internaly reported. Did you added them @Gunjob? Well, the 2F uses later VARMA, but we have no data so we roll with early.
2 Likes
It’s not so much the 2Fs protection i’m concerned about, but rather how 2F has the exact same protective qualities as TES. That I find, to be pretty much impossible
They had no data so they went HAHA C&P
And even the VARMA data was made up
1 Like
Thanks :) I was expecting it to be that book due to font but i couldnt check that
It’s so strange to me that Gaijin would rather be incorrect than make educated guesses
1 Like
First time?
Haha far from it. I’ve been advocating for Challenger 2 to be fixed for ages…
3 Likes
so, in x-ray the breech zone from the inside is a hole but in photos there seems to be something there but i cant get a clear photo. also the gun and breech seem to be a little off in position. could it be argued that if there is something the values of the breech are incorrect?
Sure I should’ve worded it better, I mean just the Addon package, so the block and backing plate, not the hull armour.
so, we get an artificial weak spot but leopards dont? how does that work?
cant wait for the dev blog…
1 Like