Using @Gunjob 's own diagram we can see this if we fill the box (ASPRO-HMT) with the plates and draw the trajectory of the rounds.
See how at roughly the 60 degree angle (the angle which Gunjob has stated they are tested for STANAG 5), it only engages a small portion of the blocks overall composite tiles.
According to Gaijin, this alone makes it STANAG 5, so penetration of PMB 090 did not occur.
following the 30 degree angle cone, we see it engage the ENTIRE array of tiles. Therefore, if just 4 or so tiles = STANAG 5, the entire array when penned frontally must provide greater than 84mm of KE.
We cannot use the claim the tests are done as a whole array, as multiple test centres state and show in photos and diagrams, the tests are PER BRICK.
Therefore, at 60 degrees, the brick should provide 84mm of KE resistance.
At 0 degrees, should provide higher values, due to the additional tiles. I have no way of knowing the true value so lets say 20mm of added KE. That’s still 104mm of flat pen resistance. @Smin1080p thoughts?
doesn’t this whole argument also fall apart if you consider that the composition of the ERA is CE protection first and THEN the actual composite underneath, closer to the tank? (based on the images and book snippets sent in this thread)
YES, it would fail the nera completely lol. not to mention even though its has nera its in fact an era block. it explodes outward in a 90º angle from its base. why would the tests be conducted at 30º from the base?
My arguement? No.
But if you take the stance that ASPRO-HMT is not layered tiles, but ERA first and then NERA underneath, for the 60 degree impact angle to even work, suggests the ERA alone provides 84mm of KE without detonating. A claim I don’t think is accurate.
The “Images of War” source, states clearly, that they’re tiled ERA/NERA plates that are layed in series.
Logically, it makes zero sense to test it for anything but head on. There are no requirements for mounting angle, or backing, or anything.
Otherwise, you’re going to get “If you mount this package on X vehicle, at Y position then it will meet the requirements” which is a ridiculous argument to make when the product is being sold as a protection block, not for a specific vehicle. Every single installation and every single plate on every single vehicle would need recertifying.
It just doesn’t make any logical sense or practical sense.
I’ve sent this to Smin for review. I can’t think of why this wouldn’t be accepted.
So regarding ASPRO-HMT’s kinetic resistance, I think we’ve come to a point we can all agree on.
I detail this in Challenger 2 MBT - Technical data and Discussion - #5274 by Legwolf
But in short:
If STANAG 4569’s Level 5 requirements refer to 30 degrees from the vehicle’s centerline and the actual impact AoA is 67 degrees:
The “Images of War” source states the ASPRO-HMT blocks are tiles of Active and Passive in series
We also see from multiple ballistics certification companies and sources that tests are carried out on the plates, when certifying for STANAG 4569, not the whole array.
Source PDF: https://www.alpineco.com/media/ballistic-chart/stanag.pdf
Directly references shooting panels as an example, not the array.
TNO showing off their STANAG 4569 testing setup:
As you can see in the photo they are engaging a single panel not an array.
With this in mind, we can safely say panels are tested individual of their array.
With this in mind Gunjobs own diagram shows that at 60+ degrees, you are not firing a round through all of ASPRO-HMT’s tile series, just a few. So if only a few tiles pass STANAG 5, this must mean at 67 degrees AoA, the panels must have at least 84mm of KE to defeat PMB-090. As the angle decreases to 0, we will be firing through more panels and therefore be facing higher KE resistance from the passive tiles. How much by, i’m unsure, but if lets say 20% of the tiles are enough for 84mm of KE, 100% of the tiles, must therefore be more.
What do you think? This satisfies the criteria of “Centerline” the devs and Gunjob interpret it as, using the 30 degrees heading angle, while also proving the 30mm KE per brick is incorrect as they are tested individually.
All armour is testing face on. You don’t see the fronal armour of a tank tested from the side, it makes zero sense, so why would the criteria suddenly change for this? Changing it introduces confusion and errors.
Seriously, i would like to hear a single good reason it would be tested in the way gaijin claim it is being tested.
Next, we will be proving water is wet and fire is hot, stay tuned.
Additional sources: Vehicle Armour Testing - Precision Ballistics (explains their STANAG 4569 testing facility is indoors and “accommodate engineered over a meter in size and up to 1000kgs in weight” which Challenger 2 would not fit.
They also make explicit mention of panels: “Flat panels coupons & armour assemblies, vehicle doors and closures, Optronics housings, Periscopes, Architectural cladding, secure walls, composite armour etc Debris protection panels” Armored Vehicle Testing Equipment | Sydor Technologies makes mention of a “Target Retention Devices – with a heavy-duty target frame” which of course is not going to be for Challenger 2 or the entire array if it’s a frame but for individual components.
“high-velocity impact experiments of multilayer small and large composite armor panels were carried out in accordance with the STANAG 4569 level-4 standard” - https://www.researchgate.net/figure/a-Small-test-panel-b-large-test-panel-and-c-large-and-small-panels-peripherally_fig3_341905889
There’s overwhelming evidence to suggest the panels are tested individually.
With this in mind, a panel at 67 degrees AoA, should have 84mm of KE resistance. This value would only increase as the angle gets closer to 0 as the PMB 090 round would be going through more composite plates.
Not 30mm as seen in game. @Gunjob
Yeh thats totally what i was thinking but i would just swear more irl XD regardless the protection still needs to be improved overall especially the mantlet.
I’m using Gunjob’s methodology now, which is that STANAG 4569, specifically the angle/centerline part, is refering to the vehicle’s centerline.
I’ve provided multiple sources from different ballistics testing agencies who all test per panel, not per array.
Using this, ASPRO-HMT has achieved it’s STANAG 5 rating by being shot by PMB 090 at 500m distance, 30 degrees from centerline (67 degrees AoA) and resisting the penetration on a singular block. Therefore at 67 degrees, the block should have 84mm of KE protection.
As 67 degrees does not expose PMB 090 to the full set of tiles found in ASPRO-HMT as described in Images of War by M P Robinson and Rob Griffin, less extreme angles that have the round go through more composite tiles, would be exposed to higher KE resistance respectively.
67 degrees AoA = 84mm KE
as we go closert to 0 degrees AoA, we are firing through the entire width of the ASPRO block, hitting every tile, rather than the 67 degree shot which misses some. Given that a lower number of tiles achieves STANAG 5, the higher number should be able to resist even more KE.
Those are pretty agreeable facts I think. @Gunjob Appreciate you’re pretty done with this, but would greatly appreciate your input here
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/LIQZc0VjpdM4
Issue report created for this. Feel free to review it or poke holes in my work - I’m happy to be shown that i’m wrong but right now, i’m using Gaijins interpretation of the STANAG 4569 document. The only part I do not agree with them on, is the idea the entire array is STANAG 5, not the ASPRO-HMT bricks which I have provided multiple sources as evidence to the contrary.
