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
2 Likes
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?!
1 Like
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;
2 Likes
I do understand what i’m saying.
To match STANAG 4569 level 5 standards the plate must be able to defeat 25MM APFSDS from 30 degrees positive to 30 degrees negative from centerline of the panel.
This ensures you are engaging the panel between its intended protection angles that its strike face covers.
Penetration would likely occur if you shoot it from higher angles, as you no longer are shooting the bricks strikeface but rather its sides, missing a ton of the composite material used to defeat the round.
Shooting from the 30± degree cone ensures you are hitting ASPRO and the blocks full width is being used as intended.
Shooting past 30± degrees, given you are still firing from centreline will mean you no longer are shooting the panel strike face and the results of the test cannot be trusted as the penetration occurs outside of the panels intended impact points.
What I am saying is ASPRO-HMT is STANAG 5, when a round contacts the strikeface frontally, in a cone of 30± degrees and this is the conditions it had to meet to be certified.
If you shoot its sides, you are not testing ASPRO-HMTs full protective material and penetration would occur.
Its the difference between shooting down the center at 0 degrees, versus shooting the side at an angle and only going through 20cm of the brick, as opposed to the full size.
1 Like
So you want it nerfed in frontal arc protection from +31 and -31 degrees? Because thats what you’re arguing for?
I’ll dig up some stuff later on, sure. They showed it in 2008
What? No.
What i am saying is my diagram is correct. The impact points from the centerline of the panel must not exceed 30 degrees± but can be anywhere between those two.
-30, -25, -10, 0, 10, 25, 30 are all acceptable angles to test the entire panels protective qualities.
ASPRO-HMT is layered with Passive and Reactive elements in repeating tiles. So if you shot it past 30 degrees plus or minus, you are now circumventing tiles and not testing ASPROs entire capability.
Therefore the tests limit the impact angle to be within that cone, so the penetrator hits the strikeface within an angle where the full panel of ASPRO is able to be engaged, not just some of it.
1 Like
Also the STANAG rating has the number of impacts as 12~ before the ERA will detonate, so in a +/-30 degree test the ERA isn’t even contributing to the protection beyond its component materials .
This means with a KE threat the strikeface of the ERA isn’t playing into the rating as it shouldn’t be denotating until its basically destroyed from multiple hits.
A majority of the protection against KE is the Hybrid element, the composites which perform better at higher angles.
ASPRO-HMT is a hybrid passive/reactive armor and does not detonate on KE threats at all as seen in the brochure.
2 Likes
That’s the composition for the lower block. The central plate is just 40mm RHa
Thats my point, the strikeface of the ERA plays no roll in the protection against KE as it shouldn’t be denotating.
Right. But since ASPRO-HMT is a hybrid, you still have multiple layers of “chobham type” material that is actively providing KE protection.
The ERA may not be activating, sure.
But the passive tiles need to be hit frontally between 30 degrees ± or you begin missing tiles and the test is invalidated.
Exactly so tell me how Chobam decreases in effectiveness at higher angles. It doesn’t.
And here is my example i love to tell people. Imagine you have a jar with gunpowder. The jar is full and the cap on it has a hole just your finger size. Imaginne you put your finger into it. Will you be able to push it all the way? Will it stop kinetic enegry you are pressing at it without exploding? EXPLOSIVES ARE PHYSICAL OBJECTS, they do not need to explode to provide kinetic resistance. Sure it wont be the same as for example steel, BUT ITS STILL THERE.
Because it’s layed out in tiles.
If you fire a round at a higher angle and hit the bricks side, you will be hitting less chobham tiles than if shot frontally.
You have to hit frontally for the test to be valid as you’re counting every tile in the test, not missing ones.
Gimme a min to get out of bed, i’ll draw it for you lol
Breaking it down;
The ERA affords no protect against KE as it will not detonate.
The Hybrid composite element is most effective as the LOS increases
The LOS increases the higher off 0 degree
Using your definition of the STANAG spec that would mean at angles greater and less than 30 and -30 degree the chobam elements reduce in effectiveness
1 Like